Yes it’s tough. Let’s use masks as an example.
if you’re like me and don’t have a bias and truly want to understand if a mask is going to help me and those around me or not- what is the answer?
there is plenty of data, and unlimited opinions, on both sides of that issue still today. Honestly I don’t know who to believe.
The element that gives me pause is that a lot of the mouthpieces proclaiming masks masks masks are almost always caught off camera without masks masks masks. This eliminates any credibility they had with me because they clearly don’t believe in what they are preaching.
and is the reverse true? Have I ever seen a talking head or political figure saying that masks are not effective, caught in private wearing a mask? Of course not.
masks are a great example of the public not understanding or often being willfully ignorant of the topic.
first, people generally don't understand that anecdotal evidence is fairly meaningless. your cousin that wore a mask all the time and still got it doesn't disprove that masks are effective at stopping the spread significantly. especially when empirical evidence has provided data repeatedly that shows it does.
it doesn't help that the "narrative" on masks changed, and fairly rapidly, from the scientific standpoint. which led a lot of people to distrust those espousing mask wearing as a preventative (eventually). and it's completely understandable at a glimpse. the problem is that the "narrative" changed because understanding of the science of effects from masks changed. it was first that n95 masks were effective and people panicked and bought them all out. they said stop doing that, they aren't effective
when not worn correctly. 1 - people didn't hear that last part, 2 - vast majority of people have no idea what correctly wearing an n95 mask entails. then, research was done on general use masks, which they didn't think would stop the spread, but turns out it does...
if everyone will wear them (or a significant enough %). and this is where anecdotal evidence became killer, because wearing a mask didn't prevent
you (the wearer) from getting sick, it prevent you from spreading it to others. and if mask wearing cousin eddy got it, well it obviously doesn't work. it's not with 100% effectiveness, but significant enough to matter. but by this point, too much damage has been done. the story changed, however justified it was, and a large portion of influential people (politicians and talking heads) rebutted against it enough that it became a team specific talking point.
being able to separate an individual from their data/info is paramount. an individual is fallible, hypocritical, and irrational. they may believe fully in something, and yet at times go against that belief for some bs rationalization. how many family counselors have ruined their marriages, or lawyers broken laws, engineers approved insufficient products, accountants fudged numbers or forgot to file taxes, dr's that smoke, etc. doesn't mean that the info or whatever is wrong. doesn't mean they don't believe what they work for or the info the champion. but they rationalize decisions and make mistakes. a basketball team/coach that believes a 3 pointer and a layup are the only shots worth taking, because the data suggest they're the most valuable bang for buck based on % made, doesn't lose credibility when they take a mid-range jumper. the data certainly doesn't change. we should look at the info as separate from the individual.
and concerning the last part, maybe not with masks, but certainly with vaccines. both talking heads and politicians.
fwiw ,with regards to masks, it's looking like the "narrative" will likely change again soon. this time because the new variant (omicron b, i've seen it called) is so highly contagious it won't matter even in the prior context. at least early data is suggesting so. supposedly has a chance to be most infectious disease we know about. thankfully it's also looking to be relatively mild like omicron a.
