A new national advisor - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: A new national advisor (/thread-20280.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: A new national advisor (/thread-20280.html)
RE: lex24 - Goose - 08-18-2020
(08-18-2020, 10:50 AM)terry Wrote:If one looks at history, it becomes clear that the balance required to run a government and an impartial behavior by all involved are fundamentally incompatible. This also happens to be true of many business decisions. Once a course of action has been adopted, it is necessary that everybody involved pull together to make the strategy work. If one part of the administration disagrees with another part and chooses to hash it out in public (after having done so in private) the workers responsible for doing the work get mixed messages and the public says "these fools don't know what they are doing". That makes the chosen strategy much less likely to succeed even if it was in fact a viable one. If a member of the administration or a business can't support a policy, because they think it is so wrong/immoral/whatever, they must quit. Then they can yell all they want.(08-16-2020, 06:52 PM)Goose Wrote: in politics (and it becomes politics when you work for the government) it is common to present only one side of the story, the side you support. You can't lie, but you needn't be "fair". It is also an approach that lawyers take all the time. It is their job to represent their client. Pointing out things that help the other side not only isn't their job, it is to be avoided.
These are the reasons that political discussions in public are not good places to hash out scientific truths. You are only going to get one side from the Administration, whoever that is at the time. It may be the side you happen agree with, but that doesn't make it fair or complete.
I do not agree that "it becomes politics when you work for the government," and I do not agree that those who work for the government "needn't be fair." I believe that virtually all government functions should be performed in a fair, non-partisan way, and that government employees should act in the best interests of the public, not in the partisan interests of the president.
For example, we have a right to expect non-partisan, non-political job performance from the Social Security Administration, the IRS, the Veterans Administration, the Weather Service, the Census, the Postal Service, the military, and other agencies. We have the right to expect "good government" and public service, not partisanship. I do not believe that just because they work for the government, they should be allowed to act in the president's partisan, political interests.
The same is true of the CDC, FDA, HHS, and other agencies and officials involved in responding to the pandemic. They should act based on public health considerations and the public interest, regardless of whether those actions are ideologically in line with the president's personal wishes.
Scott Atlas appears to be have been chosen based on ideological agreement with the president, not based on his competence in public health and infectious diseases. We have a right to expect that the pandemic response will be based on public health considerations, not the president's personal interests. We have a right to expect the pandemic response to be "fair," not partisan. Those handling the pandemic response should not act like lawyers representing a partisan client. They should act like representatives of the public acting in the public interest.
How would FDR's "Day of Infamy" speech gone if he had included all the arguments the isolationists were making about how he had forced war on Japan by his Oil and Steel embargo? How about the Navy statements that the PI were indefensible at that point (which proved to be true)? Government employees do have an obligation to tell the truth. They have an obligation to provide their best input when it is requested. They also have an obligation to support decided policy. If that policy is so unacceptable they can't do that, quit. Otherwise, shut up and row.
Naturally, the system works best when all decisions are made based on an orderly logical process. If the president or some department head basically insists on getting their plan adopted without regard to the facts, that is a serious problem. However, undermining you boss just isn't a viable strategy to get anything done. Your boss can't make you lie, but he can make you shut up or quit. Every president tends to appoint people who agree with him philosophically. Even Lincoln's "Team of rivals" agreed on the important issues, and when the undermining on other issues got too bad, they got replaced. Conventional wisdom is that the president gets the CIA he wants but it usually takes four to six years to replace everybody necessary to make that happen.
RE: lex24 - oregontim - 08-18-2020
(08-18-2020, 10:50 AM)terry Wrote: I do not agree that "it becomes politics when you work for the government," and I do not agree that those who work for the government "needn't be fair." I believe that virtually all government functions should be performed in a fair, non-partisan way, and that government employees should act in the best interests of the public, not in the partisan interests of the president.
For example, we have a right to expect non-partisan, non-political job performance from the Social Security Administration, the IRS, the Veterans Administration, the Weather Service, the Census, the Postal Service, the military, and other agencies. We have the right to expect "good government" and public service, not partisanship. I do not believe that just because they work for the government, they should be allowed to act in the president's partisan, political interests.
The same is true of the CDC, FDA, HHS, and other agencies and officials involved in responding to the pandemic. They should act based on public health considerations and the public interest, regardless of whether those actions are ideologically in line with the president's personal wishes.
Very well said, thanks Terry. In a nutshell, that's it. +1
RE: lex24 - OutsiderFan - 08-18-2020
(08-18-2020, 10:50 AM)terry Wrote:(08-16-2020, 06:52 PM)Goose Wrote: in politics (and it becomes politics when you work for the government) it is common to present only one side of the story, the side you support. You can't lie, but you needn't be "fair". It is also an approach that lawyers take all the time. It is their job to represent their client. Pointing out things that help the other side not only isn't their job, it is to be avoided.
These are the reasons that political discussions in public are not good places to hash out scientific truths. You are only going to get one side from the Administration, whoever that is at the time. It may be the side you happen agree with, but that doesn't make it fair or complete.
I do not agree that "it becomes politics when you work for the government," and I do not agree that those who work for the government "needn't be fair." I believe that virtually all government functions should be performed in a fair, non-partisan way, and that government employees should act in the best interests of the public, not in the partisan interests of the president.
For example, we have a right to expect non-partisan, non-political job performance from the Social Security Administration, the IRS, the Veterans Administration, the Weather Service, the Census, the Postal Service, the military, and other agencies. We have the right to expect "good government" and public service, not partisanship. I do not believe that just because they work for the government, they should be allowed to act in the president's partisan, political interests.
The same is true of the CDC, FDA, HHS, and other agencies and officials involved in responding to the pandemic. They should act based on public health considerations and the public interest, regardless of whether those actions are ideologically in line with the president's personal wishes.
Scott Atlas appears to be have been chosen based on ideological agreement with the president, not based on his competence in public health and infectious diseases. We have a right to expect that the pandemic response will be based on public health considerations, not the president's personal interests. We have a right to expect the pandemic response to be "fair," not partisan. Those handling the pandemic response should not act like lawyers representing a partisan client. They should act like representatives of the public acting in the public interest.
High functioning democracies allow the career civil servant employees to do their work without political interference or pressure. The United States has fallen 8 places from #17 to #25 on the worldwide democracy rankings over the last four years. The "once you work for government, your job is political" canard is one of the reasons why we have fallen so much.
RE: lex24 - Goose - 08-18-2020
(08-18-2020, 12:01 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: High functioning democracies allow the career civil servant employees to do their work without political interference or pressure. The United States has fallen 8 places from #17 to #25 on the worldwide democracy rankings over the last four years. The "once you work for government, your job is political" canard is one of the reasons why we have fallen so much.OF, I argue that highly functioning democracies elect politicians who attempt to operate in the best interest of the nation more than in the best interest of their parties or themselves. As a result, they seldom attempt to force a policy down the throat of their career civil servants. That is not to say it doesn't happen, for instance the Federal government "strongly urged" Bavaria not to declare a curfew for about ten days before they finally had to do a nationwide action. That was basically a political decision, although one arguably made in good faith. However, that wasn't spread all over the news media and only became public much later. The experts and the politicians basically trust each other to a great extent.
In fact, I firmly believe that these highly functional democracies have BETTER discipline in their career civil servants because the civil servants have a high degree of confidence that the elected leadership (politicians) will not override their recommendations unless their is an actual reason beyond personal bias or party politics. When politics does intrude on decision making (and it certainly does even in highly functioning democracies), the "civil servants" know what to do. See Lt. General Karl Müller vs Ursula von der Leyen.
It simply isn't ever true that civil servants do their work in a political vacuum. It is how the politics is managed that allows a highly functioning democracy to work well. In less well functioning democracies, as ours has unfortunately become, the experts have no trust in their political superiors, and visa versa. This has been a trend even before we got Trump and was already an issue. Since it is obvious that the current POTUS isn't "all there", the experts have no confidence in what decisions will be made. That just isn't going to work, period. However, it is pointless to trumpet this fact from the rafters all the time. What Fauci is doing is just about the limit of what is possible, and I wouldn't be surprised if he decides to resign before all this is over.
RE: A new national advisor - BostonCard - 08-31-2020
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/514412-report-trump-task-force-adviser-pushing-for-herd-immunity-strategy
Atlas is reportedly advocating a herd immunity strategy. I will be curious to see how the debate plays out.
I have some thoughts (not all of them consistent with one another):
1) At least it is a strategy, and it beats the disorganized, half-hazard approach we have seen.
2) If we are not going to be willing to do what we must to keep the virus under control, at least we can reopen.
3) You could argue that it represents surrendering to the pandemic; a recognition that as a country, we don't have what it takes to control the virus.
4) On the other hand, if the vaccine is potentially only a few months from approval, it seems to me that slowing infections as much as we can until we get the vaccine might make sense.
5) Of course, the vaccine might not work.
6) We now know that risk of reinfection is non-zero. I still think it is the exception, not the rule, but if the natural immunity is not long-lasting, the "herd immunity" strategy could be a fool's errand.
BC
RE: A new national advisor - Goose - 08-31-2020
(08-31-2020, 02:39 PM)BostonCard Wrote: 6) We now know that risk of reinfection is non-zero. I still think it is the exception, not the rule, but if the natural immunity is not long-lasting, the "herd immunity" strategy could be a fool's errand.It would be prudent to have a plan for the case that natural immunity is not long lasting and/or the vaccine(s) don't work well. FWIW I would base the decision on how hard to fight for keeping cases down (by shutdown and regulations) on having a treatment for COVID-19 that works "pretty well". If monoclonal antibodies work well (alone or in combination) we can expect to keep deaths under control after we reopen. Since the timeline there is about the same as vaccines (as I understand it ATM), then keeping shutdown for two more months is the way to go IMHO. Vaccines and herd immunity take a while to evaluate. We may not know what we have for a year. If monoclonals work, we will know it with higher confidence sooner. If they don't work, we have no other near-term options for a largely effective treatment that I am aware of. Staying shutdown for another year is impossible, but without a treatment or immunity, fully opening up will result in lots of death. In between doesn't seem to be viable for any significant period of time either, because it seems to have economic effects that are almost as bad as a full shutdown.
BC
RE: A new national advisor - magnus - 09-10-2020
Looks like infectious disease and health experts at Stanford have written an open letter against Atlas' public musings.
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/stanford-colleagues-warn-dr-scott-atlas-fosters-falsehoods/story?id=72926212
RE: A new national advisor - 82lsju - 09-11-2020
(09-10-2020, 05:05 PM)magnus Wrote: Looks like infectious disease and health experts at Stanford have written an open letter against Atlas' public musings.
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/stanford-colleagues-warn-dr-scott-atlas-fosters-falsehoods/story?id=72926212
the letter is here
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/read-the-open-letter-from-stanford-doctors-on-scott-atlas/813b50f72b6543b4/full.pdf
which says in part
Quote:As infectious diseases physicians and researchers, microbiologist and immunologists,
epidemiologists and health policy leaders, we stand united in efforts to develop and promote
science-based solutions that advance human health and prevent suffering from the coronavirus
pandemic. In this pursuit, we share a commitment to a basic principle derived from the
Hippocratic Oath: Primum Non Nocere (First, Do No Harm).
To prevent harm to the public’s health, we also have both a moral and an ethical responsibility to
call attention to the falsehoods and misrepresentations of science recently fostered by Dr. Scott
Atlas, a former Stanford Medical School colleague and current senior fellow at the Hoover
Institute at Stanford University. Many of his opinions and statements run counter to established
science and, by doing so, undermine public-health authorities and the credible science that
guides effective public health policy. The preponderance of data, accrued from around the
world, currently supports each of the following statements: