14 ms·

This is the most contrived apology for incompetence that I have read. I am quite amazed. It would be different if we had never before experienced a pandemic. I

This is the most contrived apology for incompetence that I have read. I am quite amazed. It would be different if we had never before experienced a pandemic. It would be different if we did not have the examples of countries and cultures with effective implementation of testing at scale while we did nothing. This defense of inaction is like leaving potholes alone because doing the obvious thing might cause harm somehow.

slibhb 6y ago
I'm arguing for a distinction between being wrong and failure. I don't see anything from you (or the other poster) besides rhetoric. Apparently we should have "just known" that this virus was going to be a disaster. And evidence of this was "I knew" or "other countries knew". Great, and half of HN "knows" there is imminent hyperinflation. It may be fair to describe the lack of available tests a failure. All the PCR testing sites near me were 100% booked whenever I checked and the state did nothing (as far as I know) to tell us where we could get tested. Perhaps that could be described as a failure. But the rhetoric from you and the other poster is post-hoc silliness. Neither of you seem to be aware that you're expecting the government to tell the future or what the drawbacks of that might be. For a taste, consider that citizens blaming the government for 9/11 plausibly led to a years-long illegal wire-tapping and at least one clearly unnecessary war.
- mcculley 6y ago
  "post-hoc silliness"? In March, we had seen what had happened in China and Italy already. We were watching how other countries were investing. We chose not to invest. When a government fails to do something about an entirely predictable outcome, that is not just an error, it is also a failure. You have a really surprising way to view things: All governments can be excused for inaction or even the wrong action with this logic.
  - slibhb 6y ago
    Not excused but forgiven.

slibhb 6y ago

I'm arguing for a distinction between being wrong and failure. I don't see anything from you (or the other poster) besides rhetoric. Apparently we should have "just known" that this virus was going to be a disaster. And evidence of this was "I knew" or "other countries knew". Great, and half of HN "knows" there is imminent hyperinflation. It may be fair to describe the lack of available tests a failure. All the PCR testing sites near me were 100% booked whenever I checked and the state did nothing (as far as I know) to tell us where we could get tested. Perhaps that could be described as a failure. But the rhetoric from you and the other poster is post-hoc silliness. Neither of you seem to be aware that you're expecting the government to tell the future or what the drawbacks of that might be. For a taste, consider that citizens blaming the government for 9/11 plausibly led to a years-long illegal wire-tapping and at least one clearly unnecessary war.

mcculley 6y ago
"post-hoc silliness"? In March, we had seen what had happened in China and Italy already. We were watching how other countries were investing. We chose not to invest. When a government fails to do something about an entirely predictable outcome, that is not just an error, it is also a failure. You have a really surprising way to view things: All governments can be excused for inaction or even the wrong action with this logic.
- slibhb 6y ago
  Not excused but forgiven.