Flordia’s surgeon general?
The fact that Gov. Death Sentence even has an surgeon general is just as shocking.
9 Likes
The problem is she’s doing a version of what the CDC did early in the pandemic, which is making recommendations based on what they think will fly politically rather than on the best science but not publicly admitting that’s what they are doing.
For quite a while the CDC told the public not to wear N95s, because they wanted to preserve the limited supply for health care workers and not based on the best science of mask use for the general public, but they kept that logistical reasoning secret and let the general public think masks didn’t work or were unnecessary - an issue that still lingers to this day. And that’s what she’s doing with the 5 day isolation recommendation, as she even gave cautions as an afterthought that note its insufficiency, saying you shouldn’t visit your grandmother or get on a plane, implying that you should do everything else, especially go to work indoors, where the air is likely less filtered than in a jet plane, and where other people’s grandmothers may be.
So, yeah, she doesn’t get a free pass on this.
3 Likes
Two separate things here. The medical part is (relatively) easy, and easy to comment and criticize. Her problem is trying to make medical decisions in a hotly political environment. Once this shit became politicized, it really truly became a no-win situation for those of us in the medical field, because anything we say, recommend or mandate is not going to be interpreted not in a public health context, but in a political one. Very, very few of us have any training (or, honestly, interest) in that sort of hybrid. I admire those who try to make it work, but it is absolutely no win in the current setting, and she will be crucified no matter what she does. I feel like she is doing the best she can do, which is all we can ask, but that doesn’t mean that I agree with the decisions that are coming down. I am as certain as I can be that if she had her own way, these would be different, but she does not, and is trying to make multiple masters happy. Not ever gonna happen. So yeah, Pit of Despair.
And @Skeptic , in regards to this:
The problem is she’s doing a version of what the CDC did early in the pandemic, which is making recommendations based on what they think will fly politically rather than on the best science but not publicly admitting that’s what they are doing.
I do not believe she is doing this because she personally thinks it is best, but because she is trying to triangulate a position that all involved parties will accept. This is pretty nearly impossible, but her job is to try and do that. Short of resigning in protest, I’m not sure she has any other options other than to try to push the public health aspect as much as possible.
15 Likes
The role of something like the CDC or Dr Fauci is always inherently political (the same for military brass). Fauci is an advisor. Any public statement is a political statement for the administration—except what he brings is medical credibility that he needs to maintain. I swear I heard epidemiologists when this all started said you can’t ask people to hole up for more than a few weeks or they just give up. If people will give up asking them to shut in forever isn’t a useful tool and causes more harm than good. Not to derail the topic, but as an example it’s pretty obvious just stating facts about climate change isn’t addressing it.
I do think it’s fair to debate missteps or differing of opinion, and to request they’re honest with us. I would hope the facts behind recommendations are based in science, but recommendations themselves will always be educated guesses on the best way to navigate the situation with the resource at hand.
1 Like
Yeah, I get that. I was attempting to make that point, in fact, that she’s in a no-win situation, trying to get people who are either skeptical or hostile to do the right thing by compromising. But clear, it did not come through?
But it’s easier for some to pretend like they could make better decisions in this current environment, I guess. Arm chair quarterbacking is fun, but doing the actual job when people threatening to rape and murder you, and the ones you love isn’t so easy.
10 Likes
Except the CDC always say they are making science-based decisions. When they make expedient ones instead of science-based ones even the public often notices the disconnect between science and CDC advice and it reduces public credibility when their credibility as the leading source for fact-based information and advice about Covid is needed the most.
2 Likes
As @pfranz said, the position is inherently and unavoidably political, as well as scientific. It cannot avoid being both. One of the reasons most doctors and scientists avoid these kind of positions. It is compromised from the start, and compromise inevitably means that neither aspect will feel fully respected, because it’s not. I read somewhere lost to the mists of time that the duty of a scientist is to present facts and project outcomes, it is the duty of an administrator to decide how best to deal with those facts and projections. She is having to do both of those jobs, and it is absolutely a no win game. And yet, also one that must be taken on by someone. Thankless, sacrificial lamb, pound of flesh thrown to the wolves, however you describe it, it sucks.
Back on topic, the FL SG is a fucking idiot.
15 Likes
Making decisions based on some of the science without factoring in the behavioral science of what the public will actually do is not the optimum play.
You’re expecting them to form policy based on spherical cows in a vacuum. Humans are messy and irrational. Maybe you don’t actually know better than public health experts?
14 Likes
Pshaw! Everyone knows that those aren’t real sciences, merely pseudo-sciences! We’d be better off if we dropped them from university curriculum along with the humanities… /s
12 Likes
Florida had 193,000 new cases YESTERDAY.
Along with a MAGA 2.0 government, it’s a great combination to lose house seats in 2030.
2 Likes
I do understand that there can be strategic enforcement, but a science-based organization needs to be transparent about that. The science they espouse needs to be fact-based, not passed through political filters, to be credible.
And here is an example of why there current strategy of pushing for free diagnostic testing instead of emphasizing staying at home, to the extent possible, and pushing respirator grade mask use by sending out free N95s is doomed to failure:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejme2009758
You can legitimately point out that MAGA heads won’t wear the N95s, which is true, but they likely won’t use the tests either, or if they do, they won’t change their behavior and will still go out maskless.
1 Like
I’m not actually talking about politics, though that is a factor. Public health as a discipline includes epidemiology, immunology, and sociology. Because you can tell people to do something and you can put enforcement in place to push that policy, but ultimately determining the optimal practice involves a multidisciplinary approach.
You’re looking at one facet, and assuming that these public health experts with decades of experience are not following the science when you’re blind to at least a third of the actual science they are using to determine policy.
10 Likes
10 Likes
Making people socialists! /s /s /s
13 Likes
Why the fuck not both?!
7 Likes
In addition to maybe Ron DeSantis?
:-/
3 Likes
bovons and antibovons
6 Likes
Best thing I’ve read all week.
Related question, are the steaks from a spherical cow more or less tender?
2 Likes
Since we are ignoring friction, it will be hard to tes
5 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
