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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
"Obviously one lie wipes out thousands of truths. Trust is gone. Listening stops."
I would call this binary. I don't really care what we call it, though. Especially if downplaying counts as lying, then this policy is completely infeasible. It means nobody will ever be listened to. Trust is wiped out in all circumstances.
It's a really stupid way of handling a biased source. And all sources are biased, so it's a really stupid way of handling sources.
If you want to say that one lie adds skepticism to a thousand truths, that would be a massive improvement, because A) it works well to be somewhat skeptical of all sources, and B) you can still learn from many sources you're skeptical of.
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.
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.
People can become "untrusted liar non-authorities" in people's minds independent of any actions of their own. The best they can do is their best, and hope not to attract the attention of demagogues.
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.
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.
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
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.