5 ms·

>The job of the government is to make tough decisions like this in times of crisis. You can agree or disagree but this was neither malicious nor in my opinion o

by slg 4y ago

>The job of the government is to make tough decisions like this in times of crisis. You can agree or disagree but this was neither malicious nor in my opinion outside the scope of the role. I understand how dangerous it is for the government to lie, but what do people think would have been the proper approach here? Do we not remember what it was like during the early pandemic and all the hoarding that was going on? Did we forget how hospitals and retirement homes were using garbage bags and scuba equipment as PPE? Sometimes all the choices are bad. The choice to put the safety of medical professionals fighting the pandemic head on above the safety of the general citizenry seems like the least bad option. Because if the medical system collapsed, which seemed like a real possibility at the time, that would put the general citizenry in even more danger.

int_19h 4y ago
The proper approach would have been to pass emergency legislation establishing mask rationing and distribution. If need be, confiscate the entire existing supply and direct it to the hospitals. But don't lie about it.
- slg 4y ago
  Is confiscating privately owned safety equipment the more democratic and libertarian approach than trying to convince people they shouldn't buy that equipment in the first place? That seems way more dystopian to me.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    "Trying to convince people" implies a good faith approach - i.e. being open about what you want and why. Lying to people that masks are no good is not "convincing" them to not buy masks - it's misleading them to do so. And yes, I think that between lying to literally everybody, and confiscating the property of some companies, the latter is much preferable from a democratic perspective. Indeed, it's just eminent domain, for which there's explicit provisions in constitution and/or laws of most (all?) democratic countries. And since it's done openly, if citizens are unhappy about it, they can always punish the politicians who did so in the next elections; but you can't do that to unelected bureaucrats and private actors, and especially not if they conceal what they're doing.
    - causi 4y ago
      Indeed. How many people saw the CDC lied about masks and then poisoned themselves because they thought the CDC was lying about ivermectin or hydrochloroquine? After she caught covid it took me days to convince my grandmother to stop taking ivermectin.
      - astrange 4y ago
        That might’ve worked if she had a worm infection. People who take ivermectin to treat worm infections have better health outcomes for covid, the cause being that worms are bad for you.
      - ETH_start 4y ago
        Ivermectin is used on billions of people and proven quite safe.
        causi 4y ago
        Taking a drug that gave her intense and persistent diarrhea is not safe for an eighty year old who already had trouble staying hydrated.
        ETH_start 4y ago
        It's not pleasant but it is generally considered to be safe in normal doses. To give you an idea of how ubiquitous its use is, it is used on 3 day old kittens and they're always fine. Then again, each patient is different and no one knows her better than her family, and if they feel it poses a risk, that's fair enough. Quality of life is also important, and her experience sounds unpleasant, so your concern is justified regardless.
    - slg 4y ago
      I don't know, I think eminent domain is in the Constitution because the founders knew that was an extremely dangerous power of the government to just take things by force from the populous. There is no Constitutional requirement that our leaders, elected or not, have to be truthful with us 100% of the time. It is the difference between action and speech. Action is generally more dangerous. It is a little weird to me that in this discussion of the dangers of the government limiting speech, some people are more fearful of the government's speech than the government's action. It is a lot easier to simply ignore what the government says than try to hold on to my property when the men with guns come knocking at my door.
  - evandale 4y ago
    Yes, confiscating privately owned equipment and telling people you need them in hospitals is better than lying to people and telling them their equipment doesn't work because secretly they need them for hospitals. I don't know why you think that's more dystopian.
    - slg 4y ago
      The government coming to my home and demanding I hand over my private property that the government tells me is vital for protecting my health during a pandemic is pretty dystopian. If you believe that the government lying to us is dystopian, then we have always lived in a dystopia.
      - evandale 4y ago
        I live in Canada where they do this already based on how scary a gun looks (rather than their functionality) so maybe that's why I find it more palatable than being lied to.
      - int_19h 4y ago
        Nobody suggested that the government come to your home. If somebody already has a stash of masks, let them have it. I was talking about the masks that were in the warehouses (or en route to them).
causi 4y ago
what do people think would have been the proper approach here Tell us the truth. "N95s should be reserved for medical personnel but surgical masks provide nominal protection for yourself and significant protection for others you might infect." People realizing the CDC can and will lie to them has already been and will be far into the future responsible for countless deaths. Not only that, it makes us question what else the CDC has just decided is worth lying to us about. Do they manipulate statistics to "save people"? Do they falsify treatment data? If they'll lie to us about one thing they'll lie to us about another. Every single effort they make for the next decade or more is irreversibly tainted.
- slg 4y ago
  Once again, there was already hoarding. This would have led to even more hoarding which would have led to even more deaths. Maybe it is just that I started this ordeal in a more cynical place than others, but this one example of the CDC not telling the full truth is not some earth-shattering revelation to me. The government has lied to us countless times. I assume they will continue to lie to us in the future. At least this example shows that the people at the CDC were trying to think strategically about the best approach to save the most lives. That is their mission and they are probably in a better position to make the right decision on matters like this than either of us.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    The government lies, yes. The government shouldn't be upset that people think they are lying about big things if they are willing to lie about small things. Prior to COVID, the CDC and vaccination programs in general had a sterling reputation for helping you a an individual. So much so that Amish and Hassidic communities would sometimes get vaccines at their recommendation. That reputation is now out the window, at tremendous damage to our public health.
    - astrange 4y ago
      The CDC has always “lied” in that it always gave advice no reasonable person would follow. That’s because that’s not their job - their job is to give you the risks without counting benefits or reasonableness. For instance, absolutely nobody follows the CDC’s cooking recommendations and they say women should never drink alcohol because they might be unknowingly pregnant. https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/1414390050008276994 https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/1414390050008276994
concordDance 4y ago
Telling suppliers that masks are reserved for first responders etc and getting Walmart etc to take them off their shelves would have been far less damaging. Lying losing credibility permanently! There is no going back, that trust is lost. Just letting covid rip though those nursing homes would be way less damaging in the long term.
wonderwonder 4y ago
They could have just reached out to Walmart, Amazon, etc. told them that the government is buying all of their stock at a fair market rate via eminent domain laws. By lying to the populace they have set vaccine trust and trust in the CDC back decades. They could have told the truth and still easily gotten what they wanted without causing longterm harm.

by slg 4y ago

int_19h 4y ago

The proper approach would have been to pass emergency legislation establishing mask rationing and distribution. If need be, confiscate the entire existing supply and direct it to the hospitals. But don't lie about it.

slg 4y ago
Is confiscating privately owned safety equipment the more democratic and libertarian approach than trying to convince people they shouldn't buy that equipment in the first place? That seems way more dystopian to me.
- int_19h 4y ago
  "Trying to convince people" implies a good faith approach - i.e. being open about what you want and why. Lying to people that masks are no good is not "convincing" them to not buy masks - it's misleading them to do so. And yes, I think that between lying to literally everybody, and confiscating the property of some companies, the latter is much preferable from a democratic perspective. Indeed, it's just eminent domain, for which there's explicit provisions in constitution and/or laws of most (all?) democratic countries. And since it's done openly, if citizens are unhappy about it, they can always punish the politicians who did so in the next elections; but you can't do that to unelected bureaucrats and private actors, and especially not if they conceal what they're doing.
  - causi 4y ago
    Indeed. How many people saw the CDC lied about masks and then poisoned themselves because they thought the CDC was lying about ivermectin or hydrochloroquine? After she caught covid it took me days to convince my grandmother to stop taking ivermectin.
    - astrange 4y ago
      That might’ve worked if she had a worm infection. People who take ivermectin to treat worm infections have better health outcomes for covid, the cause being that worms are bad for you.
    - ETH_start 4y ago
      Ivermectin is used on billions of people and proven quite safe.
      - causi 4y ago
        Taking a drug that gave her intense and persistent diarrhea is not safe for an eighty year old who already had trouble staying hydrated.
        ETH_start 4y ago
        It's not pleasant but it is generally considered to be safe in normal doses. To give you an idea of how ubiquitous its use is, it is used on 3 day old kittens and they're always fine. Then again, each patient is different and no one knows her better than her family, and if they feel it poses a risk, that's fair enough. Quality of life is also important, and her experience sounds unpleasant, so your concern is justified regardless.
  - slg 4y ago
    I don't know, I think eminent domain is in the Constitution because the founders knew that was an extremely dangerous power of the government to just take things by force from the populous. There is no Constitutional requirement that our leaders, elected or not, have to be truthful with us 100% of the time. It is the difference between action and speech. Action is generally more dangerous. It is a little weird to me that in this discussion of the dangers of the government limiting speech, some people are more fearful of the government's speech than the government's action. It is a lot easier to simply ignore what the government says than try to hold on to my property when the men with guns come knocking at my door.
- evandale 4y ago
  Yes, confiscating privately owned equipment and telling people you need them in hospitals is better than lying to people and telling them their equipment doesn't work because secretly they need them for hospitals. I don't know why you think that's more dystopian.
  - slg 4y ago
    The government coming to my home and demanding I hand over my private property that the government tells me is vital for protecting my health during a pandemic is pretty dystopian. If you believe that the government lying to us is dystopian, then we have always lived in a dystopia.
    - evandale 4y ago
      I live in Canada where they do this already based on how scary a gun looks (rather than their functionality) so maybe that's why I find it more palatable than being lied to.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      Nobody suggested that the government come to your home. If somebody already has a stash of masks, let them have it. I was talking about the masks that were in the warehouses (or en route to them).

causi 4y ago

what do people think would have been the proper approach here Tell us the truth. "N95s should be reserved for medical personnel but surgical masks provide nominal protection for yourself and significant protection for others you might infect." People realizing the CDC can and will lie to them has already been and will be far into the future responsible for countless deaths. Not only that, it makes us question what else the CDC has just decided is worth lying to us about. Do they manipulate statistics to "save people"? Do they falsify treatment data? If they'll lie to us about one thing they'll lie to us about another. Every single effort they make for the next decade or more is irreversibly tainted.

slg 4y ago
Once again, there was already hoarding. This would have led to even more hoarding which would have led to even more deaths. Maybe it is just that I started this ordeal in a more cynical place than others, but this one example of the CDC not telling the full truth is not some earth-shattering revelation to me. The government has lied to us countless times. I assume they will continue to lie to us in the future. At least this example shows that the people at the CDC were trying to think strategically about the best approach to save the most lives. That is their mission and they are probably in a better position to make the right decision on matters like this than either of us.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  The government lies, yes. The government shouldn't be upset that people think they are lying about big things if they are willing to lie about small things. Prior to COVID, the CDC and vaccination programs in general had a sterling reputation for helping you a an individual. So much so that Amish and Hassidic communities would sometimes get vaccines at their recommendation. That reputation is now out the window, at tremendous damage to our public health.
  - astrange 4y ago
    The CDC has always “lied” in that it always gave advice no reasonable person would follow. That’s because that’s not their job - their job is to give you the risks without counting benefits or reasonableness. For instance, absolutely nobody follows the CDC’s cooking recommendations and they say women should never drink alcohol because they might be unknowingly pregnant. https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/1414390050008276994 https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/1414390050008276994

concordDance 4y ago

Telling suppliers that masks are reserved for first responders etc and getting Walmart etc to take them off their shelves would have been far less damaging. Lying losing credibility permanently! There is no going back, that trust is lost. Just letting covid rip though those nursing homes would be way less damaging in the long term.

wonderwonder 4y ago

They could have just reached out to Walmart, Amazon, etc. told them that the government is buying all of their stock at a fair market rate via eminent domain laws. By lying to the populace they have set vaccine trust and trust in the CDC back decades. They could have told the truth and still easily gotten what they wanted without causing longterm harm.