The degree of correspondence between the Quinn character I made up (thinking it might be a strawman) and some commentators in this thread is quite high.
“Publicizing numbers on PADP effectiveness is bad even if they’re right” → “Publicizing info about CDC trustworthiness is bad even if it’s right”
“People giving money to PADP is good so you shouldn’t undermine trust in them” → “People trusting the CDC is good so you shouldn’t undermine trust in them”
“The people at PADP are nice and honest even if they reported wrong numbers” → “The CDC people are doing good work and people should trust them even though they’ve screwed up here”
The degree of correspondence between the Quinn character I made up (thinking it might be a strawman) and some commentators in this thread is quite high.
“Publicizing numbers on PADP effectiveness is bad even if they’re right” → “Publicizing info about CDC trustworthiness is bad even if it’s right”
“People giving money to PADP is good so you shouldn’t undermine trust in them” → “People trusting the CDC is good so you shouldn’t undermine trust in them”
“The people at PADP are nice and honest even if they reported wrong numbers” → “The CDC people are doing good work and people should trust them even though they’ve screwed up here”