3 ms·

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 just

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?
    - willcipriano 4y ago
      > come to the same conclusion you have, that the trade off decisions showed bad judgement Where do I argue that? It's going to be years until we understand if the effects were net positive or negative. The positive effects are much more immediate, we have a generation of kids that how to grow up now to see how their development was impacted for example. > 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? This is how leadership has worked for four thousand years. You can find elements of what I am saying in the Code of Hammurabi, The Art of War, as well as the Magna Carta. If a general orders his men to run into a minefield, even if he doesn't know that it is one, even if he uses the best available evidence, he is responsible for their deaths because he gave the order. That's the reason we play hail to the chief when the president walks into a room, that's why he gets to eat fancy dinners and hobnob with celebrities, that is the reward for the great risk you take for being responsible. Leaders eat first because they take responsibility, to have leaders who only take authority is unworkable, it is tyranny manifest.
      - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
        > Where do I argue that? when you argued with this: > 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. If you believe that it's not for a majority of experts to decide, or for a majority of laymen to decide, or for a majority of americans to decide, then who do you think should make the decision? >It's going to be years until we understand if the effects were net positive or negative. sure, and as soon as a majority of experts, maybe even of Americans, believe that the trade-off showed poor judgment, then we can talk about it as if it did >This is how leadership has worked for four thousand years. this is not how people believe leadership works in the US at least, where people (not you personally, clearly) judge based on the circumstances present at the time of the action being judged, not at the time of judgement most people understand that the CDC is a normal org like any other, or indeed, like any normal person, which tries its best to do what it can with what it has, and aren't expected to be able to predict the future

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?
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    > come to the same conclusion you have, that the trade off decisions showed bad judgement Where do I argue that? It's going to be years until we understand if the effects were net positive or negative. The positive effects are much more immediate, we have a generation of kids that how to grow up now to see how their development was impacted for example. > 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? This is how leadership has worked for four thousand years. You can find elements of what I am saying in the Code of Hammurabi, The Art of War, as well as the Magna Carta. If a general orders his men to run into a minefield, even if he doesn't know that it is one, even if he uses the best available evidence, he is responsible for their deaths because he gave the order. That's the reason we play hail to the chief when the president walks into a room, that's why he gets to eat fancy dinners and hobnob with celebrities, that is the reward for the great risk you take for being responsible. Leaders eat first because they take responsibility, to have leaders who only take authority is unworkable, it is tyranny manifest.
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
      > Where do I argue that? when you argued with this: > 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. If you believe that it's not for a majority of experts to decide, or for a majority of laymen to decide, or for a majority of americans to decide, then who do you think should make the decision? >It's going to be years until we understand if the effects were net positive or negative. sure, and as soon as a majority of experts, maybe even of Americans, believe that the trade-off showed poor judgment, then we can talk about it as if it did >This is how leadership has worked for four thousand years. this is not how people believe leadership works in the US at least, where people (not you personally, clearly) judge based on the circumstances present at the time of the action being judged, not at the time of judgement most people understand that the CDC is a normal org like any other, or indeed, like any normal person, which tries its best to do what it can with what it has, and aren't expected to be able to predict the future