[ausbah]

>CDC's ever changing guidelines

this was much more of a presentation problem then anything. of course the science will change in the middle of new viral outbreak, people's perception of science just isn't that.

>liability-free, fast tracked vaccine that doesn't actually mitigate transmission

of course you'll fast track a solution when you have a global pandemic? seems like a no brainer? and I don't recall transmission ever being promised, only a substantial lower chance of severe infection and death - which was a main goal to help reduce loads on hospitals?

>labeling of media pushed medical hypothesis as "science" and any debate as heresy

medical hypothesis are a part of science? and I think there's definitely room for debate on how vaccines, closures, masks, etc. could have been done - but when the debate is just over if masks or vaccines even work it's kinda silly to be wasting time talking with the "opposition"

>the effortless militarization of common citizens to socially pressure and attack their neighbors into compliance

I don't see the problem with this sort of social pressure in regards to a pandemic. it's not like being reported to the "covid gestapo" for not social distancing for something

[ralph84]

> I don't recall transmission ever being promised, only a substantial lower chance of severe infection and death

No, that was the spin after it became clear they didn’t prevent infection or transmission. When they were given EUA they were sold as 95% effective at preventing covid[0], and there are plenty of clips of officials including the president of the US saying if you get vaccinated you won’t get or spread covid. Nothing about reducing symptoms. Heck, read the prescribing info[1]. It still says the indication is to prevent covid, not reduce symptoms.

[0] https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta...

[1] https://labeling.pfizer.com/ShowLabeling.aspx?id=15623&forma...

[Izkata]

No, "prevent covid" means people didn't get sick, which is defined by symptoms. That press release isn't conflating SARS-CoV-2 (the virus) with COVID-19 (the disease); it says nothing about stopping infection/transmission.

That outcome could have been reached by either preventing infection or just reducing symptoms, and they made no attempt to claim which it was because they didn't test for it.

[haswell]

> 95% effective at preventing covid [sic]

SARS-CoV-2 and COVID are not the same thing. All of the main media outlets reporting on this were pretty clear that 95% was prevention of severe symptoms and death.

> It still says the indication is to prevent covid, not reduce symptoms

Again, we need to focus on SARS-CoV-2 vs. COVID here. Getting "COVID" implies you A) were exposed to the virus and it entered your body and B) it is causing symptoms. Preventing COVID is not synonymous with preventing infection by SARS-CoV-2.

I think this has been a particularly confusing point for most because the traditional battery of vaccines we all get as kids generally do prevent the actual disease, and that has led to much misinterpretation as far as I can tell.

[nomel]

> of course the science will change in the middle of new viral outbreak

No. Science very very rarely changes. The confidence in the possible explanations is what changes. They communicated low confidence information with high confidence. The trust was destroyed with, what appeared to be, a concerted effort to silence those that accurately communicated the low confidence, or presented other equally possible, and far too often eventually-correct, understandings. I think this covers all the other points, above.

[mikkergp]

"We're sorry millions of you are dying, but we got nothing for ya'" may be good science but horrific politics.

[nomel]

That’s, obviously, nonsense/hyperbole. I would suggest looking at the communication in Germany for a good example of science communication.

[r3trohack3r]

Science is a deeply personal philosophy that guides how an individual interacts with the rest of society. Skepticism, reproducibility, and verification. It is fundamentally _not_ trust based. The body of scientific knowledge is distinct from other forms of knowledge in that it is documented in such a way that you are able to independently validate it to reach the same conclusions yourself. Anything short of that is not science. If you are not able to review the methodology and data yourself - it is not science from where you are standing. If you are not able to reproduce the results - it is not scientifically true from where you are standing.

What I perceived during the pandemic was a conflation of _trust_ with science. When a high ranking public official went on television and said "trust the science" - what they meant was "trust me when I say some people are following the philosophy of science, and that everyone along the chain of trust between me and those people have assured me that the conclusions they've reached are sound enough to base policy on. You should trust me, and by proxy everyone between me and those people practicing science."

What they were _not_ saying was "you should follow the philosophy of science yourself."

Science would require the data and methodology be published and readily available at the time of a press release encouraging independent verification from anyone and everyone. Folks who fail to generate the same results should be allowed to share those negative results for others to vet. Science would dictate that each individual person who receives the information start from a position of skepticism until the information has been vetted and validated on a personal level.

Some people - likely most people - will choose to substitute trust for science on a personal level; but anyone who dictates that decision for others is not practicing science.

[spookthesunset]

Man that pissed me off. You’d get people you know in real life yelling at you for showing public data that went against the narrative. Society did anything but “follow the science”. In fact, it was completely the opposite. It was appeals to authority all the way down.