Will Science Matter in Five Years?

[oxmixmudd]

We were told masks wouldn't work. Then we were told they would and to even double or triple mask. Then we found out Fauci thought masking was a joke all along.

We were told this pandemic was the result of eating bats. Anyone asking questions was branded a racist and censored by the MSM and Social Media. Then we found out that it most likely came from a lab.

What again were you saying?

Rogue, you are smarter than this. This is partisan and/or conspiracy driven distortions of the realities. And you are intelligent enough to be able to see through it if you'll just get off the partisan band Wagon.

Mask advice changed because what was the best advice for the moment changed as we learned about the virus and as perspectives changed and as the availability of masks changed. At first the perspective was protecting the wearer from infection coupled with an n95 mask shortage.

That set of variables says anything other than an n95 isnt going to help enough protecting individuals in the community with minimal spread to justify depriving doctors and nurses on the front lines of the equipment they need.

But when looking at the high percentage of asymptomatic cases and taking on the alternate perspective of reducing the number of small droplets in the air in an enclosed space as community spread was increasing, the advice needed to change. That changed perspective coupled with new research made it clear even a cloth mask can help reduce the R value, the number of persons infected as a result of a single case. It became clear that even though the personal protective value of a cloth mask was not sufficient to give robust individual protection from acquiring the disease, when the entire community would wear them, it could significantly impact community spread rate.

That knowledge, the growing amount of community spread, the growing availability of the masks and the realization multilayer masks could help and be created at home by individuals for themselves changed what was the best advice.

That is simple reality. The advice given was the right advice for the times in which it was given. It was the correct advice based on what was known at the time it was given and the level of spread at that time.

Again, this ignorant rhetoric you are echoing is below a man of your intelligence. You know what I have outlined above is what was the situation and what is the science and the history of the situation. Please let that knowledge temper your posts here.

[Stoic]

Yes. Continuing.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/tok...L6O7OSAXT3YJU/

You see something in that that rejects biology?

[seer]

Naturally you will find scientists, just like other people, on all sides of an issue. But the way scientists end up solving this is through examining the evidence -- all of it, and not just the data that supports what you want -- presenting their findings and then let others dissect those findings to see if they hold up.

It is not that black and white:

From my link: "The Lancet statement effectively ended the debate over COVID-19’s origins before it began. To Gilles Demaneuf, following along from the sidelines, it was as if it had been “nailed to the church doors,” establishing the natural origin theory as orthodoxy. “Everyone had to follow it. Everyone was intimidated. That set the tone.”

[seer]

You see something in that that rejects biology?

Yes, they are putting this MAN in to compete with WOMEN. Claiming that HE is a trans woman which isn't a WOMAN at all.

[rogue06]

It is not that black and white:

From my link: "The Lancet statement effectively ended the debate over COVID-19’s origins before it began. To Gilles Demaneuf, following along from the sidelines, it was as if it had been “nailed to the church doors,” establishing the natural origin theory as orthodoxy. “Everyone had to follow it. Everyone was intimidated. That set the tone.”

If that were indeed the case then the MSM and Big Tech would never have had various scientists that "needed" censoring.

[seer]

If that were indeed the case then the MSM and Big Tech would never have had various scientists that "needed" censoring.

So It was a conspiracy between big tech, big media, and big science. That makes it better...

[Mountain Man]

Science will always matter since, in its purest form, it is nothing more than the unbiased gathering of data and the testing of ideas. What I hope will matter less in the future are the so-called "experts" who use controversial scientific hypotheses to attempt to control what other people do.

[Ronson]

Let's define our terms first - science here refers to the information provided to the public by the industry/academia complex that we also call 'science'. It does NOT refer to the methodology that defines the most basic form of science. It's the science for public consumption that is being referred to here unless specified otherwise.

I am increasingly of the opinion that the science complex has shot itself in the foot - several times - and has taken a very serious hit to its public image. I strongly suspect this last debacle with the C19 media frenzy will result in a strong backlash - the beginnings of which we are already seeing - that is going to drag public trust in science down with its trust in the media. I expect the result will be seen first in policy as politicians who want to gain or remain in office stop following the 'narrative ' (a term that soooo needs to die) of 'following the science' anywhere - at all.

Lincoln's famous quote about not being able to fool all the people all the time comes to mind. This time, science can't just blame the media for its poor reporting. Fauci's emails are damning - and so are reports of scientists valuing politics over scientific truth/objectivity. What sane person is going to believe anything science supposedly tells them after this? And the truth is, given the hysterical levels of over reaction to other experts last year, this scandal is far from over.

If, as I strongly suspect it will, American's come to believe that they were duped about aspects of the panicdemic, the traditional media is unlikely to survive. It will almost certainly take science down with it.

I've only scanned this thread but it appears politics has taken the front seat again, with Leftists claiming "there's nothing to see here" and that conservatives are simply anti science. It's as if their filters only pick and choose what they want to read from your OP.

But addressing your OP, I suspect the public will have to be more diligent in the future. The studies are online for people to examine so that's where we'll need to go when there is some political controversy. What's unfortunate is when some people rely on the media and spokespeople to do their thinking for them. That probably will never change.

[Cerebrum123]

When you write things like this, you make yourself equal or worse than those you are criticizing. This sort of rhetoric is based on exaggeration and a political vendetta against a man because he challenged the policies of an idolized leader.

What you haven't realized is that you have turned Fauci into your own idolized leader, and so have many on the left. That's why any criticism of him is being dismissed the way it is.

[Stoic]

Yes, they are putting this MAN in to compete with WOMEN. Claiming that HE is a trans woman which isn't a WOMAN at all.

What basis do you think the IOC should use to decide who is a man and who is a woman?

[Gondwanaland]

No you wouldn't you might think you would, but theocracies never respect individual freedoms.

I mean, neither has science for the last year and a quarter (other than the rights of BLM to riot)

[eider]

I guess you have a point in that people are designed to worship "something," and in a secular society, science is likely to fill that role.
r.

In many countries 'Sports' is the main centre of worship.

[Stoic]

What you haven't realized is that you have turned Fauci into your own idolized leader, and so have many on the left. That's why any criticism of him is being dismissed the way it is.

No, criticism of Fauci is being dismissed because everyone can see that it is politically motivated. Trump doesn't like him, so Trump toadies don't like him.

[Mountain Man]

I've only scanned this thread but it appears politics has taken the front seat again, with Leftists claiming "there's nothing to see here" and that conservatives are simply anti science. It's as if their filters only pick and choose what they want to read from your OP.

But addressing your OP, I suspect the public will have to be more diligent in the future. The studies are online for people to examine so that's where we'll need to go when there is some political controversy. What's unfortunate is when some people rely on the media and spokespeople to do their thinking for them. That probably will never change.

There are many resources at our fingertips, some of it good, some of it less so, but the biggest problem, I think, is that anybody who brings an idea to the table that contradicts the "scientific consensus", which is a political term, are mocked, berated, and accused of being "anti-science". This was recently exemplified with startling clarity when Fauci the Fraud announced that any criticism of him was criticism of science itself.

[Cerebrum123]

No, criticism of Fauci is being dismissed because everyone can see that it is politically motivated. Trump doesn't like him, so Trump toadies don't like him.

Wrong again. Even people who can't stand Trump can see how bad this stuff is with Fauci is. He has been at best negligent with what he's said with regards to the possibility of a lab outbreak since 1. He knew about their research regarding coronaviruses, and 2. Has a conflict of interest regarding this since he funded their research. This means the best case scenario is he unintentionally took eyes off the Wuhan lab for far longer than it should have been, and due to his celebrity status got people who reasonably questioned his dismissal of a lab leak labelled as conspiracy theorists. Worst case scenario he is complicit in covering for the Chinese Communist Party.