Why the US’ response to Covid-19 is terrible
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
It also damages their credibility when they cross the line from "here are the epidemiological facts" to "here are the appropriate tradeoffs between economic stability and acute illness prevention". The latter is not a question that an epidemiologist is any more qualified to speak to than anyone else. Those are political decisions.
They do the same for global warming. The nature and extent of anthropogenic climate change is a question for scientists. But they have all also latched onto the conclusion that global wealth redistribution is the only solution. Again, they are laundering their scientific expertise into political authority. I more or less think that the scientific process moves us to toward better understanding, but the collective political opinions of scientists should not be mistaken for science.
When the experts are abusing their status to pursue political ends, then it's no surprise that the people they seek to politically vanquish put up a resistance by attacking that expertise.
Other countries have done so, there's no reason the US can't also.
Additionally, enough time has now passed to assess the danger of these protests. Considering they mostly happened in the large cities of the north, there is absolutely no evidence that they had any major effect in the resurgence of the virus, which is mostly spreading in the south and west. Even there, rural areas are often hit harder than cities.
It‘s people deciding stopping the spread of COVID-19 isn‘t as important as protesting for their civil rights.
You can‘t dismiss the science just because people have different priorities and decide to act against it because of that.
I also wouldn‘t say it‘s hypocrisy at least not by the protestors and scientist.
Maybe it’s hypocrisy by the media because they didn‘t state that they agree or disagree with protests because they think another issue is more or less important than the pandemic.
It’s pretty clear that these “experts” are abusing their status as supposedly objective scientists to advance a political movement. Why should anyone trust anything they say?
And it's obvious that these claims damage their credibility when people had loved ones die alone - it's suddenly fine for there to be crowds of thousands when gatherings were previously limited to <100.
But the campaign against science was informed by the previous decades’ obsession with evolution.
Reducing public education is arguably the most effective strategy for acheiving both those goals, so, is it really that surprising that they have a long history of opposing the scientific consensus?
Similar statements are commonly written, spoken or believed. They fail utterly to comprehend the possible depth of human deception involved.
Being a president is like having 4 years of quarters to spend in one of those arcade claw machines at the Walmart Store entrance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3kfLIsaIXE
You have the illusion of control but no true control.
U.S. President Donald Trump is head of one branch of the U.S. government. Whether he is in control of that branch is an open question, as it has been for all U.S. presidents. But if you ask "Does he have absolute control over the executive?" the answer is a resounding "No!" for the simple reason that people cannot and will not do what you ask/order them to do, for a variety of reasons.
He speaks to his aides, to his underlings, to the press, to other outsiders, all whom have their own beliefs, hidden secrets and goals. Afterwards, sometimes they hold their tongue; other times they go off to speak to/consult outsiders. Sometimes they do what he asks but usually they do (or direct others to do) something else (perhaps similar to what was asked). Some of this is deception, much incompetence and ignorance. I might add that no two people think the same way nor do they have the same experiences.
It is often to the benefit of a leader to NOT reveal his thoughts (or his though process) to others. Furthermore it is often to his benefit to mislead others quite deliberately. Just as being predictable can be useful so also can being unpredictable.
It is tempting and often humorous to seek a simple explanation for someone's behavior (as you are doing here). Many psychologists favor the so-called "theory of mind" - the idea that we can establish and use models of each others' behavior. But except for very restricted situations, my experience has been that it is almost impossible to predict peoples' future actions. It is so difficult that I simply no longer attempt to do so. And to predict a person's actions when they are in an office with so many unknown (to me) factors and actors who are variously persuasive is simply beyond my experience.
That's why presidents often have experienced advisors, men or women who have "been there before" and are familiar with the powers and trappings of the office. But even that is a "trap": who can trust that his advisor is well-informed (and trustworthy &c)? On and on...
Anyway, don't assume he's simple b/c, even if he were, the office would complexify him.
There's not even a hand wave to Red China for first quarantining and then spewing out thousands of Covid-19 infected civilians to the USA and the rest of the world. Nothing is said about the WHO, CDC, NIH all of whom obviously had no part to play in this story. No regard is shown for our nations laws, which vest powers of control mostly with the states in regard to the control of epidemics.
US Presidents are not elected by the citizens, though the way they are elected tends usually in practice to align with the expressed will of the citizens, at least since the electors themselves have been elected by citizens, albeit disproportionately. But not in the case of Trump, among several other exceptions.
Pedantry and sophistry. "Elected" merely means "chosen by vote".
Q. Who voted for President of the USA in the 2016 USA elections?
A. The citizens of the USA.
Q. Who was elected president of the USA in 2016?
A. Donald Trump.
Therefore, Donald Trump was elected president of the USA by its citizens. Q.E.D.
Or perhaps you know of someone else who was elected president of the USA in 2016? If so, please name them, tell us why we neither hear their voice nor see them issuing decrees. Why do you not speak for them, man or woman, whichever ye be? Are you a traitor to their cause and, by your inactions, a traitor to your country (only if you're a US citizen, of course)?
Yes, and the President of the United States is not chosen by a vote of the citizens, but by a vote of the Electoral College.