Ministry of Truth?

[Dill]

(05-18-2022, 09:17 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: I do not see where Dr Prasad is claiming disinformation is impossibly hard to define while defining it, so I tried to understand the asterisked part where you tried to explain it. It's a tough read. 

No where in the video did Prasad say that the number of covid deaths cannot be quantified. Rather he said that you cannot quantify that misinformation is the leading cause of covid deaths...which is exactly what Califf said @ 1:32. 

My point is that when even one official tells a blatant lie, regardless of his intent, it hurts their integrity and undermines the trust that we need to have in them. Wasn't this one of Donald Trump's biggest problems? 

So you're okay with government officials telling 'Noble Lies' in order to get people to take something seriously? Given your earlier reply that "I agree with Prasad that a government official should not make such a 'wildly absurd and false claim,' even if it is not a claim like "masks don't work," which might actually lead to deaths," it sounds like we agree, and you aren't either. 

So what is YOUR argument here? 

And as much as you're trying to minimize it, it's not just one official. Dr Fauci has lied several times "for the good of the country." Also, Donald Trump was "just one guy" too. 
https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/noble-lies-covid-fauci-cdc-masks.html

You're also trying to minimize the power and influence that these people have. The head of the FDA and the NIH wield a lot of power and can easily influence policy. The last two years have proven it. 

This is a Red Herring and has zero relevance to the discussion and is only here to distract and to gaslight. 

Prasad was identifying misinformation when he critiqued Califf's tweet. He had to have at least an implicit definition to do that. And I don't dispute that he identified misinformation. So he can do it, but not government? 

The founders of the U.S., especially Madison, did not envision a government in which no officials ever lied. They thought that an impossible ideal.
They expected it. And for all that, they still understood, most of them, that governments cannot function without some level of trust.

So it has always been the case that some segment of U.S. citizens have distrusted government--up to a point. Think of Thoreau's essay "On Civil Disobedience" (1848).  Only once before was that distrust so great that it lead to a civil war.  I agree with you that government lying produces mistrust, too. Vietnam and Watergate together began a seachange in the quantity and quality of U.S. citizens' distrust. 

But that understandable distrust, which could have been repaired by the better government which followed, were it not amplified and exploited by the U.S. right. Think of Rush Limbaugh telling listeners back in the '90s that there are four sources of untruth: government, universities, science and the media. That is an anti-modern stance, directed at undermining authority outside a radical and fringe wing of the Republican party, which eventually became the center of the party, pushing traditional conservatives to the fringe.  People who adopt that stance become more dependent on certain leaders for "truth." Ditto heads. Feeling and "truthiness" replace the labor of becoming informed citizens who must assess issues themselves, based on their understanding of and respect for principles and institutions of democracy (a free press being one of these),and canons of logic and evidence. Truthy conspiracy theories gain enough mass to sway elections to those who know how to manipulate mis-/disinformation.

I think I can wrap up all the Fauci and "red herring" points/claims you make above if I can get your answer to some questions about government authority.

If there were another pandemic on the COVID scale, but worse, with Ebola-type effects and death rate, in your view--

1. Should ANYONE AT ALL inform the public about it? E.g., if doctors and researchers dealing with it have information which, if generally known, might prevent its spread and save lives, how should that information be assessed and handled? Or should it be at all, given at least some "misinformation" will be generated in the process? Should we let whatever will happen happen, rather than risk government misinformation by empowering public officials to oversee and direct a response? 

2. If researchers discover the new plague came from Iceland, communicated by passengers from Iceland Air, should anyone be empowered to stop air traffic from Iceland? Infringe on passenger privacy by testing/quarantining them? Suppose it first appears in Florida, should officials in that state warn others? And warn them with what? Who is vetting the information? Should we leave it to individual doctors in Florida calling their friends in other states, or even just other hospitals in state, and hope for the best? 

3. What if there is a medical consensus that some activity many enjoy, like eating beef or fishing, has to be constrained to stop the spread and save lives? People who don't eat beef or fish are unaffected, but those who like these activities would have to sacrifice for the greater good, should they heed the medical advice; and their heeding would affect the bottom line of those who produce beef and sell fishing gear.  In such cases, absent some central coercive power, the general good would be dependent upon the individual choices of beef eaters and fishermen. Maybe most would willingly sacrifice--though surely not if they have no trustworthy information about the disease, just rumors from people returning from Florida vacations. 

4. Is there any point in the above where you think government should or could effectively "kick in" to insure that info about the disease is vetted and made public, and that its progress is tracked nation wide as well as globally to update citizens. Finally, is there any point at all where coercive power to ban activities and quarantine people should kick in?  I.e., could the danger of spread ever justify the risk of powerful government officials tweeting misinformation? Or do you envision some kind of non-governmental entity accomplishing the above? E.g., corporations or ad hoc citizens groups, or professional organizations like the AMA? 

This is not a "quiz" with right or wrong answers I can ambush you with. Rather, I just want to know where you stand, what you think government does, could or shouldn't do. Right now I have no idea whether you think it should have any power at all to define and manage threats.