Posted on 08/23/2021 2:40:45 PM PDT by Grandpa Drudge
A trope of contemporary social commentary is that “science” has somehow become “politicized,” such that people no longer trust or believe what is presented as the scientific consensus on important social, political, and economic issues. The most salient example until recently was climate change, where various scientific professionals, associations, interest groups, and the like were portrayed as purely disinterested seekers of truth while disfavored outsiders were described as self-interested, ideological, or worse.
The idea of scientists as a priestly caste, criticism of whom constitutes “science denial” or “spreading misinformation,” is of course central to the conventional narrative about of Covid-19. Many commentators worry that substantial public disagreement on the nature and significance of the Covid-19 pandemic and the efficacy of vaccines and mitigation measures such as lockdowns, border closures, masks, and social distancing will contribute to a decline in trust of scientists and even science itself. Indeed, there is evidence that experience with previous epidemics leads to reduced trust in scientists and their work (though not “science” in the abstract).
Systematic misrepresentation of the scientific evidence on Covid-19 and its mitigation measures has been a central feature of news coverage and social media commentary for the last year and a half. Press releases from scientific organizations and government agencies, news reports of scientific papers, and social media posts by prominent scientists continue to focus on statistics such as the number of positive test results without controlling for the number of tests administered, the characteristics of the tested population, and the cycle threshold (sensitivity) for PCR tests; to present highly aggregated measures of infection and spread that obscure the enormously skewed distribution in severity by age and health status; and to ignore context that would allow for comparison across similar locations or among similar diseases over time.
(Excerpt) Read more at mises.org ...
scientific consensus on important social, political, and economic issues.
bfl
An opinion is not science
Good piece. Thanks for posting.
Scientists themselves have played a role in spreading this misinformation, partly via the “file drawer problem” in which experimental results that support the preferred narrative are publicized and promoted, while those that disconfirm the narrative are downplayed or ignored.
Systemic misdirection.
There are also some deep systemic problems with using statistics to determine public policy, even when they are not distorted in any way.
At the end of the day they can be used to justify Communism, fascism, or any other ideology designed to crush the liberty of individual people.
Well said.
I am going to have to get a few more people and discuss this before I can think about it.
— Thomas Sowell
One thing the media fails to understand is there are different levels of scientific certainty.
Take masks. It is almost impossible to design a clear study to prove that mask wearing works. We all started wearing masks last year mostly because countries in Asia where mask wearing is common had much lower transmission rates. It was at best a guess that masks might be what made the difference.
On the other side we have the vaccines. We have double blinded clinical trials for both safety and efficacy for all the vaccines released. That is as close as science gets to being certain something is true.
The problem is both get simplified by the media as “scientists believe.”
Science isn't political, it's supposed to be purer than politics.
The release of the Wuhan virus is political, as is the international response.
The timing of the knowledge that we had "*the vaxxine*" was timed to be political, post election, despite that finding was 'delayed' by Big Pharma.
The fact that the Clinical Trial, Control Group data of the "*Vaxxine*" study is altogether missing, yet the 'jab' is approved "under emergency conditions"
re-affirms that this was a political decision.
The fact that "the jab" received FDA "General Approval" approval without all data and documentation, including VAERS reports, clearly demonstrates political chicanery.
The "Vaccine Passport" concept which is being conducted by corporations and businesses, because the government can't impose a vaccine passport, is purely political.
However, I think there is also a multitude of "pretend scientists" in the main stream media whose primary role is to provide an echo chamber to pound the "pseudo science" political propaganda out to the naive public.
And finally, I am convinced there are a number of (maybe) real scientists (Dr. Anthony Fauci comes to mind) who may in fact have their own ideological agenda and willingness to misrepresent the whole truth, and thus perpetrate the misinformation.
Copernicus / Galileo was political too.
Lots of investment in the narrative. It’s all about control.
Excellent article.
Not only is it possible to study mask effectiveness against viruses, it has actually been done scientifically several times. The conclusions of multiple real scientifically valid studies has been that masks (even N95 masks) are NOT effective at preventing or even significantly diminishing influenza or similar virus infections. This has been discussed at length in several Free Republic threads over the past 15 months.
I am not aware of ANY scientifically valid study that demonstrates any more than minimal virus protection.
Many commercially available N95 masks even include a disclaimer in their packaging that it does NOT protect against virus infection.
Throughout this year’s tens of thousands of “accurate science” stories about Covid Delta “resurgence “ NOT ONE has reported how few new deaths have occurred. Only the number of cases. Over and over, number of cases.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.