4 ms·

Ok then, why is it bad to prioritize healthcare workers, who put their lives on the line in the face of a new unknown disease? That was only for a very short wh

by c-cube 5y ago

Ok then, why is it bad to prioritize healthcare workers, who put their lives on the line in the face of a new unknown disease? That was only for a very short while. I think the behavior of people rushing to buy toilet paper shows that, indeed, had the CDC promoted masks at that point, it would have prevented nurses and doctors from getting the most basic protection while exposing themselves to infection to an incomparable degree.

colechristensen 5y ago
It's not bad to prioritize healthcare workers, there are plenty of levers the CDC and governments have to do so. It is bad to prioritize healthcare workers by sculpting messages i.e. manipulating the population. A message for Feb 2020: "Masks will likely help curb infection for you and transmission for others, masks are most important for healthcare workers and the medically vulnerable, wearing them when you're around people is a good idea, but we need to make sure they get into the hands of people who need them most first"
- c-cube 5y ago
  I agree on principle. But in practice it'd have led to a massive shortage and more dead nurses / doctors. Panic buying is a terrible thing.
  - FeepingCreature 5y ago
    If you agree only in principle but not in practice, then you don't agree in principle. Principles are for practicing. Either we take lying off the table or we don't. Fiat justitia etc.
  - tqi 5y ago
    They essentially decided to borrow against future trust in order to achieve a desired near term outcome. That may have been the option which led to the fewest deaths, or maybe vaccination rates would be ?% higher if they hadn't undermined their own credibility. It was (and still is) impossible to know, but I don't think thats the kind of call we want scientists to be making.
    - toolz 5y ago
      If lies slow down the progress of society and progress continues curing disease and saving lives - there isn't an argument as to whether you save move lives, obviously you save more lives with trust if we agree on the axioms that trust is necessary for progress and that progress will increasingly save lives over time.

by c-cube 5y ago

colechristensen 5y ago

It's not bad to prioritize healthcare workers, there are plenty of levers the CDC and governments have to do so. It is bad to prioritize healthcare workers by sculpting messages i.e. manipulating the population. A message for Feb 2020: "Masks will likely help curb infection for you and transmission for others, masks are most important for healthcare workers and the medically vulnerable, wearing them when you're around people is a good idea, but we need to make sure they get into the hands of people who need them most first"

c-cube 5y ago
I agree on principle. But in practice it'd have led to a massive shortage and more dead nurses / doctors. Panic buying is a terrible thing.
- FeepingCreature 5y ago
  If you agree only in principle but not in practice, then you don't agree in principle. Principles are for practicing. Either we take lying off the table or we don't. Fiat justitia etc.
- tqi 5y ago
  They essentially decided to borrow against future trust in order to achieve a desired near term outcome. That may have been the option which led to the fewest deaths, or maybe vaccination rates would be ?% higher if they hadn't undermined their own credibility. It was (and still is) impossible to know, but I don't think thats the kind of call we want scientists to be making.
  - toolz 5y ago
    If lies slow down the progress of society and progress continues curing disease and saving lives - there isn't an argument as to whether you save move lives, obviously you save more lives with trust if we agree on the axioms that trust is necessary for progress and that progress will increasingly save lives over time.