Sure, let's critically evaluate the guidance put forward by our public health institutions, but quoting a statement from Norway's equivalent institution without the backing evidence doesn't make the US "wrong". If the evidence available on the efficacy of vaccines for kids is so ridiculously wide that it goes from -99% to +370% risk of infection, then surely Norway is _also_ drastically overstating its case when it says (about kids) "previous infection offers as good of protection as the vaccine against reinfection" esp since it _also_ seems like the protective effect of prior infection is both uncertain and changing.
How about flatly declaring that guidance was "wrong" about school closures because minority and poor kids did markedly worse at math? Obviously these decisions are complex trade-offs, and one can't conclude that the choice was "wrong" simply by pointing out one of the costs.
How about quoting a CDC scientist, who cannot possibly have strong evidence when making the prediction "CDC guidance worsened racial equity for generations to come. It failed this generation of children." Generations to come? Show us the data that lets this scientist predict the far future with such confidence.
I get that it's deeply unnerving when these institutions make sweeping recommendations based on less firm data than we would normally demand. But not recommending anything, or not taking decisive action because of the limited data would _also_ have been irresponsible. When schools first closed, we didn't know a lot of things, but it would have been pretty reckless if agencies said "well this is putting a lot of people in the hospital and spreading fast, but we don't have the data to give definitive guidance yet, so you're on your own. Depending on the range of things your communities choose, maybe in a few months we'll have the evidence to say something."
It's complicated.
- did you make a reasonable decision with the information available at the time, but later evidence showed that another decision would likely have had better outcomes?
- did you make a poor decision which missed or disregarded information available when you made the choice?
- did you make a choice which was appropriate for your declared aims at the time, but now priorities have changed?
These decisions _are_ complex. That doesn't mean we can't find fault and demand improvement. But I think it's not constructive to merely highlight the negative outcomes; we have to find better processes which would make smarter choices next time.
If you made a trade-off that folks of a certain political persuasion believe was the wrong trade-off, but most people and most qualified experts believe was a reasonable trade-off? That's the job.
a minority of laymen who started with a conclusion and have yet to make a convincing case for it to either the experts OR the majority of americans, can't be the ones to decide, for the same reason we can't have them decide if a shooting is justified.
not sure why people qualified to do so, like public health experts and the politicians briefed by them who the people elected, can't be, though.
the opposite of an expert is a layman. Neither a majority of experts, nor a majority of laymen, have, after analyzing the issue as you have, come to the same conclusion you have, that the trade off decisions showed bad judgement
> It doesn't really matter if the experts were "acting on the best available evidence"
is this just you stating your opinion, or do you have a compelling argument to convince a majority of americans that they should also believe this?
Where do I argue that? It's going to be years until we understand if the effects were net positive or negative. The positive effects are much more immediate, we have a generation of kids that how to grow up now to see how their development was impacted for example.
> is this just you stating your opinion, or do you have a compelling argument to convince a majority of americans that they should also believe this?
This is how leadership has worked for four thousand years. You can find elements of what I am saying in the Code of Hammurabi, The Art of War, as well as the Magna Carta. If a general orders his men to run into a minefield, even if he doesn't know that it is one, even if he uses the best available evidence, he is responsible for their deaths because he gave the order. That's the reason we play hail to the chief when the president walks into a room, that's why he gets to eat fancy dinners and hobnob with celebrities, that is the reward for the great risk you take for being responsible. Leaders eat first because they take responsibility, to have leaders who only take authority is unworkable, it is tyranny manifest.