5 ms·
You're missing the point, the problem that is if you're trying to offer credible expert opinion on how to deal with a crisis, you undermine those opinions by in
by khawkins 7y ago
You're missing the point, the problem that is if you're trying to offer credible expert opinion on how to deal with a crisis, you undermine those opinions by introducing a highly charged political wedge issue that offers no solutions to the problem at hand.
Sure, you can argue that single-payer healthcare would have been good to solve this crisis and others would certainly argue that it would make things worse, but the debate is totally fruitless because implementing such a system will take years--well after coronavirus is either endemic or wiped out. Thus, even bringing it up makes me question whether you, as an expert, are capable of divorcing your personal bias from your scientific objectivity. I immediately think, "is this person speaking from their objective expertise, or do they look for the data that satisfies their political arguments, and ignoring the rest?"
Scientists should tell people the facts as objectively as possible because that is the purpose of the field and discipline. Leave activism to others, who will use the facts to come to whatever conclusions they can.
- elicash 7y agoHow far should scientists take this principle? If a political party decided to take the view that this whole thing was no big deal and that big events in key geographies shouldn't be cancelled, should public health experts stay out of it because it could make people ignore their other recommendations? Experts should offer their views and the burden is on us to be open-minded, regardless of our ideologies. There's a separate point you make about what things can and cannot be done in this moment. But that's not the original point made. Most of the "politics" recommendations could in fact be done during this time. Some are even being discussed, short-term.
- matthew-hale 7y agokhawkins said (emphasis mine): > by introducing a highly charged political wedge issue that offers no solutions to the problem at hand which seems to be their core issue. Some proposed solutions may become political as you describe, but that doesn't change their utility as proposed solutions to the problem. Whereas it seems like the entire section "Relative to Other Countries, US Labor and Healthcare Policies are a Perfect Storm for Pandemics" could have been omitted entirely without losing any value related to slowing the spread of COVID-19.
- elicash 7y agoWhat's your argument that none of the items listed in that section would slow the spread of COVID-19? Some of them are being considered on a short-term basis by political officials right now on the very basis that it could slow that spread.