The Biden Administration

[dismalist]

I can do Transportation: I run a model railroad. :-)

[Hegemony]

It's funny about Mayor Pete, as one thing I know about him comes from a friend's parents who live in South Bend. They were incensed at Mayor Pete because he had changed some things about the transportation infrastructure of the town. They wanted it left exactly the way it was, thank you. But no, he was determined to improve transportation. So ... we'll see. My experience of him is that he's a smart guy who also knows to look to the experts instead of making everything up on his own, so that will be a nice change from the previous administration.

[writingprof]

My experience of him is that he's a smart guy who also knows to look to the experts instead of making everything up on his own, so that will be a nice change from the previous administration.

It is so quaint and charming to discover that someone still believes in rule by experts.  One question: Can experts be voted out of "office," or must we do what they say forever, with no recourse? 

[Hegemony]

I don't understand the question. Presumably you, like most of us here, believe in the value of lifelong professional study of certain kinds of matters: public health, transportation, food and drug safety, etc. You don't vote those experts in and you don't vote them out. You hire the best people you can get, and the best people you can get to manage them. Ideally most of those experts stay in their positions through many changes of administration, because they do their jobs well and because we need people who know what they're doing, not a whole new batch of people scrambling to get up to speed on complex issues every four years. And the more that the incomers listen to the experts, the better overall, in my view. Of course, a distrust of career specialists and a sense that anybody off the street could come in and make complex specialist decisions was a hallmark of this outgoing administration, so maybe that's where you're coming from.

[writingprof]

The problem is that while expert advice may occasionally be non-ideological, it is impossible to avoid ideological choices when acting on that advice.  Thus, a vision of government in which

incomers listen to the experts

is as hopelessly vague as a vision in which officials "do the right thing" or "serve the people."

Case in point: Experts agree that fetuses are human (not non-human) and living (not dead).  How should officials act on that expertise?

Or: Experts agree that, with rare exceptions, human beings are born as either biological males or biological females.  What policies ought to proceed from that fact?

Or: Experts agree that "B"lack males commit crimes at higher rates than white males.  How must our representatives respond?

I could go on, obviously.  There is no morally or ideologically neutral rule by experts.  It's a technocratic fantasy.

[Hegemony]

So experts are pointless, because some issues have ideological angles? Oh come on — if you had to get a bridge designed, you'd still consult the right kind of engineers, not just somebody off the street. There are thousands of expert federal employees who have persisted in their jobs and their expertise through many administrations of both parties. And even if you will only listen to people of your particular ideological stripe when you hit sensitive matters like fetuses and sexes, you want people who are up to speed on the science and the intricacies, not some random businessman who has strong opinions based on no experience in the field. I would think that of any group of people, all of us here would be aware of the value of extensive training and experience. Otherwise we'd be employing those retired guys who send us letters saying, "I've run a car rental agency my whole life, but I was always interested in history/chemistry/banjo/law, so now that I'm retired, why don't I come and teach for your department?"

[dismalist]

The genius experts at the CDC are deciding how to allocate the new vaccines. That is not a scientific decision, and the experts have no business making it.

[ciao_yall]

The genius experts at the CDC are deciding how to allocate the new vaccines. That is not a scientific decision, and the experts have no business making it.

So, if vaccine allocation is not a job for public health science experts, for whom is it a job?

[Hibush]

The genius experts at the CDC are deciding how to allocate the new vaccines. That is not a scientific decision, and the experts have no business making it.

So, if vaccine allocation is not a job for public health science experts, for whom is it a job?

The Minister of Patronage is the obvious alternative if expertise in public benefit is not the basis.

[dismalist]

The genius experts at the CDC are deciding how to allocate the new vaccines. That is not a scientific decision, and the experts have no business making it.

So, if vaccine allocation is not a job for public health science experts, for whom is it a job?

The Minister of Patronage is the obvious alternative if expertise in public benefit is not the basis.

Public benefit? No, bureaucratic benefit!

The CDC will announce soon. We shall see.

[dismalist]

Meanwhile, from a NYT article https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-first.html

An independent committee of medical experts that advises the C.D.C. on immunization practices will soon vote on whom to recommend for the second phase of vaccination — "Phase 1b." In a meeting last month, all voting members of the committee indicated support for putting essential workers ahead of people 65 and older and those with high-risk health conditions.

Historically, the committee relied  on scientific evidence to inform its decisions. But now the members are weighing social justice concerns as well... .

That means saving the maximum number of lives as a criterion has gone out the window. And whose social justice concerns?

Agree or disagree, but this is politics, not science.

[marshwiggle]

Meanwhile, from a NYT article https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-first.html

An independent committee of medical experts that advises the C.D.C. on immunization practices will soon vote on whom to recommend for the second phase of vaccination — "Phase 1b." In a meeting last month, all voting members of the committee indicated support for putting essential workers ahead of people 65 and older and those with high-risk health conditions.

Historically, the committee relied  on scientific evidence to inform its decisions. But now the members are weighing social justice concerns as well... .

That means saving the maximum number of lives as a criterion has gone out the window. And whose social justice concerns?

Agree or disagree, but this is politics, not science.

It says they will vote to "recommend". That sounds like the CDC makes the final call.

[dismalist]

Meanwhile, from a NYT article https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-first.html

An independent committee of medical experts that advises the C.D.C. on immunization practices will soon vote on whom to recommend for the second phase of vaccination — "Phase 1b." In a meeting last month, all voting members of the committee indicated support for putting essential workers ahead of people 65 and older and those with high-risk health conditions.

Historically, the committee relied  on scientific evidence to inform its decisions. But now the members are weighing social justice concerns as well... .

That means saving the maximum number of lives as a criterion has gone out the window. And whose social justice concerns?

Agree or disagree, but this is politics, not science.

It says they will vote to "recommend". That sounds like the CDC makes the final call.

Actually, the CDC only makes a recommendation. The States decide.

[marshwiggle]

Meanwhile, from a NYT article https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-first.html

An independent committee of medical experts that advises the C.D.C. on immunization practices will soon vote on whom to recommend for the second phase of vaccination — "Phase 1b." In a meeting last month, all voting members of the committee indicated support for putting essential workers ahead of people 65 and older and those with high-risk health conditions.

Historically, the committee relied  on scientific evidence to inform its decisions. But now the members are weighing social justice concerns as well... .

That means saving the maximum number of lives as a criterion has gone out the window. And whose social justice concerns?

Agree or disagree, but this is politics, not science.

It says they will vote to "recommend". That sounds like the CDC makes the final call.

Actually, the CDC only makes a recommendation. The States decide.

So the committtee recommends to the CDC who recommends to the states?

[dismalist]

Yup.