Science writer Alex Berezow puts his finger on the problem:
It’s not simply a matter of being wrong. It’s okay to be wrong, especially when confronted by a situation in which confusing and contradictory evidence changes on a daily basis. As long as experts admit to being wrong and can explain why, trust can actually increase because the public appreciates transparency.
A loss of credibility, therefore, happens for other reasons. In the case of coronavirus, we believe there are five reasons: Incompetence, waffling, moving the goalposts, disregarding unintended consequences, and being political.
Alex Berezow, “Coronavirus: Five Reasons Public Health Experts Have Lost Credibility” at American Council on Science and Health
Specifically, he notes,
Many of the same experts who endorsed strict lockdowns in order to “stay home, stay safe” then endorsed anti-racism protests in which thousands of individuals crammed together on city streets. Public health advice is supposed to be apolitical and evidence-based. Such blatant political advocacy did not go unnoticed. A damning headline in Politico noted, “Suddenly, public health officials say social justice matters more than social distance.
Alex Berezow, “Coronavirus: Five Reasons Public Health Experts Have Lost Credibility” at American Council on Science and Health
But there is a bigger issue here. As noted earlier, such a point of view involves a marked departure from scientific thinking. Presumably, the morally sensitive virus can distinguish between the virtuous anti-racism protestors and the evil Deplorables. If the experts have not come to believe that that is true, why do they act as though they believe it?
I (O’Leary for News) asked a friend the other day, when did we last hear that kind of thinking anyhow?
She: Oh, maybe around 592 A.D. …
It’s possible that the experts don’t believe the overall story they are telling the public. Maybe they also don’t care if people die. I don’t know. But no scenario leaves them sounding worthy of trust, as a group. People will still obey, if they must, but there is a difference between obeying and trusting or believing.
See also: At American Council on Science and Health: Political Partisanship is a Public Health Scourge The situation poses a threat to science itself. For example, politicians act as though COVID-19 restrictions only matter for some people, not others.
This is all obvious and the same brain-dead science-touting progs will just continue stare into infinite space. It means nothing to them.
Andrew
It isn’t public health experts who have lost credibility, it’s their political masters who treat them as nothing more than paid lackeys to be tossed aside the moment they don’t say exactly what the Dear Leader wants them to.
Seversky, did you even read the OP? For instance, did you bother to read this?
That type of nonsense just does not cut it.
BA77, we are seeing a case in FL, USA where a motorcycle crash victim in his 20’s is added to CV19 death statistics, raising serious questions. Especially, given apparent official responses. KF
And there are plenty examples of COVID deaths not being reported as COVID deaths.
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1221496
MMT, the point is that there are legitimate questions on the statistics. Your point only adds to the force of that if deaths FROM (as opposed to WITH) CV19 are not being reckoned accurately. However much of the report you link boils down to it will take time for statistics to be sorted out. My concern is different, it is about flawed counting and a response by officials that raises red flags regarding duty to truth. KF
KF
I agree. But it goes both ways. For example, excess deaths in the US from April to May are 28% higher than accounted for by COVID. I suspect some of this is due to the stresses associated with the pandemic (eg, suicides, opioid use, etc). But it is also possible that much of it is due to not categorizing legitimate COVID deaths as such.
Dr. Fauci has flip-flopped on COVID-19 as much as is expected from any politician. The WHO has totally screwed the pooch. They aren’t credible any more. The CDC is always late and sometimes accurate.
So yes, the public health experts have lost credibility.
Bornagain77 @ 3
Yes, I did and I saw a vague and unsubstantiated smear tossed out to be swallowed hook, line and sinker by the gullible.
From the “I’m from the government, I’m here to help” Department:
From the “I’m from the government, I’m here to hand out more taxpayer money to Christian churches” Department:
Seversky @ 11
You’re deflecting. Lots of people have lined up at the trough for free money, no doubt. But PPP borrowers have no role in reporting COVID-19 numbers, while hospitals and doctors remitted through Medicare have the primary role. The question is, did giving them incentives and leeway to pad the numbers produce exactly that?
Severesky:
Do Church’s hire people? If they are not allowed to assemble, and hence collect contributions, will they not eliminate jobs in response? If not the purpose of the PPP to help businesses stay open so that people won’t be let go, leaving them with no means of support? Should this NOT be done for religious congregations because they’re religious? Wouldn’t that be tantamount to discriminating against religion? Isn’t that prescribed by the First Amendment?
Just trying to help you through the thinking here.
PaV @ 13
Is the Christian church a commercial enterprise? Are the individual churches small businesses or franchisees? Although I am now agnostic/atheist/materialist I was raised as a Christian and I can assure you that the foregoing was in no way a tenet of that faith.
If they want to be treated as businesses then I suppose they could but then they should not be eligible for the massive tax breaks which they currently receive.
I would argue that, constitutionally, for the Trump administration to quietly but deliberately funnel billions of dollars towards Christian evangelical churches is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. It clearly favors one faith over all others. That is quite apart from the fact that it diverts money away from the small businesses for whom it was intended and who, in many cases, need it to stave off permanent closure. I don’t think evangelical Christianity in the US is in imminent danger of financial collapse if they don’t get those funds.