Read on Twitter
I appreciate the point @Noahpinion is trying to make here, but this isn't at all how the either side of the argument framed things (or how the draft guidelines appeared to frame things!). Had it been I suspect many fewer folks would have gotten worked up.
https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/vaccine-allocation-age-and-race
https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/vaccine-allocation-age-and-race
By way of contrast, as far as I can tell what @jonst0kes heard was more-or-less what most people who got upset were hearing.
And maybe that was because the experts were communicating in short-hand!
But then that short-hand sucked, and everyone just... Double-downed on it. https://twitter.com/jonst0kes/status/1341195457268248576
And maybe that was because the experts were communicating in short-hand!
But then that short-hand sucked, and everyone just... Double-downed on it. https://twitter.com/jonst0kes/status/1341195457268248576
Everything sounds more reasonable now.
Thereâs lots of additional factors that influence risk, in the US many of these are correlated with race, so just use race instead of trying to break down all the variable discretely. Itâs easier, and not much different in aggregate. https://twitter.com/zoemclaren/status/1341230610061385728
Thereâs lots of additional factors that influence risk, in the US many of these are correlated with race, so just use race instead of trying to break down all the variable discretely. Itâs easier, and not much different in aggregate. https://twitter.com/zoemclaren/status/1341230610061385728
But then, why not say all of that immediately?
I think one thing that @mattyglesias gets right that a lot of todayâs science and policy communicators donât grok is how low-trust the current environment is.
Thereâs precious little âbenefit of the doubtâ left to give.
I think one thing that @mattyglesias gets right that a lot of todayâs science and policy communicators donât grok is how low-trust the current environment is.
Thereâs precious little âbenefit of the doubtâ left to give.
The easy response to this is âIâm going to get attacked anyway, so I should just say what Iâm going to say.â
And yes, you *are* going to get attacked anyway. But the transparency of process and logic matters a lot on the margin. It really impacts *who* is lining up against you.
And yes, you *are* going to get attacked anyway. But the transparency of process and logic matters a lot on the margin. It really impacts *who* is lining up against you.
In the case of the vaccine prioritization kerfuffle, it was probably the difference between a smaller group of marginal voices who were *never* going to agree with need-based prioritization vs. what actually happened.
Over the last decade, Iâve become a strong believer that the appearance of corruption can be just as corrosive as actual corruption.
But the last few years are making me consider a stronger statement: That the appearance of bad faith is just as corrosive as actual bad faith.
But the last few years are making me consider a stronger statement: That the appearance of bad faith is just as corrosive as actual bad faith.
Iâd like to think that a more radical approach to transparency in decision-making can help avoid this, but I believe it was @Aelkus who pointed out that just normal venting creates enough miasma to âconfirmâ the fears of those already primed to see bad faith.
Maybe the solution is some kind of âshow your workâ principle? No, a multi variant model isnât going to convince a wingnut from 4chan. But it *can* help avoid damaging fights with people who would otherwise be your allies.
The last 9 months have left folks primed to see bad faith in the US COVID response.
A natural reaction to these suspicions is to circle the wagons, to be more tight-lipped about decisions. I donât know what can break the doom loop, but I am sure *that* will only accelerate it.
A natural reaction to these suspicions is to circle the wagons, to be more tight-lipped about decisions. I donât know what can break the doom loop, but I am sure *that* will only accelerate it.
