3 ms·

For those who might be skeptical when they see AEI, don't be. The article is not a partisan think-piece. It's clear, straightforward, and based on science and r

by davidw 7y ago

For those who might be skeptical when they see AEI, don't be. The article is not a partisan think-piece. It's clear, straightforward, and based on science and reason. Highly recommended. I've been sharing it with people in my city who are concerned about "what happens next?" https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/national-coronavirus-response-a-road-map-to-reopening/ https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/national-corona...

raphlinus 7y ago
Agreed. I've been following Scott Gottlieb for a while, he's one of the favorite experts on my Twitter list[1] (carefully curated to avoid political bias). We should be evaluating these kinds of proposals on the basis of competence, and they deliver. There seems to be a convergence of expert opinion around these kinds of proposals, see [2] for a quick survey. ("These two roadmaps are the same as all the others. Variations on a theme.") [1]: https://twitter.com/i/lists/1239639611694911489 https://twitter.com/i/lists/1239639611694911489 [2]: https://twitter.com/j_g_allen/status/1244371548410175501 https://twitter.com/j_g_allen/status/1244371548410175501
stonogo 7y ago
I would prefer it to be based on science, reason, and human rights. Any plan that relies on a "national surveillance system" needs revision.
- davidw 7y ago
  I have a right to know if I've come into contact with someone with COVID-19. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22753425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22753425 It's not 'surveillance' as in eavesdropping on all my calls and emails, it's contact tracing. And it should definitely all come with a 'self destruct' mechanism for when this is over.
  - stonogo 7y ago
    Your assertions about the manner of surveillance are not supported by the given documentation (and are implied to be incorrect in other parts of the document). If they are diligent about that 'self destruct' aspect, I would have a different opinion -- hence "needs revision" instead of a knee-jerk "needs rejection" attitude.

by davidw 7y ago

raphlinus 7y ago

Agreed. I've been following Scott Gottlieb for a while, he's one of the favorite experts on my Twitter list[1] (carefully curated to avoid political bias). We should be evaluating these kinds of proposals on the basis of competence, and they deliver. There seems to be a convergence of expert opinion around these kinds of proposals, see [2] for a quick survey. ("These two roadmaps are the same as all the others. Variations on a theme.") [1]: https://twitter.com/i/lists/1239639611694911489 https://twitter.com/i/lists/1239639611694911489 [2]: https://twitter.com/j_g_allen/status/1244371548410175501 https://twitter.com/j_g_allen/status/1244371548410175501

stonogo 7y ago

I would prefer it to be based on science, reason, and human rights. Any plan that relies on a "national surveillance system" needs revision.

davidw 7y ago
I have a right to know if I've come into contact with someone with COVID-19. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22753425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22753425 It's not 'surveillance' as in eavesdropping on all my calls and emails, it's contact tracing. And it should definitely all come with a 'self destruct' mechanism for when this is over.
- stonogo 7y ago
  Your assertions about the manner of surveillance are not supported by the given documentation (and are implied to be incorrect in other parts of the document). If they are diligent about that 'self destruct' aspect, I would have a different opinion -- hence "needs revision" instead of a knee-jerk "needs rejection" attitude.