4 ms·

I have acquaintances who work in this field, including bio sciences for CA state institutions and state public health in another blue state, and having heard so

I have acquaintances who work in this field, including bio sciences for CA state institutions and state public health in another blue state, and having heard some narration of internal conversations, I think it’s exceptionally presumptuous to claim that the kind of people who contribute to these decisions weren’t thinking about effectiveness and tradeoffs. I’ve seen some of the papers they were passing around about effectiveness of various restrictions. I’ve heard stories about internal conversations over economic concerns and pressures and secondary impacts. If your model of what was happening was action without consideration, then it’s badly wrong.

hodgesrm 5y ago
At the very least, the rationale behind some of the restrictions was poorly and (I think) in some cases dishonestly communicated. Outdoor dining, playground shutdowns, etc., come to mind. It's very hard to stand up and say for the good of all we're going to do things that will cause some of you to lose your businesses. So many politicians simple didn't. Moreover a number of the people making such decisions didn't follow their own rules. There are so many instances of this in particular that it's probably not necessary to cite them.
xyzzyz 5y ago
> I think it’s exceptionally presumptuous to claim that the kind of people who contribute to these decisions weren’t thinking about effectiveness and tradeoffs. I’ve seen some of the papers they were passing around about effectiveness of various restrictions. What were those papers? In fact, they had no data about effectiveness of many (if not most) of the restrictions when they passed them early last year. They had absolutely no data about economic cost either. > I’ve heard stories about internal conversations over economic concerns and pressures and secondary impacts. You make it seem like I should praise them for having conversations about economic concerns, as if it was some kind of going above and beyond, instead of barest of the bare minimums one would expect from government officials enacting highly disruptive policy by fiat.

hodgesrm 5y ago

At the very least, the rationale behind some of the restrictions was poorly and (I think) in some cases dishonestly communicated. Outdoor dining, playground shutdowns, etc., come to mind. It's very hard to stand up and say for the good of all we're going to do things that will cause some of you to lose your businesses. So many politicians simple didn't. Moreover a number of the people making such decisions didn't follow their own rules. There are so many instances of this in particular that it's probably not necessary to cite them.

xyzzyz 5y ago

> I think it’s exceptionally presumptuous to claim that the kind of people who contribute to these decisions weren’t thinking about effectiveness and tradeoffs. I’ve seen some of the papers they were passing around about effectiveness of various restrictions. What were those papers? In fact, they had no data about effectiveness of many (if not most) of the restrictions when they passed them early last year. They had absolutely no data about economic cost either. > I’ve heard stories about internal conversations over economic concerns and pressures and secondary impacts. You make it seem like I should praise them for having conversations about economic concerns, as if it was some kind of going above and beyond, instead of barest of the bare minimums one would expect from government officials enacting highly disruptive policy by fiat.