Important in these considerations is also the meta level issues that arise when dealing with appeals to consequences. There are also other considerations. For instance, if the fact that the cdc has made mistakes is never disseminated, then it becomes harder to hold it accountable for those mistakes and ensure that they don’t happen again.
The degree of correspondence between the Quinn character I made up (thinking it might be a strawman) and some commentators in this thread is quite high.
“Publicizing numbers on PADP effectiveness is bad even if they’re right” → “Publicizing info about CDC trustworthiness is bad even if it’s right”
“People giving money to PADP is good so you shouldn’t undermine trust in them” → “People trusting the CDC is good so you shouldn’t undermine trust in them”
“The people at PADP are nice and honest even if they reported wrong numbers” → “The CDC people are doing good work and people should trust them even though they’ve screwed up here”
Important in these considerations is also the meta level issues that arise when dealing with appeals to consequences. There are also other considerations. For instance, if the fact that the cdc has made mistakes is never disseminated, then it becomes harder to hold it accountable for those mistakes and ensure that they don’t happen again.
The degree of correspondence between the Quinn character I made up (thinking it might be a strawman) and some commentators in this thread is quite high.
“Publicizing numbers on PADP effectiveness is bad even if they’re right” → “Publicizing info about CDC trustworthiness is bad even if it’s right”
“People giving money to PADP is good so you shouldn’t undermine trust in them” → “People trusting the CDC is good so you shouldn’t undermine trust in them”
“The people at PADP are nice and honest even if they reported wrong numbers” → “The CDC people are doing good work and people should trust them even though they’ve screwed up here”