4 ms·

i believe this is not specific to social good, but instead is an implicit trait in human nature. an excellent piece was run by the wapo recently that examined t

by a-dub 6y ago

i believe this is not specific to social good, but instead is an implicit trait in human nature. an excellent piece was run by the wapo recently that examined this very issue within the us cdc in the early days of the pandemic. other countries turned around testing programs in short order based on the specific testing methodology distributed by the who, where the us cdc wasted 41 precious days trying to improve on it. where it gets interesting is trying to tease out where it went wrong. is it simple vanity? do people feel obligated to live up to some standard created by the environment they operate within? is good enough ignored in light of exceptionalism? where does that come from and how do you (and should you) dispel it? https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/cdc-covid/2020/12/25/c2b418ae-4206-11eb-8db8-395dedaaa036_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/cdc-covid/2020...

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
> is good enough ignored in light of exceptionalism? I think this is the larger issue. The FDA/CDC standards seem way too high, hindering provably useful solutions, and are actively harmful especially in the context of a fast-moving crisis. Watch Lex Fridman interview Michael Mina about cheap rapid testing that's not available because of regulatory roadblocks. It's an infuriating listen. But not only is it a very real substantive issue, it's a characteristic issue of the academic/expert institutional class. An obsession with the theoretical that ignores pragmatic reality. These are the experts that suggest a plan that requires 100% compliance and works against every human instinct. That's intelligent? It's a group of people divorced from the experience of average people. E.g. all these advisors forcing everyone into isolation but breaking the rules for themselves and their own family (look at Birx, Newsom, etc., the list is horrendously long).
- a-dub 6y ago
  i think the ivory tower argument is related but somewhat separate. i think in the cdc case, you have scientists of status who feel compelled to justify their status and in doing so they skipped over simpler solutions. in the OP case, you have people chasing status perhaps at the detriment to their stated goal. i think there may also be a flavor of this in the vaccine race. there are tried and proven vaccine technologies but it seems most of the attention is going to the more experimental (and difficult to deliver!) approach that has potential nobel prizes and wall st upside tied to it.

by a-dub 6y ago

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago

> is good enough ignored in light of exceptionalism? I think this is the larger issue. The FDA/CDC standards seem way too high, hindering provably useful solutions, and are actively harmful especially in the context of a fast-moving crisis. Watch Lex Fridman interview Michael Mina about cheap rapid testing that's not available because of regulatory roadblocks. It's an infuriating listen. But not only is it a very real substantive issue, it's a characteristic issue of the academic/expert institutional class. An obsession with the theoretical that ignores pragmatic reality. These are the experts that suggest a plan that requires 100% compliance and works against every human instinct. That's intelligent? It's a group of people divorced from the experience of average people. E.g. all these advisors forcing everyone into isolation but breaking the rules for themselves and their own family (look at Birx, Newsom, etc., the list is horrendously long).

a-dub 6y ago
i think the ivory tower argument is related but somewhat separate. i think in the cdc case, you have scientists of status who feel compelled to justify their status and in doing so they skipped over simpler solutions. in the OP case, you have people chasing status perhaps at the detriment to their stated goal. i think there may also be a flavor of this in the vaccine race. there are tried and proven vaccine technologies but it seems most of the attention is going to the more experimental (and difficult to deliver!) approach that has potential nobel prizes and wall st upside tied to it.