Bad News Thread

You're expert rallying again. That's what leads to the disastrous results like 2008 and the pandemic response. The experts are horrible at weighing all the factors. What's more is that they can't weigh all the interests at stake here....that requires not just epidemiologists but field doctors, nurses, business organizations, teachers, PTA (yeah I know...it's supposed to act for the students but has been captured by the teachers unions), economists, pediatricians, psychologists, engineers, the pharmaceutical industry, and yes lawyers (because the lawyers care about our rights). In the end you need the guy who mixes his metaphors to make the right call (but we usually got the self-interested politicians like Trump and Biden, DeSantis and Newsom making those calls). We don't want to rely solely on epidemiologist because the experts only know 1 aspect of the problem and are more often wrong than right because of a variety of factors (institutionalism, tunnel vision, self-preservation, hubris),.
Oh and it would be nice if we had a media that actually functioned to act as a check on these actors. But we don't. Instead we have the propaganda arm of the 2 political parties, which leaves us with the scrappy outsiders and the internet as the great leveller (which is why the censorship moves of the big tech companies are very scary).
 
Oh and it would be nice if we had a media that actually functioned to act as a check on these actors. But we don't. Instead we have the propaganda arm of the 2 political parties, which leaves us with the scrappy outsiders and the internet as the great leveller (which is why the censorship moves of the big tech companies are very scary).
Crush is always here to help where I can. I'm for non violence btw. I have no party affiliation, just American and just me, myself and my constitution. I have no weapons except my mouth, my words and my opinion. My wife and kids can speak for themselves. Man I tell you Grace, some people, when they get caught cheating, they get really defensive or are just flat out living a lie and living in denial.
 
The “only quarantine the sick” standard doesn’t work very well for a disease with significant ore-symptomatic transmission. Nor is it even possible to meaningfully define the “least restrictive measure” when you are early in the pandemic. You just do not have the information needed to make that calculation.

This is the basic problem with lawyers playing junior epidemiologist. They simply are not qualified to understand the solutions they propose. Most of them have not taken a college level biology class, let alone completed the coursework necessary to understand epidemic growth. It would take years to bring them up to speed, even if they were willing to try.
Yeah, the laws of this country are fairly irrelevant when it comes to a pandemic, WTF. Are we talking about the same pandemic that 99.8% of our population survived and 99.5% were never hospitalized for?

I think your response probably illustrates even better than I could have put it, why we will never agree.
 
You're expert rallying again. That's what leads to the disastrous results like 2008 and the pandemic response. The experts are horrible at weighing all the factors. What's more is that they can't weigh all the interests at stake here....that requires not just epidemiologists but field doctors, nurses, business organizations, teachers, PTA (yeah I know...it's supposed to act for the students but has been captured by the teachers unions), economists, pediatricians, psychologists, engineers, the pharmaceutical industry, and yes lawyers (because the lawyers care about our rights). In the end you need the guy who mixes his metaphors to make the right call (but we usually got the self-interested politicians like Trump and Biden, DeSantis and Newsom making those calls). We don't want to rely solely on epidemiologist because the experts only know 1 aspect of the problem and are more often wrong than right because of a variety of factors (institutionalism, tunnel vision, self-preservation, hubris),.
Just pointing out that the judges making up these rules couldn't pass the biology GREs if you allowed them double time and an open book.

They don't know jack, but they think they do. It's a dangerous combination.
 
Just pointing out that the judges making up these rules couldn't pass the biology GREs if you allowed them double time and an open book.

They don't know jack, but they think they do. It's a dangerous combination.

That's why there's expert testimony allowed in courts. But they don't want the health experts making the legal decisions because the health experts don't know the rights and don't balance the competing interests. And there are checks on the judge in the form of the court of appeals and the Supreme Court, so the arguments can be better vetted over time, which is why the wheels of justice move slowly. It's positively Lockeian in its construction.

What's dangerous is having an expert like Fauci make all the decisions, when he only knows his 1 narrow field, is primed to protect his institution, and is subject to hubris. That's the recipe not only for disaster (given all the mistakes he's made along the way) but also for totalitarianism.
 
Just pointing out that the judges making up these rules couldn't pass the biology GREs if you allowed them double time and an open book.

They don't know jack, but they think they do. It's a dangerous combination.
Just FYI, judges don't determine public health policy, or even the effectiveness of public health policy. They only determine the legality of policies when requested by another party.
 
Bragging?

You haven't answered my question about Fauci's emails, so I will assume the answer is "no". Therefore you are relying on someone else's opinions about them. Is it fair to ask who that is? Is t Ben Shapiro?
I love when you nail them and they start squirming like exposed worms.
 
The “only quarantine the sick” standard doesn’t work very well for a disease with significant ore-symptomatic transmission. Nor is it even possible to meaningfully define the “least restrictive measure” when you are early in the pandemic. You just do not have the information needed to make that calculation.

This is the basic problem with lawyers playing junior epidemiologist. They simply are not qualified to understand the solutions they propose. Most of them have not taken a college level biology class, let alone completed the coursework necessary to understand epidemic growth. It would take years to bring them up to speed, even if they were willing to try.

Those who predict the pandemic is going away will eventually be right, and they will hope we forget how many died after they first predicted it.
 
Those who predict the pandemic is going away will eventually be right, and they will hope we forget how many died after they first predicted it.

Nah....we've just been honest with people that once China did this, a certain amount of death was unavoidable and was always baked in. We've just been arguing about the margins, both in terms of lives and economics.
 
Nah....we've just been honest with people that once China did this, a certain amount of death was unavoidable and was always baked in. We've just been arguing about the margins, both in terms of lives and economics.

Why did you think I was referring to you?
 
That's why there's expert testimony allowed in courts. But they don't want the health experts making the legal decisions because the health experts don't know the rights and don't balance the competing interests. And there are checks on the judge in the form of the court of appeals and the Supreme Court, so the arguments can be better vetted over time, which is why the wheels of justice move slowly. It's positively Lockeian in its construction.

What's dangerous is having an expert like Fauci make all the decisions, when he only knows his 1 narrow field, is primed to protect his institution, and is subject to hubris. That's the recipe not only for disaster (given all the mistakes he's made along the way) but also for totalitarianism.
Most judges are not qualified to understand the expert testimony. Neither are the appellate court judges or the supreme court justices.

The point is not that there should be no legal review.
The point is that the legal review should be competent. We need minimum scientific training for judges who rule on scientific matters.
 
Most judges are not qualified to understand the expert testimony. Neither are the appellate court judges or the supreme court justices.

The point is not that there should be no legal review.
The point is that the legal review should be competent. We need minimum scientific training for judges who rule on scientific matters.

The way expert testimony is allowed in our courts is ludicrous. Each side hires a qualified expert whose testimony is rehearsed to support their position. I was a juror in a civil trial where the expert hired by the plaintiff calculated a damage of several hundred thousand dollars. The defense expert calculated a damage of zero. Soon after the trial, we were sharing a table at a country club dinner with a lawyer. After I told him my story about experts, he named both of them.
 
The way expert testimony is allowed in our courts is ludicrous. Each side hires a qualified expert whose testimony is rehearsed to support their position. I was a juror in a civil trial where the expert hired by the plaintiff calculated a damage of several hundred thousand dollars. The defense expert calculated a damage of zero. Soon after the trial, we were sharing a table at a country club dinner with a lawyer. After I told him my story about experts, he named both of them.
There are two types of expert witnesses. There are those that are experts at being expert witnesses, and those that are experts in their field that give expert testimony. The former don't typically last very long. Legitimate experts understand that it takes many years to develop your reputation and credibility and one case to destroy it,

Your trial is an example of one and not a very good one at that. In a case where only several hundred thousand dollars is involved, your likely not talking about real reputable experts and instead are getting someone who was paid for a predetermined opinion.
 
There are two types of expert witnesses. There are those that are experts at being expert witnesses, and those that are experts in their field that give expert testimony. The former don't typically last very long. Legitimate experts understand that it takes many years to develop your reputation and credibility and one case to destroy it,

Your trial is an example of one and not a very good one at that. In a case where only several hundred thousand dollars is involved, your likely not talking about real reputable experts and instead are getting someone who was paid for a predetermined opinion.

That was more or less what the lawyer at our table said: "It's their business".
 
Most judges are not qualified to understand the expert testimony. Neither are the appellate court judges or the supreme court justices.

The point is not that there should be no legal review.
The point is that the legal review should be competent. We need minimum scientific training for judges who rule on scientific matters.
I don't think you understand fundamentally how our court system works. Judges typically rule on matters of law. Decisions on the credibility and preponderance of evidence (which is when expert witnesses are typically used) are usually made by juries.
 
Most judges are not qualified to understand the expert testimony. Neither are the appellate court judges or the supreme court justices.

The point is not that there should be no legal review.
The point is that the legal review should be competent. We need minimum scientific training for judges who rule on scientific matters.
They aren’t ruling on the science. That’s stuff like patent law for which there is a separate bar. This is the implication of rights: what the constitution says. The judges determine the legal principles at stake...if congress doesn’t like it or doesn’t think the science supports a particular ruling they are free to adjust the applicable law or constitutional provision. Judges aren’t supposed to inject their own knowledge into their rulings about things other than the law.
 
Back
Top