I disagreed with the idea there is no role for the government in terms of an epidemic. I think border are a useful way to prevent the spread of disease. Furthermore, I think the first set of lock-downs, although likely ineffective, was justified; when the best data comes from two relatively hostile governments (i.e. Iran and the People's Republic of China), I think it is justified to slow a fast-spreading threat until the risks are better understood. Furthermore, I disagreed with his views on professional ethics. While I agree experts with dire predictions should not have that ability to persuade government (and that Dr. Fauci's and others actions, such as posing for magazine covers, were entirely inappropriate), I believe experts have, or should have, an ethical obligation to provide their methodology and the level of uncertainly in regards to their predictions and the basis for their recommendations. Professionals, including experts, take on certain ethical duties as to ensure the viability of the profession. Doctor-patient confidentially and attorney-client privilege are just the most famous of many ethical duties that allow the profession to operate. However, just because an ethical duty exist does not mean it constitutes a legal requirement. For instance, many of the ethical principles surrounding engineering are unenforced by law, or the legal obligation is optional through licensure. However, these ethical, but not legal, obligations continue to exist as they ensure the viability of the profession.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from: