If you're optimizing for "Treat everyone equally and consistently, and let every end user stand or fall on their own technical knowledge" then Full Disclosure is king. If you're optimizing for "Harm reduction" overall, then CVD is king. Everything else is preference.
Well, random jerks can distribute the virus. For example, a malicious person could travel to a hotspot and then purposefully infect other people. So, you do argue for arbitrary rules without explanation and no news coverage of epidemics?
-
-
No, and I also don't argue for absolute silence and no news coverage of vulnerabilities in software. I do argue for giving the people who can develop the vaccine a short heads-up prior to distributing complete instructions to everyone on how to spread it.
-
Fair enough, but do you agree it's rational for reasonable people to want information about the virus before a vaccine is available? I certainly want that, for example. I think many people would be outraged if we did what you're suggesting, for example...
- 3 more replies
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.
. Should epidemiologists be allowed to make arbitrary rules, without any input from other stakeholders and without explanation?