3 ms·

No one ever admits they were wrong anymore. They just say "decisions are complex". It's complicated.

abeppu 4y ago
I think with complex policy questions, we have to draw finer distinctions than "were you wrong?" - did you make a reasonable decision with the information available at the time, but later evidence showed that another decision would likely have had better outcomes? - did you make a poor decision which missed or disregarded information available when you made the choice? - did you make a choice which was appropriate for your declared aims at the time, but now priorities have changed? These decisions _are_ complex. That doesn't mean we can't find fault and demand improvement. But I think it's not constructive to merely highlight the negative outcomes; we have to find better processes which would make smarter choices next time.
- darkerside 4y ago
  All of those outcomes should start with the admission that, you were wrong. Then you can start the discussion about why.
- willcipriano 4y ago
  Expert opinion isn't very valuable with an out like that. Sure make recommendations, but if you want to use the force of law (ultimately a man with a gun) someone needs to be held to account when it turns out you were wrong.
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    Definitely, if you made a poor decision which missed or disregarded information available when you made the choice, you should be held accountable. If you made a trade-off that folks of a certain political persuasion believe was the wrong trade-off, but most people and most qualified experts believe was a reasonable trade-off? That's the job.
    - willcipriano 4y ago
      The experts can't be the ones to decide if the cure was worse than the disease or not for the same reason we can't have the police decide if a shooting was justified. Leadership is about responsibility, really the experts shouldn't be able to use the force of law at all, that should be left to politicians who can be voted out.
      - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
        > The experts can't be the ones to decide a minority of laymen who started with a conclusion and have yet to make a convincing case for it to either the experts OR the majority of americans, can't be the ones to decide, for the same reason we can't have them decide if a shooting is justified. not sure why people qualified to do so, like public health experts and the politicians briefed by them who the people elected, can't be, though.
        willcipriano 4y ago
        Who said anything about a minority of laymen? Imagine 5 years from now we learn that the vaccine was a clear net negative for certain populations that were forced to take it. It doesn't really matter if the experts were "acting on the best available evidence" or whatever excuse they want to make, they removed the choice from a group of people, when you remove choice you are responsible for the outcome.
        ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
        > Who said anything about a minority of laymen? the opposite of an expert is a layman. Neither a majority of experts, nor a majority of laymen, have, after analyzing the issue as you have, come to the same conclusion you have, that the trade off decisions showed bad judgement > It doesn't really matter if the experts were "acting on the best available evidence" is this just you stating your opinion, or do you have a compelling argument to convince a majority of americans that they should also believe this?
TimPC 4y ago
But it’s not the same thing. I think lockdowns were clearly on the balance correct and in my province we on two occasions emerged from lockdown too soon causing a number of health complications. We also ended masking too soon and have made society basically unliveable for anyone who is immunocompromised given their heightened risk since most of the mask protection comes from other people’s masks not their own. It’s downright shameful that we are throwing away people’s lives for minor inconveniences. Almost every immunocompromised kid in the province is back in online schooling while many of them attended schools during mandatory masking. They are getting all the negatives that we were concerned about for everyone with school closures but suddenly that’s less important than freedom from masks. Good societies protect their most vulnerable and we instead choose to intentionally throw them under the bus for very minor conveniences.
- cf141q5325 4y ago
  >Since most of the mask protection comes from other people’s masks not their own. Thats a bit outdated information. Yes, some cloth mask doesnt protect you. A correctly worn N95 however does offer a ~99%+ protection against contracting COVID. Once they are available in enough numbers to go to non medicinal personal as well, which they have been for years at this point, personal protection does absolutely work.

I think with complex policy questions, we have to draw finer distinctions than "were you wrong?" - did you make a reasonable decision with the information available at the time, but later evidence showed that another decision would likely have had better outcomes? - did you make a poor decision which missed or disregarded information available when you made the choice? - did you make a choice which was appropriate for your declared aims at the time, but now priorities have changed? These decisions _are_ complex. That doesn't mean we can't find fault and demand improvement. But I think it's not constructive to merely highlight the negative outcomes; we have to find better processes which would make smarter choices next time.

darkerside 4y ago
All of those outcomes should start with the admission that, you were wrong. Then you can start the discussion about why.
willcipriano 4y ago
Expert opinion isn't very valuable with an out like that. Sure make recommendations, but if you want to use the force of law (ultimately a man with a gun) someone needs to be held to account when it turns out you were wrong.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  Definitely, if you made a poor decision which missed or disregarded information available when you made the choice, you should be held accountable. If you made a trade-off that folks of a certain political persuasion believe was the wrong trade-off, but most people and most qualified experts believe was a reasonable trade-off? That's the job.
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    The experts can't be the ones to decide if the cure was worse than the disease or not for the same reason we can't have the police decide if a shooting was justified. Leadership is about responsibility, really the experts shouldn't be able to use the force of law at all, that should be left to politicians who can be voted out.
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
      > The experts can't be the ones to decide a minority of laymen who started with a conclusion and have yet to make a convincing case for it to either the experts OR the majority of americans, can't be the ones to decide, for the same reason we can't have them decide if a shooting is justified. not sure why people qualified to do so, like public health experts and the politicians briefed by them who the people elected, can't be, though.
      - willcipriano 4y ago
        Who said anything about a minority of laymen? Imagine 5 years from now we learn that the vaccine was a clear net negative for certain populations that were forced to take it. It doesn't really matter if the experts were "acting on the best available evidence" or whatever excuse they want to make, they removed the choice from a group of people, when you remove choice you are responsible for the outcome.
        ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
        > Who said anything about a minority of laymen? the opposite of an expert is a layman. Neither a majority of experts, nor a majority of laymen, have, after analyzing the issue as you have, come to the same conclusion you have, that the trade off decisions showed bad judgement > It doesn't really matter if the experts were "acting on the best available evidence" is this just you stating your opinion, or do you have a compelling argument to convince a majority of americans that they should also believe this?

TimPC 4y ago

But it’s not the same thing. I think lockdowns were clearly on the balance correct and in my province we on two occasions emerged from lockdown too soon causing a number of health complications. We also ended masking too soon and have made society basically unliveable for anyone who is immunocompromised given their heightened risk since most of the mask protection comes from other people’s masks not their own. It’s downright shameful that we are throwing away people’s lives for minor inconveniences. Almost every immunocompromised kid in the province is back in online schooling while many of them attended schools during mandatory masking. They are getting all the negatives that we were concerned about for everyone with school closures but suddenly that’s less important than freedom from masks. Good societies protect their most vulnerable and we instead choose to intentionally throw them under the bus for very minor conveniences.

cf141q5325 4y ago
>Since most of the mask protection comes from other people’s masks not their own. Thats a bit outdated information. Yes, some cloth mask doesnt protect you. A correctly worn N95 however does offer a ~99%+ protection against contracting COVID. Once they are available in enough numbers to go to non medicinal personal as well, which they have been for years at this point, personal protection does absolutely work.