Hacker News Reader

Comment by dnautics | Hacker News Reader

no they don't. They just need to be honest about what they do know and what they don't and don't assert something is true when it's "we're not sure". Just do zero-order thinking. Don't patronize the public.

Guess what. If you don't trust the public. Why should the public trust you?

View on HN

The public has been taught by people who don't do science that knowledge and truth are supposed to be immutable. When faced with scientists who acknowledge that their understanding and advice is contingent, the public as a statistical entity says "WTF?" and chooses not to trust.

You are bootstrapping your understanding of society on that assumption itself and thus begging the question.

Do you actually get out and talk to people? Most people are ok with nuance. Most things we consume as entertainment, from lowbrow housewives of Atlanta to highbrow pbs space time are full of dizzying nuance and unknowable truths (but not star trek. Star trek no longer has nuance).

We're fine with nuance in entertainment, in romance, in food, in professional team sports, in many things. I would dispute that the same level of comfort extends to "when elected (or not) leaders tell us what we should do."

> I would dispute

Why? Because it makes you feel good to think everyone else is dumber than you?

I'm just as subject to this effect as anyone else.

Precisely. Just observe the discussion about scientific theories and you can see firsthand that the public wants simple and clear black-and-white stuff (and to be told what to do) and not some kind of qualified statement that turns 99.9% certainty into something that can be spun as 50/50.

What percentage of the public thinks in this way?

Remember when the COVID vaccines were in trials and the news were all reporting that they were "80-90+%" effective on the then-current strains?

Why, then, do I keep seeing arguments from people about the vaccines not being perfectly effective?

No, I don't remember that.

Can you link to an archived news article saying this?

"In another promising medical development, the biotechnology company Moderna has announced its COVID-19 vaccine could be up to 94.5% effective. The news comes a week after Pfizer announced its vaccine could be up to 90% effective based on a similar, early analysis from its Phase 3 trial." (https://abcnews.go.com/Health/moderna-announces-initial-phas...)

"And then there were three. U.K. pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca, along with its partners at Oxford University, became on Monday the third team to announce positive late stage trial results for a COVID-19 vaccine. The "AZD1222" vaccine was "highly effective'' in preventing disease, with up to 90% efficacy in patients receiving one of the dose regimens used in trials, AstraZeneca announced." (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-vaccine-oxford-astrazenca...)

PFIZER: COVID VACCINE OVER 90% EFFECTIVE IN EARLY DATA [video] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CG8U3OWSV4o)

ABC, CBS, NBC.

Note the 'could'. Which of course everybody skips.

According to this (scroll down to panel #5 about Vaccines): https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/covid-19-c...

Last updated July 2021 but the data from multiple studies for multiple strains seems to support the initial claims.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com