@BadNessie
The most underestimated trust-building uncomfortable sentence is 'I don't know yet.'
@bchien
When asked for an example, the guest failed to provide even a single meaningful example, such as a quote from a particular politician or scientist. She sounds a lot like the politicians and scientists she’s now criticizing. Not very persuasive.
@anonmouse6337
Well that was 40mins of my life wasted. Her solution was "we need to talk about it more". Wow, what game changer. This is why people can't stand academia.
@naomieyles210
By the time vaccines were available, it was already known that lighter infections caused less transmission, so it's disingenuous to say that "trials weren't done" to test that effect. It was a good assumption that vaccination would deliver lower risk of disease transmission, and subsequent research confirmed that assumption. Certainly it made sense to vaccinate medical workers, aged care workers, vulnerable populations, and essential workers, to reduce disease transmission and risk of hospitalisation. Attempts at 100% vaccine mandates, outside those professions, was a mistake.
@tubebrocoli
she mentions the inflation and real estate price increases. since the 2008 crisis large real estate conglomerates have been sweep buying land and manipulating more and more the market prices. it happened again during and after the lockdowns. that's not an issue in our response to the disease itself, it's a systemic failure of antitrust government action.
@IndustryDissent
I’m sorry but this really needs to be paired with some analysis by public health experts, Sean does not offer any real pushback, and Frances and her Coauthor are not public health experts, and their book is not peer-reviewed research, so it seems a bit strange to be getting our public health conclusions from them no?
@Canadianwithacat
I don’t think this holds much water. She contradicts herself throughout.. example- she “admits” that blue states had lower mortality because higher vaccination rates. Then she says it’s wrong to say that getting vaccinated will protect your elderly loved ones because the trials didn’t look at transmission as an endpoint. Even if transmission wasn’t studied, conventional vaccination understanding says that your transmission risk decreases because you are less likely to get sick in the first place. Or if you do then your viral load might be lower, or your transmission window might be shorter. Her opinion is like tunnel vision : if there’s not a number in a trial then it’s now true?? Herein lies the value of experts , to compile the evidence, the presumed evidence (from previous research on vaccines for example), and make a determination. Anyone can read a study result, and I definitely wouldn’t trust a social science professor to appraise that data in the broader context of the literature and make recommendations.
@turtleintheaudience8108
Sorry, Francis E. Lee, the pandemic was a global problem that needed to be dealt with as it happened with the best science available at the time. Poor analysis and evaluation. Flattening the curve still makes sense, despite your objections to policies. Hopefully lessons were learned. It doesn't seem like Ms. Lee can see outside of the tunnel she's stuck in.
@alyssachan4330
Truefully, I am confused after listening to this conversation. 1. What was their mistake? 2. What should have they done? (Dont just say be honest cuz i believe public wont follow something unless it is 100% at a chaotic time) 3. Is this mistake isolated in the U.S.?
@user-rh6ru5oz2o
Considering how awful the last two episodes were, I'm not sure i want to hear them touch COVID
@McMike24
She has a great point, experts shouldn't make claims they can't back up. But as Sean alluded to, there is a big heat of the middle of a pandemic. If experts don't speak up, your average joes always will.. maybe it's better to get some things slightly off base rather than falling off the whole platform. I think policy makers have a duty to try to reduce chaos in society as much as possible, & pandemics are highly chaotic times
@NeoFighterX
No summary? I'm not watching this slurry of information from a vague title. Engagement bait
@SofaKingDead
She doesn't answer the question of what would she have done in the hot seat. It is good to analyze the mistakes of the past, but her lack of sympathy and her unwillingness to answer what decisions she would have made in those situations shows doesn't have the empathy she is claiming.
@RomansAutos
Vox has 12,600,000 subscribers yet pulls only 65k views, 0.51% of their subscribers actually watch the channel… yikes
@BL3446
Yeah, I'm not gonna agree with that quote at the very beginning. In the US, we didn't lose credibility to people who were on the fence and would have preferred a more nuanced approach. We lost credibility from people who already didn't want to give it credibility. (Mostly because of high ranking/high popularity folks who people didn't want to believe were "wrong" or believe that something bad happened on their watch.) If statements came out with "idk, we might be wrong" in them, all credibility would have been lost right then and then there would have been no regard or adherence to the suggested protocol.
@CrustyUgg
Love to see libs now admitting things republicans said all along 😂
@bangboom123
Between the avalanche of sponsored content and these cynically-positioned podcasts (why title the video this when conspiracism is rampant?) Vox has lost all my faith in their ability to produce good, engaging, informative videos.
@FunderDuck
You can always scroll back 5 years and look at the Vox videos throughout the Covid pandemic. I wonder if they still stand up to scrutiny.
@spootybaby
"Hey YouTube, automatically delete audio-only podcasts from all my feeds..."
@TheKaves2