McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

Re:McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis... by cochne on Thursday February 04, 2021 @09:49AM (#26025737)

To play devil's advocate, they could be both ineffective and harmful. Just because they succeeded in getting the company to do something, that not mean it was the right thing. The sale of the drugs could have produced a net loss as well as harmed the people who bought them.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis... by refurb on Thursday February 04, 2021 @10:35AM (#26026188)

Ineffective = “having no effect”

Harmful = “having a negative effect”

How can they be both?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis... by heavenlyblue on Thursday February 04, 2021 @10:51AM (#26026381)

You can be effective at selling opiates to people, but then end up in an investigation for selling them illegally and thus neutralising any of the revenue you had initially brought with fines for doing so illegally. Here's no effect.

Of course a lot of brutal strategies work well in environments which do not expect them. However trusted environments are often more efficient.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis... by arrosenberg on Thursday February 04, 2021 @01:07PM (#26028028)

With a comma? Ineffective doesn't mean no-effect, it means 'not the intended effect'.

I.E. "McKinsey worked with Purdue to implement an ineffective business strategy that resulted in bankruptcy for the business, due the harmful nature of the product and the predatory nature of the strategy."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis... by some_random on Thursday February 04, 2021 @03:01PM (#26029150)

Sure, but I would think generating significant amounts of revenue would tilt the probabilities towards "consultants do actually do something".

[ Parent | on HN ]