4 ms·

That's a public health crisis and little different circumstance don't you think? If you're in a profession with a license you are expected to follow a code of

That's a public health crisis and little different circumstance don't you think? If you're in a profession with a license you are expected to follow a code of ethics. If you violate it, the profession in its interest to protect itself, can and rightfully will remove you. For example, licensed a professional social workers are not to have sexual relations with their clients. If found doing so their license is revoked and their name is publish in professional magazines and news letters. The same is applied to Engineers. If a licensed professional Engineer is found to be faking data to make a car appear more safe they are out of a license and career. If a Doctor is found to be reporting false information to the public during a public health crisis I would say that's a huge ethical violation and I expect their profession to remove them, promptly. If we're comparing how Western free society handled Covid versus China I think we can agree that the Western society has been significantly more transparent and were not locking people inside apartment buildings.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
FridayoLeary 3y ago
Like a said. The science was sketchy at best. Yet every statement of WHO/CDC was considered gospel. It was deeply uncomfortable. So no, the circumstances did not justify those actions. By your logic the entire WHO should be sacked (a move i would wholeheartedly endorse). Also, i have further examples of my point beyond COVID like i said.
- iamerroragent 3y ago
  Okay I would like to see you post openly criticism of how the CCP handled Covid in China while being a Chinese citizen living in China. Then also criticize Xi and call him Winnie the Poo. Then also blame CCP for releasing Covid. Let's actually compare what we're comparing here. Because you're still free to say 'let's dismantle the WHO' just as the rest of the rational and free world is also free to disagree with you. Now, before you go off half cocked I am not saying the CDC or WHO made perfect calls every time. I think they used the best information they had available to them with decades of expertise and updating as more and better information came in. Additionally for years to come public health officials, scientists, doctors, and organizations will be researching this recent pandemic, evaluating what was effective and updating policies and strategies for future pandemics. However the important part that we're discussing here is that we are free to criticize these organizations. Free to criticize the government. Free to expose a company skirting regulations in place to protect consumers and the environment. We are free to review the science and come to a consensus. There will always be outliers. The existence of them alone doesn't mean the consensus is wrong though.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

FridayoLeary 3y ago

Like a said. The science was sketchy at best. Yet every statement of WHO/CDC was considered gospel. It was deeply uncomfortable. So no, the circumstances did not justify those actions. By your logic the entire WHO should be sacked (a move i would wholeheartedly endorse). Also, i have further examples of my point beyond COVID like i said.

iamerroragent 3y ago
Okay I would like to see you post openly criticism of how the CCP handled Covid in China while being a Chinese citizen living in China. Then also criticize Xi and call him Winnie the Poo. Then also blame CCP for releasing Covid. Let's actually compare what we're comparing here. Because you're still free to say 'let's dismantle the WHO' just as the rest of the rational and free world is also free to disagree with you. Now, before you go off half cocked I am not saying the CDC or WHO made perfect calls every time. I think they used the best information they had available to them with decades of expertise and updating as more and better information came in. Additionally for years to come public health officials, scientists, doctors, and organizations will be researching this recent pandemic, evaluating what was effective and updating policies and strategies for future pandemics. However the important part that we're discussing here is that we are free to criticize these organizations. Free to criticize the government. Free to expose a company skirting regulations in place to protect consumers and the environment. We are free to review the science and come to a consensus. There will always be outliers. The existence of them alone doesn't mean the consensus is wrong though.