'Please only serious responses': Jared Kushner reportedly looked to a Facebook group to crowdsource ideas to stop the coronavirus

[DELETEME1234 208]

Quote

As the White House clamors to combat the spread of COVID-19, the illness caused by the new coronavirus, Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump's son-in-law and senior aide, has reportedly turned to a nontraditional resource: advice crowdsourced from Facebook.

 

Kurt Kloss, a doctor and the father-in-law of Jared Kushner's brother, Josh, on Wednesday posted in a Facebook group for physicians called EM Docs, asking for its nearly 22,000 members to brainstorm measures to stop the coronavirus outbreak, The Spectator first reported on Thursday. Politico later independently published a report on Kloss' posts.

 

"I have direct channel to person now in charge at White House," Kloss reportedly wrote, adding: "If you were in charge of Federal response to the Pandemic what would your recommendation be. Please only serious responses."

Read more…

(Screenshots)

 

 

Things are getting ridiculous. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

If you want a really good laugh, look at the WHO recommend health crowdsourcing, including using social media.

 

https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/273039/TDR-STRA-18.4-eng.pdf

 

Puts into perspective these visceral/reflexive (over)reactions promoted by confirmation bias media.

Edited March 13, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[laylalex 7,284]

I feel like I have shock fatigue at the moment.

 

On the one hand, though, Dr. Kloss is a private person and can ask whatever he wants. On the other, that the White House might be seriously relying on crowdsourced info from Facebook, even from a group made up of doctors, seems really irresponsible.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

Why would asking for ideas from 22k doctors be a bad idea?  2 scoops of ice cream 

Absurd

[DELETEME1234 208]

11 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Puts into perspective these visceral/reflexive (over)reactions promoted by confirmation bias media.

If you don't see the difference between throwing a question in a Facebook group to come up with the nation's answer to a pandemic vs. a streamlined and organised event that are often times mainly awareness campaigns (as per page 20 of your document) for communal diseases like HIV, then there's nothing I can do I'm afraid. 

 

 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

11 minutes ago, Poseidon1212 said:

If you don't see the difference between throwing a question in a Facebook group to come up with the nation's answer to a pandemic vs. a streamlined and organised event that are often times mainly awareness campaigns (as per page 20 of your document) for communal diseases like HIV, then there's nothing I can do I'm afraid. 

 

 

"A Facebook group"

 

Of doctors. Crowdsourcing information. The cited WHO article talks about the usefulness of crowdsourcing vital health research, and focusing on methodologies of doing just that. It also talks about how much more efficient it is than the preferred methodologies today, especially the growing money waster, social marketing. 

 

The presumption that it's "coming up with the nation's answer to a pandemic" is clearly employed as a caricature, deliberately avoiding the fact that the applications have uses and results. 

 

If you want a religious approach to a science problem (as seen by the appeal to authority fallacy along with plethora of other attribution fallacies) maybe a science topic isn't a good fit.

Edited March 13, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

37 minutes ago, Poseidon1212 said:

If you don't see the difference between throwing a question in a Facebook group to come up with the nation's answer to a pandemic vs. a streamlined and organised event that are often times mainly awareness campaigns (as per page 20 of your document) for communal diseases like HIV, then there's nothing I can do I'm afraid. 

 

 

22k doctors is a heck of a conference call. What logical reason , other than you hate Trump, for asking 22k medical professionals in one place for opnions. What difference does it matter the platform.  Jesus H. 

[DELETEME1234 208]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

other than you hate Trump

At this point it's not a good faith debate anymore. To be fair, I think it never really was if we're going to pretend this it's an ok thing to do and clearly the father-in-law once removed didn't think it was normal either, otherwise he wouldn't have moved the post. If the administration truly wants input from experts there are established ways to do that, such as consultations with civil society organisations (personally I'd go with a group of epidemiologists or emergency management  experts than a group of ER doctors, but that's me). 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

39 minutes ago, Poseidon1212 said:

At this point it's not a good faith debate anymore. To be fair, I think it never really was if we're going to pretend this it's an ok thing to do and clearly the father-in-law once removed didn't think it was normal either, otherwise he wouldn't have moved the post. If the administration truly wants input from experts there are established ways to do that, such as consultations with civil society organisations (personally I'd go with a group of epidemiologists or emergency management  experts than a group of ER doctors, but that's me). 

When you're President, you can make that call.

 

Until then, people in positions of authority in the business and government world clearly don't mind using crowdsourcing, and the only people that concerned about "muh experts" are those trying very hard to be fault finding, while questioning the good faith of others, without irony.

[DELETEME1234 208]

6 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

When you're President, you can make that call.

His prerogative to make that call doesn't make him immune to criticism. 

 

8 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

are those trying very hard to be fault finding,

Take it from me, there exists no person on this earth that has to try very hard to find faults in Trump. At best there are people that have a hard time coming to terms with his faults and rather pretend they don't exist.  

 

 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 hours ago, Poseidon1212 said:

Read more…

(Screenshots)

 

 

Things are getting ridiculous. 

 

   Nothing wrong with using Facebook as long as you know which information is accurate and which is BS. The inability to distinguish that is my bigger concern.

[DELETEME1234 208]

3 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

The inability to distinguish that is my bigger concern.

Which is exactly one of the reasons why this is not a smart thing to do. 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

31 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Nothing wrong with using Facebook as long as you know which information is accurate and which is BS. The inability to distinguish that is my bigger concern.

and that would be the case no mater the platform. I personally thing having 22K captive doctors that are on the front lines of this thing giving opinions is brilliant. I mean what could 22K trained profesional on the front line possibly be able to contribute ?

[Dashinka 24,487]

42 minutes ago, Poseidon1212 said:

His prerogative to make that call doesn't make him immune to criticism. 

 

Take it from me, there exists no person on this earth that has to try very hard to find faults in Trump. At best there are people that have a hard time coming to terms with his faults and rather pretend they don't exist.  

 

 

All leaders should face criticism.  I only wish the criticism was distributed equally especially by the mainstream media.

[DELETEME1234 208]

Just now, Dashinka said:

All leaders should face criticism.  I only wish the criticism was distributed equally especially by the mainstream media.

Honestly depends on which media you're following. If you combine MSNBC and Fox News you'll get a rather equal distribution. But media in the US is always biased or at the very least a bit skewed.  

 

I kinda miss an unbiased news program that purely does factual reporting, then again, people that complain about biased media also point to media like BBC and says they are biased. It's almost as if factual reporting is considered biased whenever it doesn't fit the narrative bubble someone finds themselves in.  

 

My history teacher always said: 'You want honest stories about the US? Watch Russian media and take it with a huge grain of salt. You want honest stories about Russia? Watch American media and take with a huge grain of salt.' I took that to mean to mix up your media sources.