[Bnichs]

The number isn't the point, the messaging of "this number is science" is. If it were delivered clearly as "we done have all the information, but our best judgement based on a, b, c says the number is X" that would be far better and most of all honest than "it is 6ft and that's the science, follow the rules or don't enter public spaces"

Does that make sense to you?

[sorcerer-mar]

What?

There's not "a lack of information." The information is there's a continuous curve of transmission. You could have complete information and you would still need to pick an "arbitrary" point.

> it is 6ft and that's the science, follow the rules or don't enter public spaces

Link to which guidance you feel most closely stated this. I have never seen any guidance from CDC, NIH, FDA, or anywhere else that resembles this.

[Bnichs]

Again, I do not care about covid and have no interest in arguing with you about covid. This is a discussion about eroded trust in institutions. And denying that the government's handling of covid had a causal relationship with the current distrust of institutions is as insane as denying covid itself. If you think that during that time the government exemplified honesty which would build trust, I do not have any argument that will convince you beside saying to increase your media literacy. Good luck.

[sorcerer-mar]

As is typical: "The government did x y z things to destroy trust!"

"Can you show me where?"

"No, but there's less trust now, ergo the government did it!"

Another hypothesis for you: You were peppered with bullshit from non-government sources so thoroughly and so frequently that you abdicated your responsibility to understand what's true and what's not.

This is, of course, the goal of such information campaigns.

In theory, I buy the argument that the government should be able to successfully overcome the 24/7 bullshit machine that you plugged yourself into, but I personally struggle to imagine a good/safe/non-authoritarian way for it to achieve that.

So I'm left with the conclusion that we each bear some amount of responsibility to try to counteract the game of telephone when it comes to understanding matters of personal or national importance, and you (like many other perfectly fine/smart/honorable people) failed to meet that obligation. Not really a personal critique given you didn't know the game you were playing and how proactive you needed to be in it, but here we are, and I'd recommend a high-agency look at how you chose to find and interpret information. The institutions were not the problem here.

[Bnichs]

You just echo the institutions you defend so fervently by being sanctimonious. I hope you're a politician or healthcare exec, someone who at least has an interest in defending this mess. Otherwise it's just sad. Again, good luck.

[sorcerer-mar]

Ah yes, you're right, it's the CDC's job to prevent you from seeing and believing whatever you read on x.com

Can't see how this goes wrong!