[Goose]

This:

"Some scientists fault the public for not heeding public health recommendations, but these folks miss the point. How you communicate your message and the sustainability and uptake of your message are part of the intervention itself, and you must be judged by what is achieved."

Like judging the person who puts out the punch for it being undrinkable, after someone else goes and pees in it.

I don't think that example is a good one. I also don't totally agree with the idea that the presenter is totally responsible for the uptake of the message. I do think the communication from the scientists has been muddled by the normal and healthy disagreements that exist among them. However, I think it has also been much damaged by the presentations "talking down" to the American people. Presenting strategies for mitigation with little or no explanation of "Why this strategy" has been very destructive. When things don't work for perfectly understandable reasons, people lose trust if they don't know those reasons. Why are the color tiers in California what they are? Nobody knows, including the County Health Officers who have complained about that fact. Things like this are a self-inflicted wound. However, it is also not a presentation by scientists. It is a political policy. Are the scientists at fault here for not insisting on full disclosure? I think they are, but it isn't entirely their call.

In short, we are often asked to believe Fauci and ignore Trump because of who they are, not because of the reasoning presented in what they say. That is never a good thing.

[Goose]

This:

"Some scientists fault the public for not heeding public health recommendations, but these folks miss the point. How you communicate your message and the sustainability and uptake of your message are part of the intervention itself, and you must be judged by what is achieved."

Like judging the person who puts out the punch for it being undrinkable, after someone else goes and pees in it.

I don't think that example is a good one. I also don't totally agree with the idea that the presenter is totally responsible for the uptake of the message. I do think the communication from the scientists has been muddled by the normal and healthy disagreements that exist among them. However, I think it has also been much damaged by the presentations "talking down" to the American people. Presenting strategies for mitigation with little or no explanation of "Why this strategy" has been very destructive. When things don't work for perfectly understandable reasons, people lose trust if they don't know those reasons. Why are the color tiers in California what they are? Nobody knows, including the County Health Officers who have complained about that fact. Things like this are a self-inflicted wound. However, it is also not a presentation by scientists. It is a political policy. Are the scientists at fault here for not insisting on full disclosure? I think they are, but it isn't entirely their call.

In short, we are often asked to believe Fauci and ignore Trump because of who they are, not because of the reasoning presented in what they say. That is never a good thing.