[jtbayly]

You state confidently that deaths would be higher, but you gave no evidence for that. I believe you are wrong. The lies confirm to all that we should not trust you. Assuming you have any ability to recommend things that will actually save lives, in the long term proving yourself a liar will only lead to fewer people believing you and taking your advice.

So tell the truth, build trust, and let people decide for themselves. That will save lives in the long run.

[ncmncm]

What you mean is, tell the truth and be blasted for lying anyway.

I have plenty of complaints about how public health measures are prioritized in the US. I am not worried about official dishonesty. Public officials are just as good at fooling themselves as everybody else, so they can be wrong without lying, and will be at times. Expecting somebody, anybody to be right all the time is a recipe for disappointment.

[Dylan16807]

Downplaying isn't lying, and categorizing people into those that tell the truth and those that don't tell the truth is a stupid way of assessing anything important.

[jtbayly]

Lying about the risks is lying, regardless of what ends you think will justify the means.

But even if you disagree, let’s talk about your claim that categorizing into two groups is stupid. Think from the citizen’s perspective of the CDC. The question is, “Do I trust them enough to take health advice from them?” If they have lied to you too many times about things that are important enough, the answer is no way. I never implied all that this lying group said was lies. Obviously one lie wipes out thousands of truths. Trust is gone. Listening stops.

[Dylan16807]

If you decide to do your own research, you need to do the damn research. Just not listening is a terrible idea.

And all sources are flawed!

[jtbayly]

You’re going to listen to somebody! When the public institutions become untrustworthy, and this lose their authority, who knows what authority figure you will turn to? It could be anybody. It could be Q.

[Dylan16807]

> You’re going to listen to somebody!

You can look into major issues without needing authority figures.

> When the public institutions become untrustworthy, and this lose their authority

Trust is not binary.

No source is unbiased.

[jtbayly]

> You can look into major issues without needing authority figures.

No you can’t. Not unless you are doing the study yourself. And even then, almost all studies rely on other authorities. Things like death certificates and cause of death, hospital reports, etc. all depend on authorities and you have to decide whether you trust them for this thing.

I never said it was binary. I said trust can and is lost through lies. If you can’t acknowledge that, I’m not sure what else to say.

[ncmncm]

Demanding perfect authority is itself a pathology. Claiming perfect authority is a favorite tactic of liars and demagogues.

The best we can hope for is people doing their best with what they have to work with. Very many do.

The worst make shit up, routinely. They hone their message to attract dupes, and always succeed. Many of them believe whatever pulls; most don't care what is true or isn't.

[jtbayly]

Is there no place in your world for authorities at all? For trust at all? For trusted flawed authorities to become untrusted liar non-authorities in people’s minds?

I have no idea why you are talking about perfect authority.

[ncmncm]

Have you found any evidence of anyone lying about risks?

There are always an expected number of deaths in any period of weeks after (or without) a vaccination, subject to big random fluctuations. It should be obvious that (a) numbers cannot be interpreted correctly without education, and (b) people without such education finding numbers will insist on interpreting them anyway, some ignorantly, some with active malice.

What and how much to publish about numbers reported are hard choices I am glad I don't need to make.

Even publishing nothing, there will be spurious reports claiming to know official numbers, and spurious interpretations of spurious numbers. Your fragile trust is broken regardless, among people so inclined.

[zeven7]

This is exactly why a large portion of the population is not wrong to doubt the official narrative.

Science shouldn't even be engaged in trying to save as many lives as possible. Science should only be concerned with discovering and disseminating the truth as it is.

[ncmncm]

Public health should not be confused with science. They are separate activities.

[zeven7]

Maybe tell some of our public health officials that

[ncmncm]

They are busy actually doing public health. I do not envy them it. They spend their lives trying to save others', and get shat on for it.

[zeven7]

Ok, so they're too busy to understand this basic difference between public health (their own field) and science, something that you're telling some random person on the internet about. Nice

[ncmncm]

Excuse me, where did I lie? I have no role in collecting or reporting on adverse reactions. I don't even know for sure that adverse reaction numbers are as large as I suspect.

I do empathize with the people trying to minimize deaths from a raging pandemic in an atmosphere of politically-motivated disinformation that is actively contemptuous toward public safety. People with your attitude make their work that much harder, and cost more unnecessary deaths.

[jtbayly]

Sorry. You spoke in the first person plural “we” so I just addressed my comment back to a generic “you.” I never meant to say anyone in particular (let alone you) was a liar.

However, you were advocating for not giving people accurate numbers. Whoever is in charge of that decision should not lie. They should give accurate numbers.

[ncmncm]

What they should do if the goal is to minimize public mortality is not obvious.

What they should do as a matter of abstract merit, or of public perception of benignity, are two wholly different, generally easier and less vexing questions.