Read on Twitter
Setting aside for a moment the many concerning assumptions and proposals in the 'balanced' proposal letter, I want to point out issues I find problematic with the rhetoric they chose to employ. /1
First and most tellingly, 'balanced' is a carefully selected term that is actually a distortion of both their and alternative approaches to COVID-19. Their view is not 'balanced', it is a strong position in advocating for opening and the abandonment of containment as a goal. /2
The use of 'balance' is also designed to characterize alternative approaches as 'unbalanced'. This is not an accident - this is an intentional rhetorical strategy designed to dismiss other strategies and implicitly malign their proponents. /3
Second, the introductory letter and preamble are full of reasonable, difficult to dispute statements and inoffensive language that is almost completely disconnected from their recommendations. I'll point out one notable example which I think is the most egregious... /4
They specifically invoke "homeless shelters, prisons, dormitories for temporary foreign agriculture workers" and state that "appropriate protections and supports are needed in such settings." Yet, not a single one of their 12 recommendations addresses this need. /5
For me - this is the third major problem here - the disconnect between the introduction/rationale and recommendations is a deceit. It may not be conscious - I have no doubt that at least some of the authors believe that what they recommend is related to their introduction... /6
... but the actionable recommendations are ENTIRELY FOCUSED on facilitating reopening, and COMPLETELY SILENT on specific mechanisms to protect the vulnerable and disproportionately affected populations they refer to in their introduction. /7
Lastly, they use exactly the same rationale as Fox News and Donald Trump: "However, in overall population health terms COVID-19’s direct impact on premature mortality is small... severe outcomes can be averted in those who do not have pre-existing risk factors." .../8
This is the equivalent as saying 'the people that don't die do fine... please don't look behind the curtain at the pile of corpses'. It's frankly gross. /9
This document not balanced (it's extreme) or transparent (they bury their true aims in a long unrelated inoffensive preamble) and so to me, not trustworthy, regardless of the credentials and (mostly former, thankfully) leadership positions of the authors. /end
