Comment by actinium226
Comment by actinium226 a day ago
You seem awfully quick to indict them. While honesty is definitely a virtue, too much can hurt. They wanted to avoid causing a panic, and they monitored risk carefully. Presumably they had time to issue evacuation orders in the event the storm turned towards the city. In the end they completed the repairs and no one had to panic.
Compare that with the evacuation of Fukushima after the incident at the nuclear plant, which released a very minor amount of radiation. Many people suffered severe psychological stress at not being able to return home and not knowing when or if they'd be allowed to go home. Some to the point of suicide. In that case the issue was more about unnecessary evacuation as opposed to messaging, but the point stands the unnecessary panic can cause real harm.
I acknowledged that's a factor for some people.
Throughout the article, from the beginning, the writer keeps going out of their way to exonerate the main character.
But elsewhere they do acknowledge the risks to the company's stock price, individual reputations, etc.
So it does seem that was a factor for some, and a potential conflict of interest.