4 ms·

> 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 o

by 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?

by creato 7y ago

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?