3 ms·

Does the post claim that the NYT article was based on his work? The timing doesn't make sense unless he was working with the journalist before she published and

Does the post claim that the NYT article was based on his work? The timing doesn't make sense unless he was working with the journalist before she published and I didn't see that claim. I would also say he's over-exaggerating the impact of the NYT article, but I don't have any more proof than he does. I've been following Japanese news and didn't really see any splash based on something in the western press. There were plenty of pessimistic predictions and calls for stricter measures inside Japan long before that article or the white paper. Saying that the white paper led to the NYT article which led to Japan's lockdown is incredibly western/English-centric and ignorant of the actual forces at play inside the country in their native language, press, public opinion, and organizations.

timerol 7y ago
No, it doesn't say that the NYT article was based on the work of the Working Group. It would have significantly clarified the post to say whether the NYT article writer did or did not use the memo to help inform the article. It does say that someone "suggested that I leverage a news organization." And that "This implied a publication deadline of Thursday." Thursday happens to be the day that the NYT published their article, but it was also the day that Dr. Cowen put a blurb on Marginal Revolution. Isn't it odd that the most critical piece of information in the article is left out? I wonder why someone worried about the fallout of an article wouldn't specify the most important piece of information that the article might contain? > Saying that the white paper led to the NYT article which led to Japan's lockdown is incredibly western/English-centric and ignorant of the actual forces at play inside the country in their native language, press, public opinion, and organizations. You're totally right here. Good thing that Patrick did not write or imply this. I'm very glad that its just HN commenters that think this.
tptacek 7y ago
This is not an interesting or persuasive argument. It's premised on the idea that I should just assume that the Japanese government had this situation well in hand, because it is well-staffed with experts. My own country is also well-staffed with experts, and we've shut our economy down for lack of test kits while rationing PPE at hospitals; we botched our response in a variety of ways. Japan's outlier status has been a subject of commentary for weeks, and only now --- weeks after Patrick's precommitment --- is Japan acknowledging the gap between that reported status and reality. I am certainly ignorant of the actual forces at play inside Japan. Patrick is not; he has lived there his entire adult life, starting with years as a salaryman. He is at pains to try to explain the dynamics of what's happening in Japan in the post we're commenting on.

timerol 7y ago

No, it doesn't say that the NYT article was based on the work of the Working Group. It would have significantly clarified the post to say whether the NYT article writer did or did not use the memo to help inform the article. It does say that someone "suggested that I leverage a news organization." And that "This implied a publication deadline of Thursday." Thursday happens to be the day that the NYT published their article, but it was also the day that Dr. Cowen put a blurb on Marginal Revolution. Isn't it odd that the most critical piece of information in the article is left out? I wonder why someone worried about the fallout of an article wouldn't specify the most important piece of information that the article might contain? > Saying that the white paper led to the NYT article which led to Japan's lockdown is incredibly western/English-centric and ignorant of the actual forces at play inside the country in their native language, press, public opinion, and organizations. You're totally right here. Good thing that Patrick did not write or imply this. I'm very glad that its just HN commenters that think this.

tptacek 7y ago

This is not an interesting or persuasive argument. It's premised on the idea that I should just assume that the Japanese government had this situation well in hand, because it is well-staffed with experts. My own country is also well-staffed with experts, and we've shut our economy down for lack of test kits while rationing PPE at hospitals; we botched our response in a variety of ways. Japan's outlier status has been a subject of commentary for weeks, and only now --- weeks after Patrick's precommitment --- is Japan acknowledging the gap between that reported status and reality. I am certainly ignorant of the actual forces at play inside Japan. Patrick is not; he has lived there his entire adult life, starting with years as a salaryman. He is at pains to try to explain the dynamics of what's happening in Japan in the post we're commenting on.