when you argued with this:
> 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.
If you believe that it's not for a majority of experts to decide, or for a majority of laymen to decide, or for a majority of americans to decide, then who do you think should make the decision?
>It's going to be years until we understand if the effects were net positive or negative.
sure, and as soon as a majority of experts, maybe even of Americans, believe that the trade-off showed poor judgment, then we can talk about it as if it did
>This is how leadership has worked for four thousand years.
this is not how people believe leadership works in the US at least, where people (not you personally, clearly) judge based on the circumstances present at the time of the action being judged, not at the time of judgement
most people understand that the CDC is a normal org like any other, or indeed, like any normal person, which tries its best to do what it can with what it has, and aren't expected to be able to predict the future
did you forget something here?
> If you believe that it's not for a majority of experts are not to decide, and a majority of laymen are not to decide, and a majority of Americans are not to decide, then who do you think should make the decision?
Democracy. In our system of government we elect leaders, those leaders are responsible to the people who have elected them. This has been sidestepped in recent decades by appointing experts who have the ability to use the force of law without explicit congressional approval. This is unconstitutional and the supreme court in the past year has twice affirmed this view[0][1]. We can't allow our leaders to hide behind people that they themselves have appointed when those appointees make choices that may have disastrous consequences.
> most people understand that the CDC is a normal org like any other, or indeed, like any normal person, which tries its best to do what it can with what it has, and aren't expected to be able to predict the future
Funny they didn't mention that while making proclamations from on high. "I did my best" is of little comfort to someone harmed by their choices.
[0]https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf
[1]https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
that is precisely what happened, and what has been happening, and the result is still that neither most voters nor most voters' elected representatives believe that the trade-offs made constituted poor judgement
> This has been sidestepped in recent decades by appointing experts who have the ability to use the force of law without explicit congressional approval.
most americans would not agree with this framing or sentiment, as we are fine with our elected representatives delegating some of their power, given how slowly and infrequently congress can act
> This is unconstitutional and the supreme court in the past year has twice affirmed this view
to some degree, recently, yes, but not all delegated authority is unconstitutional
> We can't allow our leaders to hide behind people that they themselves have appointed when those appointees make choices that may have disastrous consequences.
We don't believe that is happening at all, neither the hiding, nor the disastrous consequences
> "I did my best" is of little comfort to someone harmed by their choices
pithy witticisms are of little use in convincing the country that people or organizations should be judged for not acting based on knowledge they didn't have at the time of the action being judged