Re:America is giving up on the pandemic?
by SpicyLemonZest on Sunday June 07, 2020 @06:01PM
(#23451266)
A clearer stance would help, but I feel like there's a fundamental problem with taking any stance. For public health authorities to affirmatively endorse political causes severely compromises their authority as neutral arbiters.
It is not "public health authorities". It is not a message from the government or any organization in a position of power. Instead, it is an open letter from health professionals.
They express themselves both as medical experts and as human beings, so having a political stance is no problem, as long as they make it clear which part of them is speaking. I think it is not clear enough in their letter, but in my opinion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with their message.
Re:America is giving up on the pandemic?
by SpicyLemonZest on Sunday June 07, 2020 @07:50PM
(#23452145)
They're not expressing their support for the protests as a personal or political question separate from their medical expertise. The letter says that "white supremacy is a lethal public health issue", racism is "the paramount public health problem", and the protests are "vital to the national public health". This is beyond simply not making it clear enough; they're deliberately invoking their medical expertise as a source of authority for their political judgments.
The problem is not that they took a political stance. If a group of doctors wants to come out in support of Flat Earth, so be it. The problem is they potentially compromise the health of the public at the expense of their political message. Again, nothing was stopping them from acknowledging there is a risk, but that it is worth it.
> Prepare for an increased number of infections in the days following a protest. Provide increased access to testing and care for people in the affected communities, especially when they or their family members put themselves at risk by attending protests.
The sentence "we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission" is a bit ambiguous, maybe on purpose. The idea is that they won't use the risk of COVID-19 transmission as a argument to disapprove of the gatherings.
They cannot say the gatherings are safe, because they aren't, but they also want to support them. That's how you get such an ambiguous message. I would have preferred a clearer stance as well like "We, as health professionals, recognize the risks, however, blah blah blah. You can minimize these risks by doing blah blah blah".