9 ms·

> They made it clear after the fact that this was done because there wasn't an adequate supply of masks for 330M people, and they needed to secure a supply for

> They made it clear after the fact that this was done because there wasn't an adequate supply of masks for 330M people, and they needed to secure a supply for first responders. That's still lying. They gave you, the individual, false information, and not for your own good. Quite the contrary, that misinformation would actually harm you if you believed it. Do you really not see how destructive this was? Do you really expect people to not only forgive but most importantly forget this lie, just because they "made it clear after the fact"? How were you supposed to know they're not lying, again, about the vaccines and their safety? I'm no American but it was the exactly the same here in Germany, with exactly the same consequences. It really baffles me when now government officials whine about people not trusting them, anymore.

arcticbull 4y ago
> That's still lying. They gave you, the individual, false information, ... Yes it was lying. Yes it was false information. No, that's not outside the scope of their role at times. > ... and not for your own good. Quite the contrary, that misinformation would actually harm you if you believed it. No, it was for the individual good. Hoarding of masks by randos in the middle of nowhere leading to no supply for the first responders in hospital puts you, the individual, at greater risk. If all the hospital staff have COVID and no ability to stop transmission within hospital because Bob the Prepper has filled his underground HEPA filtered bunker with masks, yes, that puts you at risk. You can weigh the trade-offs but your statement that there was no other way of viewing the situation is simply wrong. > Do you really not see how destructive this was? Do you really expect people to not only forgive but most importantly forget this lie, just because they "made it clear after the fact"? How were you supposed to know they're not lying, again, about the vaccines and their safety? Again, a crap situation, but one that the CDC wasn't responsible for. It was their job to mitigate to the best of their abilities. Tough times call for tough decisions. We know how groups react, we knew what people would have done. I'm pissed the stockpiles were allowed to run low, and I'm happy the first-responders were prioritized as I believe this gave everyone the best chance. > It really baffles me when now government officials whine about people not trusting them, anymore. It doesn't surprise me, but that doesn't mean it was the wrong choice at the time given what we knew. [edit] They had an optimization problem: basically nobody in the population had COVID at the time, but those who did were likely to end up in hospital. Spreading out the limited masks over a population where almost nobody had it put far more people at risk than concentrating the supply in hospitals where far more people had it. This isn't rocket science. People were hoarding pasta at the time, and you think people were going to make good decisions about masks? The first casualty of War is Truth as they say.
- causi 4y ago
  Yes it was lying. Yes it was false information. No, that's not outside the scope of their role at times. Lying to people about their personal health for the greater good of society gets you the Tuskegee Experiment.
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    Completely different, sorry, and a wildly disingenuous comparison. There was no public health crisis at the time that required this, let alone to run it for 40 years. Let's keep to intellectually honest discourse and avoid hyperbole shall we? This is a contentious enough topic as is.
    - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
      > wildly disingenuous comparison No, it is not. The parallels are there so strikingly.
      - arcticbull 4y ago
        The only similarity is an authority figure said something untrue. By that measure the NORAD Santa tracker is "like Tuskegee." Shades of grey exist and context matters. The world is not black and white and that isn't comfortable. However the point of delegating authority is to make difficult decisions with imperfect information in challenging circumstances that don't make sense at an individual level. Not to mention the commenter who even made that comparison seems to have no idea what Tuskegee was actually known for (as they make no mention of the racial animus inherent in the 'study' if you can even call it that). It's wild to me that someone would make that comparison with the benefit of Wikipedia in this the year of our lord 2022.
    - causi 4y ago
      Both were public health officials lying to citizens about the effectiveness of particular actions in protecting their own health. The Tuskegee Experiment directly damaged the health of 458 people and killed 128 of them. The CDC lying about masks put the health of 330 million people at risk and killed...who knows? Maybe it saved more than it killed, but it did kill people. And that's the thing. The CDC didn't come out and say "we lied to you but the ends justified the means; killing some of you was worth saving more of you". They just tried to pretend it never happened, or alternatively that nobody could possibly have any idea that face masks could help you not infect your neighbors. Primum non nocere
shaky-carrousel 4y ago
They did the same in Spain. And it is very very hard not to fall for conspiracy theories when essentially all the west governments simultaneously lied about the face masks effectiveness.
- iamacyborg 4y ago
  Why fall into conspiracies when the pragmatic answer is the more logical one?
  - jeltz 4y ago
    No clue, but many people do.
  - 4bpp 4y ago
    What is the pragmatic and non-conspiracy answer you are imagining? As I understand it, a group of people coordinating in secret to take actions that the public would not let them take if the secrecy were broken is pretty much the definition of a conspiracy.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      This abuses the word conspiracy theory, which implies a malevolent plan (at least in the common use of the word) as opposed to a benevolent plan. Your argument is incredibly disingenuous.
      - 4bpp 4y ago
        A conspiracy whose conspirators believe they are doing a morally good thing is still a conspiracy. In fact, in one or another way this is probably the case for most conspiracies - as they say, nobody is the villain of their own story. Does it make a difference if some people outside of the conspiring circle agree with the conspirators that their cause is righteous? I don't see why, and it's not like everyone or even an overwhelming majority agrees - otherwise there would be no need to conspire.

arcticbull 4y ago

> That's still lying. They gave you, the individual, false information, ... Yes it was lying. Yes it was false information. No, that's not outside the scope of their role at times. > ... and not for your own good. Quite the contrary, that misinformation would actually harm you if you believed it. No, it was for the individual good. Hoarding of masks by randos in the middle of nowhere leading to no supply for the first responders in hospital puts you, the individual, at greater risk. If all the hospital staff have COVID and no ability to stop transmission within hospital because Bob the Prepper has filled his underground HEPA filtered bunker with masks, yes, that puts you at risk. You can weigh the trade-offs but your statement that there was no other way of viewing the situation is simply wrong. > Do you really not see how destructive this was? Do you really expect people to not only forgive but most importantly forget this lie, just because they "made it clear after the fact"? How were you supposed to know they're not lying, again, about the vaccines and their safety? Again, a crap situation, but one that the CDC wasn't responsible for. It was their job to mitigate to the best of their abilities. Tough times call for tough decisions. We know how groups react, we knew what people would have done. I'm pissed the stockpiles were allowed to run low, and I'm happy the first-responders were prioritized as I believe this gave everyone the best chance. > It really baffles me when now government officials whine about people not trusting them, anymore. It doesn't surprise me, but that doesn't mean it was the wrong choice at the time given what we knew. [edit] They had an optimization problem: basically nobody in the population had COVID at the time, but those who did were likely to end up in hospital. Spreading out the limited masks over a population where almost nobody had it put far more people at risk than concentrating the supply in hospitals where far more people had it. This isn't rocket science. People were hoarding pasta at the time, and you think people were going to make good decisions about masks? The first casualty of War is Truth as they say.

causi 4y ago
Yes it was lying. Yes it was false information. No, that's not outside the scope of their role at times. Lying to people about their personal health for the greater good of society gets you the Tuskegee Experiment.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  Completely different, sorry, and a wildly disingenuous comparison. There was no public health crisis at the time that required this, let alone to run it for 40 years. Let's keep to intellectually honest discourse and avoid hyperbole shall we? This is a contentious enough topic as is.
  - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
    > wildly disingenuous comparison No, it is not. The parallels are there so strikingly.
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      The only similarity is an authority figure said something untrue. By that measure the NORAD Santa tracker is "like Tuskegee." Shades of grey exist and context matters. The world is not black and white and that isn't comfortable. However the point of delegating authority is to make difficult decisions with imperfect information in challenging circumstances that don't make sense at an individual level. Not to mention the commenter who even made that comparison seems to have no idea what Tuskegee was actually known for (as they make no mention of the racial animus inherent in the 'study' if you can even call it that). It's wild to me that someone would make that comparison with the benefit of Wikipedia in this the year of our lord 2022.
  - causi 4y ago
    Both were public health officials lying to citizens about the effectiveness of particular actions in protecting their own health. The Tuskegee Experiment directly damaged the health of 458 people and killed 128 of them. The CDC lying about masks put the health of 330 million people at risk and killed...who knows? Maybe it saved more than it killed, but it did kill people. And that's the thing. The CDC didn't come out and say "we lied to you but the ends justified the means; killing some of you was worth saving more of you". They just tried to pretend it never happened, or alternatively that nobody could possibly have any idea that face masks could help you not infect your neighbors. Primum non nocere

shaky-carrousel 4y ago

They did the same in Spain. And it is very very hard not to fall for conspiracy theories when essentially all the west governments simultaneously lied about the face masks effectiveness.

iamacyborg 4y ago
Why fall into conspiracies when the pragmatic answer is the more logical one?
- jeltz 4y ago
  No clue, but many people do.
- 4bpp 4y ago
  What is the pragmatic and non-conspiracy answer you are imagining? As I understand it, a group of people coordinating in secret to take actions that the public would not let them take if the secrecy were broken is pretty much the definition of a conspiracy.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    This abuses the word conspiracy theory, which implies a malevolent plan (at least in the common use of the word) as opposed to a benevolent plan. Your argument is incredibly disingenuous.
    - 4bpp 4y ago
      A conspiracy whose conspirators believe they are doing a morally good thing is still a conspiracy. In fact, in one or another way this is probably the case for most conspiracies - as they say, nobody is the villain of their own story. Does it make a difference if some people outside of the conspiring circle agree with the conspirators that their cause is righteous? I don't see why, and it's not like everyone or even an overwhelming majority agrees - otherwise there would be no need to conspire.