4 ms·
> the public health officials acted in good faith Here's a question - is it "correct" that health officials should lie if they believe it will lead to net posi
by Chris2048 4y ago
> the public health officials acted in good faith
Here's a question - is it "correct" that health officials should lie if they believe it will lead to net positive outcome? Is this still good faith?
To what extend should net population outcomes compete with individual outcomes? e.g. downplaying risks of the vaccine, such that individuals with complications are essentially sacrificed in favor of the larger number of people without.
- dekhn 4y agoMe personally, I believe it is correct for health officials to be not entirely transparent if they have knowledge that doing so would lead to net-negative outcomes for society as a whole. Is that good faith? I suppose it's arguable from a philosophical perspective, but since I see them as operating rationally to achieve a goal with no intent to harm individuals, I see it as good faith. Remember, the health officials promoting vaccines now lived through the antivax movement that occurred pre-COVID. That movement greatly overhyped vaccine risks in a way that convinced large numbers of people to not get vaccinated. How would you, as a good faith public health official, respond if your opponents are extreme liars with no scientific basis?