[MyBrainIsBroken]

IMO you have to be very cautious about believing what you read these days, even from major media sources. Many of them aren't much better than social media these days. In fact, one thing that really annoys me is this new journalism trend of quoting what random people are posting on Facebook, Twitter, etc. And in the USA you also need to carefully evaluate information coming from federal government agencies because everything has been heavily politicized and polarized.

Interestingly. I've found some of the smaller outlets, like the one I linked to that wrote about the Stanford study, are more reliable and less biased than the major outlets. And I tend to see better information coming from the state agencies than from the federal agencies.

My qualifications for my opinions include a graduate degree in library and information science and roughly 30 years working with and evaluating information and information sources.

[OffRoad]

Offroad: I am having trouble following what you are saying. On one hand you say something is not likely, then you throw out outlandish paranoid theories. We do have a pretty good guesses of how the virus crossed over to humans. How do you think most viruses appear in humans?

I see you are upset that I have an opinion that a virus can escape from a lab. That part is not paranoid, it is something that can happen. I can have the opinion that a virus can escape from a lab and still think it is not likely. But it IS possible.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/3/20/18260669/deadly-pathogens-escape-lab-smallpox-bird-flu
As a matter of fact:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/15/politics/us-intelligence-virus-started-chinese-lab/index.html which was followed up with
https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-throws-cold-water-conspiracy-theory-coronavirus-escaped-chinese-lab-2020-4
 and even that does not say "There is absolutely NO CHANCE it came from a laboratory." it says " We do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible." (Plausible: appearing worthy of belief) Key word for Plausible is Appearing, IMO. Zero proof. Just saying.
Link to article linked above. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

What I believe doesn't matter. This thought process is out there for people to read. Not panicking when it is read is important.

Are you just supposing things out of thin air as true?

What does this mean?  Suppose what out of thin air? Read the articles above where the US was investigating whether the virus could have come from a Chinese lab. Are you upset because I said IF this were Engineered? It's not like that is a secret theory. It was on CNN.

You say be a critical thinker. Ok it begins with actually listening to experts, learning about the area of interest, and NOT negate what is current state of the knowledge in a field. An open mind isn’t the same as listening to everything that is said. And no some things are WAY less possible than others, that is the whole premise of Occam’s Razor.

We are going to have to disagree on what being a critical thinker is. It is NOT just listening to "experts" because experts often disagree. Which do you listen to?  And Occam Razor is Entities should not be multiplied without necessity. Because people paraphrase it to suit their needs doesn't make it gospel. It is still ONE person's opinion.  Again, whether or not one thing might be "more" possible than another does not negate both things being possible. But that is a philosophical discussion.
Critical thinking, to me, is the following. Everyone's mileage can vary:
1. Formulate your question
2. Gather your information
3. Apply the information
4. Consider the implications
5. Explore other points of view

Please show me one practitioner in the field or expert who says this is an engineered virus and what evidence in the genetic sequence, where the root virus is, what was spliced into it, and what vectors are used to release it. Reading something in a paper, listening to talk radio show hosts, or any talking head that comes on is not an open mind, it is simply choosing to ignore knowledge and expertise.

I never said it was one, Why do you keep saying this? I said "IF". In 1978 the government insisted "there are no stealth fighters". Guess what? There were. And you couldn't find any practitioner in  the field or expert who would say other than that there were none.

All our opinions are not equal in all fields. We should go the experts in a field when we are truly open minded. Go to a psychologist to discuss human psyche. Go to a neuroscientist to discuss human nervous system. Go to research scientists who study viruses, people who study human immunology, practicing doctors to learn about Covid-19.

I completely disagree with you one this because an opinion isn't limited to an expert on anything. An opinion is an opinion. (a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge).  Everyone gets to have opinions, beliefs, thoughts. No one gets to tell us we don't get to have them. If you don't like mine, that's fine with me. I simply don't understand what  seems like hostility.

IMO, to be truly open minded, you take all information into account, sort through it, decide what makes sense based on the information you have as it affects your world. I've already had plenty of experience with "Experts" who didn't have any idea what they were talking about.

I stand by my assertion that there is no point panicking because someone reads something and it sounds scary to them, or it's something that *might* happen or they don't understand it, more than ever. The media posts whatever they think someone will read. People will post their opinions. "Experts" who may or may not be experts, will post their own information that may be factual findings, may be "we believe", may be "it's likely this" and may be "We don't have any other answer, so we're extrapolating from this old answer".

ETA-Maybe Lab leak but not specifically engineered. Fair point:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-department-cables-warned-safety-issues-wuhan-lab-studying-bat-coronaviruses/

[marvin4242]

Offroad: first I want to make it absolutely clear there is no hostility whatsoever and I am not upset.

I will also clarify that yes we can all have opinions, that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. But not everyone opinions are equal on all subjects as I said before. And I very strongly disagree with your description of “open minded.” And I’ll point out the basic logical fallacy: just because you have experience with “experts” who were wrong it does not negate expertise. This is logic 101 failure. Goes back to “exceptions do not negate a rule.”

And disagreement between experts does not negate expertise either, that is logic 101 failure number 2. It is the basis of another truly horrendous misunderstanding in laypeople: that if scientists have disagreements about an area, and let’s say 10% have different opinion, then no one KNOWS the truth. That’s not correct either. Using that kind of logic humanity knows absolutely nothing, rocket engines are not flying, cars are not moving, our electronics are not actually working, and our medicine is all equal to voodoo healing. Because there is absolute consensus in VERY FEW fields of human endeavor.

True expertise by definition is the understanding that on complex topics and areas of human endeavor it takes years of study, work, and depth to gain said expertise. By contrast an opinion not backed by this is much weaker. No, no one has a “gut” that tells them where a virus comes from, or what it is going to do.

As for lab leak, can you elaborate what you think what “leaked?” The article you mention is the US military and intelligence analyzing the possibility of virus having escaped a lab, because it is their job, and the concluded most likely that was not the case. They study all kinds of unlikely possibilities and from that has spawned a conspiracy theory. It is not open minded to repeat flat earth conspiracy theories. If the virus existed in nature and you believe someone collected it for lab study then having it “escape” won’t do it. It has to cross to a human, probably mutate slightly to be more suited to human transmission first. And as for “man made” again if you study the actual structure and genetic of a virus you can see similarity and differences to other existing ones. There are patterns retained in nature in various biological entities. A man made virus has very tell tale fingerprints. This is not “opinion” and is something that can be identified.

One of the biggest ways I see the US starting to lose its lead in the world is this exact incorrect belief: that uninformed, uneducated, unqualified opinions are the same as the opinion of leading practitioners in a field. And mainstream media is just as fault in the US. In my opinion there are very few actual journalistic organizations left in the US. To see that major “news” outlets put on Dr Oz and Dr Phil to discuss the virus already tells you how ridiculous this is. And this is before we talk about people who listen to talk show hosts, to completely unqualified people who can’t tell RNA from DNA or protein, all in the name that “experts” don’t know things and all our opinions are equally valid.

Do you honestly think that the opinion of your random neighbor is as valid as cardiologist if someone you love is having a heart attack?

Finally to be a critical thinker has to start with a very solid base of knowledge in the facts, practices, history and discoveries in the field you want to delve into. Without this basic abilities in that subject matter, specially complex ones, then its not clear what you are being “critical” about. It is not possible to critically judge truth from fiction, high probability from rarity, and to see if the evidence is valid and can be applied. I can be as “critical” as I want about complex field of currency exchanges and what impacts them, I will still go bankrupt if I put my money where my “critical thinking” on the subject is, because I don’t know enough.

[Treasur]

Funnily enough was just having a conversation with someone this morning that scientific voices are a bit invisible in our public communications by government here in the UK. We don't seem to have our own Dr Fauci (perhaps we could steal him if Mr Trump fires him lol) and that is starting to seem a noticeable gap that government ministers can't fill. There is a level of basic trust in government's good intent here (mostly) if less in their operational competence perhaps. But they can present the numbers but not necessarily be as able to explain the thinking behind the numbers.....and as time goes by I suspect there is a growing need for the why as well as the what. Not sure how it is in other countries like Italy........

[Nerissa]

Funnily enough was just having a conversation with someone this morning that scientific voices are a bit invisible in our public communications by government here in the UK. We don't seem to have our own Dr Fauci (perhaps we could steal him if Mr Trump fires him lol) and that is starting to seem a noticeable gap that government ministers can't fill. There is a level of basic trust in government's good intent here (mostly) if less in their operational competence perhaps. But they can present the numbers but not necessarily be as able to explain the thinking behind the numbers.....and as time goes by I suspect there is a growing need for the why as well as the what. Not sure how it is in other countries like Italy........

I wonder if it is partly (I say partly because I’m already convinced of incompetence). because scientists work with uncertainty and change their options when evidence changes.  And when under siege, humanity wants leadership ( parental omnipotence) and certainty so governments try to provide that because that is what is most likely to get them re elected and muffle protest.

Another thing is that a spread of expertise is needed.  For example, the UK govt has a scientific committee and relied quite heavily on mathematical Modelling.  From very early on, scientists with a public health/epidemiology background we’re protesting and forecasting events correctly.  They said their expertise should have been included because they have experience in how pandemics actually spread in populations.

 Prof John Ashworh, on BBC question time was derided for a being a ‘mad professor’. He has been proved right.. Other prominent consultants, include Anthony Costello, ex WHO director for women children and adolescent health. 

This article reflects briefly on the mistrust of experts:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/problem-thinking-know-experts?fbclid=IwAR0nnvgXZduai117I7Bh4bYtCgCP3Ov0uy19z_YAqToPyzV4LK6s8oXt2k0&__twitter_impression=true

Inthink the world is so specialised that we normal Citizens simply  don’t have the background to grasp the detail.  And this is exacerbated when we have governments we don’t trust so we feel we need to exert our own judgement more forcefully than if we had faith in our leaders.

[marvin4242]

Treasur, Nerissa excellent points.

Here is a very interesting article in NYT (sorry if its behind a paywall for some) that describes the difference in the approach in Germany and US. Essentially very high trust in the government, high levels of people doing what they are asked because “we are all in this together” and Merkel being a scientist explaining to people what is going on and why they must do what they do.

Also they are now starting to monitor antibodies in population on a weekly basis to start planning how to release controls. All based on expertise, knowledge, science and medicine. No random opinions, no discussion of “freedoms” being taken away when all that is being done is to try to protect its own citizens.

To me this is example of the “better angels” or humanity, reason and using all the knowledge we have for the common good. And I won’t be surprised when Germany comes out of this more united, better than most countries in both deaths and in terms of economic damage to people and the entire economy.

There is a steep price to be paid in societies when we allow people to sow divisions among populace for their own petty reasons (politics, economics, beliefs). This has happened over and over in history but yet doesn’t seem to be something certain people ever learn from. Combine this with a anti-intellectual bent towards dismissing “expertise” and you have the ingredients for a disaster in the making.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/18/world/europe/with-broad-random-tests-for-antibodies-germany-seeks-path-out-of-lockdown.html

[Nerissa]

A further finding that cannot be readily explained in terms of perceptions of threat or perceived efficacy of behaviour but can be interpreted in the light of the above theories is that having a high level of trust in authorities and satisfaction with the communications received about the disease is associated with compliance with preventive, avoidant, and management behaviours. Research has shown that trust is a key emotion which has been found to be relevant in risk‐related behaviour (Slovic, 1999). Levels of trust and satisfaction with communication are particularly important in a pandemic situation in that the authorities are responsible for providing information about the course of the outbreak and also for developing treatments and vaccinations. Lack of trust can therefore have very detrimental effects in terms of controlling the disease. Trust is important because it affects how likely it is that risk assessments from authorities are deemed to be credible and this belief in turn can influence behaviour. A lack of trust in authorities is likely to affect how people process and interpret health messages and risk communication advice, to increase concerns and to interfere with the way that the risk messages are interpreted and acted on (Petts, Horlick‐Jones, & Murdock, 2001; Vaughan & Tinker, 2009). Issues of trust can be especially important in situations which are uncertain, such as how the course of a pandemic will develop. Slovic (1999) points out that trust is fragile and difficult to maintain, being easily broken because negative events which can destroy trust are more noticeable than positive events.

Previous research has highlighted the importance of communication in preventing disease. Openness of government communication and acknowledging uncertainty is important for fostering trust (e.g., Wray et al., 2008). Reviews by Lee (2008), Menon (2006), and Menon and Goh (2004) examined why Singapore fared so well during the SARS crisis, whereas Hong Kong did not and concluded that transparency in communications was key. The Singapore Government's success was partly due to their ability to build confidence and trust in the community and their transparent approach to communications. This was associated with compliance with the recommendations (e.g., quarantine) and reduced spread of SARS. In contrast, the Hong Kong Government lost public trust due to its handling of the event. In particular, the government said that there was nothing to worry about and failed to implement containment measures when cases were already occurring in Hong Kong. People were given inconsistent advice about precautionary measures and insufficient information about the spread of the disease. Some research suggests that the public are more likely to take appropriate action and accept the recommended treatment plan if they have been involved in the decision‐making process (e.g., focus groups, patient forums; Holmes, 2008; Tam, Sciberras, Mullington, & King, 2005). Such involvement can influence the level of trust that the public has in government and institutions (Holmes, 2008; Tam et al., 2005).

This is an excerpt from an academic paper about population behaviours during a pandemic.  This section is about the importance of trust in government.  I lived in singapore during SARS in 2003.  We were required to demonstrate a high level of compliance.  Eg I had to record family temperatures in books .  These were checked daily at school for the children.  In return, transport was disinfected.  People were employed to clean lift buttons and door handles constantly.  Information about cases was shared freely.  I felt looked after and that I had faith in the government . There was anxiety but no panic, despite Sara being more deadly than Coronavirus (but less communicable).  Untrusted the government.  At the start of the current Coronavirus pandemic, among Singapore’s first actions was distribution of free masks and free 1  litre bottles of sanitizer.

Trust is a two way process.

[xyzcf]

I laughed when Marvin mentioned Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil as being the ones people are "listening" to regarding this complicated issue of a world wide pandemic.

It is very clear, that the 90 minute daily news conferences that are being broadcasted are a replacement for the political rallies that the president is using for his advantage to become reelected.

When I worked in Canada during SARS, I do not remember any "political" agendas associated with the work that needed to be done. No protests, no anger towards what we needed to do which was necessary to contain SARS...this "circus" I live in is more disturbing to me than COVID.

And in many ways, more dangerous to our lives and the great division that is being made even worse by the inability of people to listen to what the scientists are telling us to do.

[readytofixmyselffirst]

Hello,

Another day at home. Just put on the brisket in the smoker and in eight hours, dinner!

When I worked in Canada during SARS, I do not remember any "political" agendas associated with the work that needed to be done. No protests, no anger towards what we needed to do which was necessary to contain SARS...this "circus" I live in is more disturbing to me than COVID.

I agree about the "circus" mentality. Of course, we did not have the social media that we have today. Back then, trolls were creatures that lived under bridges. I never heard of influencers but I was aware of people under the influence. We were just starting to have the war of the news networks.

great division that is being made even worse by the inability of people to listen

I don't think its the inability for people to listen, it is the inability to trust. So much conflicting information that the facts can't be filtered through the noise.

Combine this with a anti-intellectual bent towards dismissing “expertise” and you have the ingredients for a disaster in the making.

I have spent the past three years studying High Reliability Organizations and you are on the right track. The following are the five key characteristics:

1. Preoccupation with Failure. ...
2. Reluctance to Simplify Interpretations. ...
3. Sensitivity to Operations (an HRO Distinguishing Characteristic) ...
4. Commitment to Resilience. ...
5. Deference to Expertise.

If we want to truly make this work, we have to accept and acknowledge our shortcomings, avoid simple solutions or explanations to complex systems, and focus on our operations without running around trying to place blame. Finally, we do need to listen to the experts and heed their advice.

Interesting discussion and comments,

Ready

[marvin4242]

Ready: thanks for that and I for one am very interested what you mentioned about high reliability organizations. It is something I know little about and if everyone else is also interested and you are willing to share would love to hear more about how you think this applies to the failures of what is going on in the US in light of the response to any major challenge, and specifically the Covid pandemic.