11 ms·

Here is what an expert in the field said, in my reference: „When we think about the relative danger of this new coronavirus and influenza, there’s just no comp

Here is what an expert in the field said, in my reference: „When we think about the relative danger of this new coronavirus and influenza, there’s just no comparison,“ William Schaffner, a vaccine expert at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, told Kaiser Health News (KHN). „Coronavirus will be a blip on the horizon in comparison. The risk is trivial.“ I guess we can both agree it turned out not to be that small of a blip. > "Experts" tend to hedge and use inconclusive language, because that is correct. Well, clearly not all of them used inconclusive language. Furthermore, if your "expert opinion" is inconclusive and hedged against all possibilities, it may be honest, it may be correct, but it is also useless. Anybody with literally zero expertise on the topic could've told you that "Coronavirus is bad, but at this point in time we don't have a clue what is going on, nor do we know what is going to happen, so let's do nothing for now". That is, of course, paraphrasing the CDC and its experts.

Retric 7y ago
Again you’re misinterpreting what was said, an incoming ICBM is a blip on the horizon. At the time it was a potential threat, which could become very real very quickly. Part of that was splitting up the actual quote into multiple pieces without the correct context, but that’s on the reporter not the expert.
creato 7y ago
> Coronavirus is bad, but at this point in time we don't have a clue what is going on, nor do we know what is going to happen Yes, that was probably the only objectively correct thing to say at the time. At the time, this seemed like it could have still ended up like SARS v1. If they advised drastic measures at the time, people similar to you would have crucified them as alarmist and disregarded any advice they may have had. I think that we actually took the maximum response possible politically regardless of what experts may have said. Even now, there are large contingents of people, including political leaders who think we are overreacting, and the US response wasn't that different from most of the world in timing or severity. > so let's do nothing for now They didn't say that. I doubt they would call something a "serious public health concern" and recommend doing nothing.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > Yes, that was probably the only objectively correct thing to say at the time. Maybe, but had they been less objectively correct and worked based on unproven assumptions, harm could've been prevented. > If they advised drastic measures at the time, people similar to you would have crucified them as alarmist and disregarded any advice they may have had. Agreed, but that doesn't change the fact that it would've still been the right call. They would've been vindicated very soon after. As it stands, the experts made the wrong call. I don't fault them for it at all. I'm just pointing it out as an example that sometimes even the experts get it wrong and therefore being suspicious of expert opinion is always warranted. > I doubt they would call something a "serious public health concern" and recommend doing nothing. Well yes, that's me being sarcastic. They didn't explicitly recommend to do nothing, but they didn't recommend to do anything either. So that's what was done. Nothing. Same difference, perhaps?

Retric 7y ago

Again you’re misinterpreting what was said, an incoming ICBM is a blip on the horizon. At the time it was a potential threat, which could become very real very quickly. Part of that was splitting up the actual quote into multiple pieces without the correct context, but that’s on the reporter not the expert.

creato 7y ago

> Coronavirus is bad, but at this point in time we don't have a clue what is going on, nor do we know what is going to happen Yes, that was probably the only objectively correct thing to say at the time. At the time, this seemed like it could have still ended up like SARS v1. If they advised drastic measures at the time, people similar to you would have crucified them as alarmist and disregarded any advice they may have had. I think that we actually took the maximum response possible politically regardless of what experts may have said. Even now, there are large contingents of people, including political leaders who think we are overreacting, and the US response wasn't that different from most of the world in timing or severity. > so let's do nothing for now They didn't say that. I doubt they would call something a "serious public health concern" and recommend doing nothing.

gridlockd 7y ago
> Yes, that was probably the only objectively correct thing to say at the time. Maybe, but had they been less objectively correct and worked based on unproven assumptions, harm could've been prevented. > If they advised drastic measures at the time, people similar to you would have crucified them as alarmist and disregarded any advice they may have had. Agreed, but that doesn't change the fact that it would've still been the right call. They would've been vindicated very soon after. As it stands, the experts made the wrong call. I don't fault them for it at all. I'm just pointing it out as an example that sometimes even the experts get it wrong and therefore being suspicious of expert opinion is always warranted. > I doubt they would call something a "serious public health concern" and recommend doing nothing. Well yes, that's me being sarcastic. They didn't explicitly recommend to do nothing, but they didn't recommend to do anything either. So that's what was done. Nothing. Same difference, perhaps?