On 13-8-2013 0:42, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 8/11/2013 11:04 AM, andrel wrote:
>
>> Two years ago we had the bird flu disaster. I.e. there was no disaster.
>> Still a couple of companies made good money from it. One side effect is
>> that the WHO is in trouble now. Both financially and morally. Does not
>> help either.
>
> Which is, as unfortunate as it is idiotic. WHO determines its actions
> based on the statistical odds that something bad is likely to happen.
> The math told them, "There is a bloody high probability that this mix of
> genes could prove to be a serious problem, if it became wide spread."
> Turned out not to be accurate. But, the average person always seems to
> assume that the "experts" are omniscient.

In this case there was the additional problem that people that were 
claiming there would potential be a big disaster had ties to the 
industry that profited from the 'precautions'. That was the moral 
problem here. If there had been a great outbreak, of course nobody would 
have complained, that is true.



> Its actually kind of ironic. In this case, everyone got pissed because
> they said, "We think there is a big change of a huge problem here." In
> the case of, for example, Katrina, you had some "expert" claiming that
> the sea level rise was "within" acceptable statistical ranges, with
> respect to spilling over the levees, and they actually **lied**,
> claiming that the maximum level was a few feet under the max levee
> height, without including the "statistical" factor, that it might be
> something like 10 feet higher or lower than that. If the ass had turned
> out right, he would have been praised for it. Instead, he guessed wrong,
> and it was a disaster, and everyone blamed pretty much ***everyone
> else***, including the ones that knew he had lied.
>
> When it comes to things can can kill people, being right as as bad as
> being dead wrong, depending "entirely" on whether you got it wrong and
> people died, or you got it wrong, and everyone starts whining that you
> cried wolf, and they will, more often than not, try to take everyone
> around you down with you, for the "mistake".
>


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message