The thing I find most fascinating about the endless CVD (Coordinated Disclosure) vs Full Disclosure debate is that both sides are essentially right. Their arguments are sound, data and precedent on their side. The main difference is which outcome you're trying to optimize for.
If I understand correctly, you're saying you don't need to be informed why we're sheltering in place, you just trust that it's in your best interests?
-
-
No but on that point, if we knew the exact odds of being infected in any random encounter and each individual were in charge of making risk calculations and just going about their business, would we all be better off?
-
Then I don't follow, your argument. My point is that it's a doctors job to explain the treatment options to you, not to just do whatever they think is best. Is that a good thing, or a bad thing?
- 14 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I think the argument is, "I don't need to understand the full technical details in order to protect myself by sheltering in place, because my vendor/doctor has given me a simpler/easier explanation." ? (1/2)
-
Where this analogy falls down for me, is that FD w/ no patch equates to trusting end users not to use masks, but ventilators with battery packs that they've never seen. (2/2)
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.