Posted on 09/25/2020 4:10:25 PM PDT by aimhigh
Criticisms of COVID-19 models by Democratic elites in May 2020 appeared to undermine public support for the models' use - and trust in science more broadly - according to a series of survey experiments conducted with the participation of more than 6,000 Americans. However, whether Republican elites criticized or supported the models appeared to have little effect.
Sarah Kreps and Douglas Kriner suggest the lack of response to Republican messaging could be due to the party's split messaging on science-backed guidance for this issue. When Democrats criticized COVID-19 models, however, it strongly contradicted the public's expectations. "The fact is that whether or not political leaders' science communication sways people, they have an ethical obligation to treat the science with care, acknowledging uncertainty while asserting that we are constantly updating with new understandings and data about the virus," says Kreps, the co-author of the study.
Since models are built on abstractions and incomplete data that make them inherently uncertain, and research on the novel coronavirus is still in its infancy, models predicting the virus' spread have sometimes been inaccurate. It has remained unclear how competing communications about uncertainty in COVID-19 models affects public support for and trust in science. To better understand the effects of science communications in the context of the pandemic, Kreps and Kriner developed five survey experiments and used them to assess shifting public attitudes toward references to COVID-19 models from prominent Democrats and Republicans.
The surveys were designed to test responses to both the cue giver (the Democrat or Republican) and to whether his or her statement ignored, acknowledged, highlighted, or weaponized model uncertainty. Based on their findings, Kreps suggests scientists should avoid emphasizing dire implications associated with epidemiological models while sidestepping uncertainty altogether, since this approach could backfire if projections prove incorrect. "Instead, they should acknowledge that models are simplifications of reality and our best estimate based on a lot of moving parts," she says. "Politicians can help convey to the public what we know and what we still don't know about the virus, and stress the need to adapt policies in response to new information," Kriner adds.
That ship sailed long ago with Gore Bull Warming.
Since models are built on abstractions and incomplete data that make them inherently uncertain, and research on the novel coronavirus is still in its infancy, models predicting the virus’ spread have sometimes been inaccurate.
—
So the models are flat wrong, but the unwashed public is supposed to genuflect to the science gods. I don’t think so. They’re lucky to escape the wrath of the public after their faulty models were used to push decisions which disrupted the world’s economy.
What does “trust in science” even mean?
“What does “trust in science” even mean?”
Yes.
It reflects how they make “science” in to a false religion and they use religious terminology talking about it.
There are still a few days left for the hymalayas to melt like the expert scientist claimed. Sure, he revoked later claiming a decimal error.(after the trillion$ were sent) So the published scientists may be paid provocateurs at best or just impotent scientists at worst.
Here is what the Science and Data Says.
CDC recently updated estimated infection fatality rates for COVID. Here are the updated survival rates by age group:
0-19: 99.997%
20-49: 99.98%
50-69: 99.5%
70+: 94.6%
My trust in science was lost decades ago when they began pushing man made climate change (first it was a new ice age and then global warming) but all of it provable false by showing that earth’s climate has been changing for millions of years.
The clinger is when these “scientist” attacked and smeared anyone that offered another view.
The public is fine with science.
It’s the scientists that they don’t trust.
Scientific studies funded by government always say we need more government. Is anyone surprised?
If McDonalds funded a study that concluded you needed to eat more hamburgers, would you be surprised? Would you believe it?
Why believe government funded studies that say we need more government?
More concerned with ‘trust’ in science than whether the science is trustworthy.
Exactly. I don’t see a problem here. Science is no more to be trusted than any other human endeavor. And since Gorebul Warming, the public is rightly suspicious on anything said or published by “scientists.”
It should be noted that the 70+ is not actually 70+. It’s 70-79. Those 80 years and over are explicitly excluded from that data. It says so in the CDC’s notes below the table.
The study the table data is based on concluded that the CFR is roughly accurate for those 80+, meaning they have an approximately 82% survival rate from COVID-19.
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.