2 ms·

Our government definitely did dopey things during the pandemic. Any attempt to suppress the Great Barrington Declaration was a real mistake (in terms of allowi

by dekhn 3y ago

Our government definitely did dopey things during the pandemic. Any attempt to suppress the Great Barrington Declaration was a real mistake (in terms of allowing dissenting opinions during a crisis). I feel for the challenges that public health officials have (in terms of trying to put forward a coherent plan that works that people will follow), but ultimately, if you suppress ideas which aren't completely terrible, everybody loses. That said I think Dr Battacharya telegraphed his political opinions in a way that brought him into direct conflict with the establishment.

_0ffh 3y ago
One problem is, all the relevant people were on board with the long standing emergency plans for a viral pandemic - which was to protect the most vulnerable groups, while leaving everyone else alone - right up until a viral pandemic hit; then the former expert consensus suddenly went out the window, along with everyone who held on to it.
- dekhn 3y ago
  I mean, it was a chaotic emergency situation and public health officials were under intense pressure to make lots of different people happy at the same time, while also getting masive social media criticism and armchair quarterbacking of their opinions. It does not surprise me if we spent some amount of our time acting like chickens with our heads cut off.
  - _0ffh 3y ago
    > it was a chaotic emergency situation Which is exactly what long standing emergency plans are for, which can be thoroughly thought through by cooler heads, free of time pressure and chaotic circumstances. Having these plans and then not abiding by them (for no good reason) is an alarming sign of the incompetence, cowardice and opportunism affecting the highest levels of our institutions.
    - dekhn 3y ago
      Wel, I don't agree that it was a sign of incompetence, cowardice, and opportunism. Nor do I think that emergency plans should always be executed blindly, especially if underlying data changes. That seems like an overly pessimistic analysis of a truly complex situation where a huge number of public health officials sacrificed a great deal to help us. Personally I'm thankful to the establishment and don't really think they could have done much better, considering the circumstances.
      - mikecoles 3y ago
        The 'pessimism' you see is actually others rationally observing the pandemic being blown out of proportion to harvest fear. "Health officials" sacrificed nothing. They sought to inflate their ego and boost their self-importance.
  - Animats 3y ago
    Yes. "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week." - Patton. Do not forget that in the early stages of the epidemic, there were refrigerator vans filled with dead bodies in body bags.
mandmandam 3y ago
> I think Dr Battacharya telegraphed his political opinions in a way that brought him into direct conflict with the establishment. Everyone with a shred of independent thought has opinions that conflict with the establishment. And everyone has a right to express those opinions, on Twitter and Facebook and anywhere else, without facing global censorship and smear campaigns from their own government. It's bizarre to me that people aren't pissed about this - I guess it would be seen as 'helping the other team'. Seems to me that treating politics as sport is stupid and dangerous, but apparently that's an opinion, rather than accepted common sense.
Nifty3929 3y ago
I think you're missing the point. It's not about whether, in this case, the censored message was true, or at least reasonable, or at least not completely terrible. It's about saying that the government should not in any way be the arbiter of truth at all. It's not up to them to decide what is true, reasonable or crazy. "which aren't completely terrible" - Who decides which ideas are completely terrible and (implicitly in your comment) worthy of censorship, vs those which aren't and therefore okay to publish?

by dekhn 3y ago

_0ffh 3y ago

One problem is, all the relevant people were on board with the long standing emergency plans for a viral pandemic - which was to protect the most vulnerable groups, while leaving everyone else alone - right up until a viral pandemic hit; then the former expert consensus suddenly went out the window, along with everyone who held on to it.

dekhn 3y ago
I mean, it was a chaotic emergency situation and public health officials were under intense pressure to make lots of different people happy at the same time, while also getting masive social media criticism and armchair quarterbacking of their opinions. It does not surprise me if we spent some amount of our time acting like chickens with our heads cut off.
- _0ffh 3y ago
  > it was a chaotic emergency situation Which is exactly what long standing emergency plans are for, which can be thoroughly thought through by cooler heads, free of time pressure and chaotic circumstances. Having these plans and then not abiding by them (for no good reason) is an alarming sign of the incompetence, cowardice and opportunism affecting the highest levels of our institutions.
  - dekhn 3y ago
    Wel, I don't agree that it was a sign of incompetence, cowardice, and opportunism. Nor do I think that emergency plans should always be executed blindly, especially if underlying data changes. That seems like an overly pessimistic analysis of a truly complex situation where a huge number of public health officials sacrificed a great deal to help us. Personally I'm thankful to the establishment and don't really think they could have done much better, considering the circumstances.
    - mikecoles 3y ago
      The 'pessimism' you see is actually others rationally observing the pandemic being blown out of proportion to harvest fear. "Health officials" sacrificed nothing. They sought to inflate their ego and boost their self-importance.
- Animats 3y ago
  Yes. "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week." - Patton. Do not forget that in the early stages of the epidemic, there were refrigerator vans filled with dead bodies in body bags.

mandmandam 3y ago

> I think Dr Battacharya telegraphed his political opinions in a way that brought him into direct conflict with the establishment. Everyone with a shred of independent thought has opinions that conflict with the establishment. And everyone has a right to express those opinions, on Twitter and Facebook and anywhere else, without facing global censorship and smear campaigns from their own government. It's bizarre to me that people aren't pissed about this - I guess it would be seen as 'helping the other team'. Seems to me that treating politics as sport is stupid and dangerous, but apparently that's an opinion, rather than accepted common sense.

Nifty3929 3y ago

I think you're missing the point. It's not about whether, in this case, the censored message was true, or at least reasonable, or at least not completely terrible. It's about saying that the government should not in any way be the arbiter of truth at all. It's not up to them to decide what is true, reasonable or crazy. "which aren't completely terrible" - Who decides which ideas are completely terrible and (implicitly in your comment) worthy of censorship, vs those which aren't and therefore okay to publish?