3 ms·

There was quite a bit of reportage (both in this article and in the wider news media). For reference: "If something went wrong with the drug, there was no inte

by azernik 12y ago

There was quite a bit of reportage (both in this article and in the wider news media). For reference: "If something went wrong with the drug, there was no intensive-care unit in Kailahun. The population of Sierra Leone would be furious if the West was seen to have killed Khan, an African scientist and a national hero, with an experimental drug. But if he wasn’t given the ZMapp, and he died, people might say that the West had withheld a miracle drug from him. “I was making sure my tone of voice stayed neutral,” Kobinger recalled. The debate and the calls went on for three days."

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
monsterix 12y ago
So why not share the names and reasoning the doctors had which perceptibly led to withholding (rather taking it away) from Dr. Khan? Public perception makes it hard I can understand, but not giving the drug simply to manage public perception is incredibly selfish and stupid no matter how you choose to see or read all the reportage. > Debates and the call went on for three days? Lol, sure. Does that even make any sense? Groupthink as a proxy for effort? Seen that before!