& BRIEFLY NOTED: For 2021-12-18 Sa: First: The very sharp Dan Froomkin reports on his conversation with former New York Times reporter Nina Bernstein. This is, I think, the best thing I have read on why it is very ofen the case that the bulk of New York Times reporters I find myself reading = punch far below what I know to be their weight. The editorial system and its biases simply grind them down..
Different issue, but my question is why reporters did not did not look into the decision making process that led to DFA/CDC mistakes. Very early the hostility to screening tests was recognized and described, but not analyzed. Ditto non-use of human challenge trials. Ditto the emphasis on "safety" of vaccines rather than their ability to protect others as well as the taker. Ditto not providing policy makers with information methodologies for using changing, local data to craft the most cost effective ways to prevent spread. Ditto for how public health officials got to their conclusions; what data and what parameters were in their models?
Different issue, but my question is why reporters did not did not look into the decision making process that led to DFA/CDC mistakes. Very early the hostility to screening tests was recognized and described, but not analyzed. Ditto non-use of human challenge trials. Ditto the emphasis on "safety" of vaccines rather than their ability to protect others as well as the taker. Ditto not providing policy makers with information methodologies for using changing, local data to craft the most cost effective ways to prevent spread. Ditto for how public health officials got to their conclusions; what data and what parameters were in their models?
I also find it incomprehensible...
Appreciate the Ricks video. In spite of my general antipathy to the form I found it worth spending the time.
That's a very interesting article on the Justinian Plague. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.