Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

taleden t1_irn02jk wrote

Reply to comment by eddiepaperhands in What is the current consensus on coronavirus transmission through fomites? Can I stop pressing elevator buttons with my keys? by PolytheneMan

It's not just pride, though, it's an actual public health cost/benefit calculation.

Yes, admitting the mistake promptly would have saved some lives through improved prevention behavior among the people who cared to try to follow prevention guidelines.

But it would also have caused other people to be even more distrusting of public health guidance in general, both as a genuine reaction among that population and also because it would invite certain sociopolitical forces to pounce on the opportunity to scream "see?!? they were wrong this one time!! never listen to them again, only ever listen to me, yaaah tyranny blah blah!!"

So do you focus on saving more lives in the short term for this one situation, or do you focus on not accidentally reducing public trust in science in general so that you can save more lives next time, and the time after that, and so on? It's not such a clear choice.

15

The_Middler_is_Here t1_irne7du wrote

Sorry, are you actually suggesting that lying to the public is the better long-term option?

3

Ravatu t1_irnmpve wrote

I believe OC is saying it's not a clear choice.

It seems to me like you're making a great example of the issue OC refers to.

The decision is between accepting study A (small particle assumption) and study B (larger particle assumption).

In the environment where this decision is being made, CDC is giving direction to both clean surfaces and mask up. Their priority is public health. If study A is correct, and they back it, they continue to protect against both potential pathways. If study A is correct and they back study B, they are giving people direction to stop cleaning surfaces - people will stop cleaning, and then die.

They stuck with the most risk-adverse option while the assumptions around particle size developed.

Also, it's worth noting this: scientists that study Stokes law (the physics behind where a particle will float or sink, and how long it will take to do so) aren't necessarily experts at HVAC design. Stokes law is a force balance between drag force and particle weight. Drag force is different outside, vs. inside, from home to home, even floor to floor. It can flip if you're heating a building versus cooling a building, and even flip in the atmosphere (look up atmosphere inversion).

It is a complex issue. It's not just a bunch of particle scientists realizing that they were wrong about one equation (Stokes law) in a eureka moment. It's a group of different fields coming together to refine assumptions about what the average drag force is in a social setting. No model is perfect. If science and engineering waited for models to be perfect before applying data to real world, every industry would just stop.

Yet, some of us look at the issue as black/white. "Scientists were lying to us!" "The government knew the whole time and CHOSE not to tell us!" Even in the r/science community, we can all have emotional responses to data.

4

formgry t1_irnixbb wrote

Long term the best way to keep people following covid prevention methods is achieved by not changing up the narrative too much. Your narrative may be more accurate if it changes all the time, but it will be completely ineffective at getting people to follow practical prevention methods.

That is what he's saying.

Call it lying by omission if you want to be abrasive.

3