The discussion of an article on the Tweets thread was getting non-tweety, so I'm continuing it here.
Thank you, I was also starting to feel like that thread was getting a little hijacked by this.
I saw your long response to me there, and I'll try to address a little here and stop clogging up that thread.
The second aspect of his article that I disagreed with was his suggestion that by giving short, concise public announcements, the CDC could cause people to distrust them. "Remarkably, the CDC is still proclaiming that vaccine breakthrough infections are rare - but when normal people hear that their barber, their cousin’s husband, and seemingly half the New York Yankees’ starters have experienced breakthrough infections, they might assume the CDC is lying."
I don't necessarily think the CDC is lying per se, not having a tinfoil hat handy, I don't know what possible reason the medical establishment that I would trust for any other ailments I might have would have for lying. However, it would leave me with the impression that the CDC and such are maybe not the best people to look to in such a quickly evolving and novel situation. For example, I don't think Dr. Fauci is a bad guy, he's just way out of his zone. Because the process of scientific advancement is messy and complicated, it should be nowhere near actual public policy and messaging. It's great to follow scientific advice once they get to a conclusion and a concensus, but much like eating a hotdog wouldn't work as well if you saw how it was made, the messiness of the scientific process does not do wonders for inspiring trust when we see it happening in real time. I am far from an expert or involved even in either the medical or scientific field, but my laymens opinion from seeing what goes on is that the CDC and medical establishment is a slow, cumbersome bureaucracy which has a very hard time adjusting to the fast-moving and ever changing facts on the ground, and as such at least in public, tends to simply discount much of what is going on. "We need to follow the data and the science" is a weak slogan seemingly intended more to cover their rears than actual evolving along with the situation. Scientists are not supposed to be setting policy, yet thats where they found themselves, and it's not a good look on them.
I recognize the limitations of this crazy situation make that difficult, but there are things that can help with that. First of all, avoiding as much as possible absolutes, rather saying over and over again we don't know, but this is what our best guess is. I have personally spoken to doctors about various aspects of COVID as it related to myself and family members, and paradoxically the ones who prefaced every statement with "we really don't know, but this is what we think and our educated guess about how to be safest given the currently available information" were the ones I trusted the most.
Secondly, as you wrote below, its not as easy as you might think to go back and find concrete examples, but has there not been any statements which you felt that even at the time they were said too strongly and seemingly contrary to some basic available information? Again its somewhat due to the nature of the process and so on, but getting up after the fact and admitting openly and clearly "yes, we were wrong about this and we are now advising something else" would also go a long way. I hear what you're saying about that being almost inevitable with the way this works, but its all about the presentation. We are not all scientists nor do we usually see how the hotdog is made.
And that brings up a third point which I think evolves from that. Scientists should not be telling us how to guard our health or get better, that is the job for our doctors (of course based on the conclusions and research done by the scientists). In my opinion there should have been a much greater stress since the beginning that everyone should consult their family doctor for their personal guidance. It is simply ludicrous to have one general medical guidance for 300 million people. Each situation needs to be judged individually and for that you need a personal doctor. Not only is there a pre-exsisting relationship and trust (for most people) already there with their own doctor, but they can also tailor their advice directly. As such, while I don't think it would necessarily be good public policy to announce that anyone who thinks they had covid does not necessarily need 1 or two shots, a personal doctor can help decide that. Would it be so terrible for the CDC to say "We are still evaluating the data about natural immunity, discuss your situation with your doctor?"
Why would someone react to these by calling them lies and losing trust?
And is it that you yourself distrust the public health experts, or is it your perception that those around you react this way?
At the end of this whole megilla (sorry ;-)), the recognition than in a pandemic, people are scared and looking to scientists and doctors to guide them, should optimally induce humility and transparency, rather than a knee-jerk heavy-handed certainty, kind of "my way or the highway" that sometimes comes across. And again, this is my impression from any number of pronouncements by the CDC, the government, "top" doctors and scientists and "medical advisors", and while by no means is it all, I think you'll agree that there was quite a bit of that.