Off the Deep End
Atlanta, GA
December 17, 2020
When you toss private thoughts into the public pool, you risk getting wet. Yesterday, I got soaked.
That’s OK. I ventured toward the deep end, so was prepared to be splashed. But in this case, I spouted a number of notions, so it’s probably not a bad idea to grab a towel, dry off, and clear a few of them up.
Discussing COVID, as with so many topics in our polarized world, often produces binary thinking that instinctively categorizes people into one of two all-encompassing, yet mutually exclusive, camps.
If you favor compulsory lockdowns, mask mandates, and forced separation, that means you understand the serious nature of the virus, appreciate the expertise of medical professionals, understand the intricacies of science, and want to do all you can to protect human life.
If you object to any of these measures, you obviously consider the virus to be harmless (if not a hoax), denigrate medical expertise, deny the value of vaccines, are impervious to scientific data, and prioritize economic considerations over the lives of others.
While I think there are far more people who believe the first set of ideas than subscribe to the second, I don’t think (and certainly didn’t intend) that anything I’ve ever said about this virus approximates either one. But, for whatever reason, I am often assumed to be part of the latter bucket.
While I admit I object to the litany of official responses to the virus, that doesn’t mean I subscribe to the caricatured conclusions that supposedly follow.
Even after yesterday’s note, I had a number of people assure me that the virus is real, that masks work, that they know people who have had or died of COVID, and that we need to take it seriously.
I’ve never denied any of these things. My own father-in-law died while suffering COVID. I know countless others who have also lost relatives, or who have themselves had the disease and recovered. One of my teammates at work has it now. Some who had it were wiped out for weeks, others came thru relatively unscathed.
I’ve had pneumonia twice. Many have had bad bouts with the flu. But when those bugs fly around, life goes on without people accusing each other of not taking the infections seriously. I could very well get COVID myself, as could members of my family. Why not? It’s floating around. One of us is bound to bump into it.
So of course I take the virus seriously. Why wouldn’t I? Yesterday I called it potentially lethal. For what it’s worth, I work for a company that will distribute the vaccine, and that works with the companies that manufacture them. But taking something seriously need not mean taking nothing else seriously. As with anything, we assess priorities, and balance trade-offs.
COVID and measures taken to prevent it don’t present the same risks to each person, so why must we all endure the same remedies? Should we take clinical depression seriously? Or suicide? Or cancer? Or tuberculosis? Or dementia? Or heart disease? Or starvation? Or the spiritual and economic deprivation that causes or compounds all of these things? The usual measures to mitigate COVID exacerbate each these afflictions, and more. Why are none of the people advocating them ever accused of not valuing science, medical expertise, or other people’s lives?
Based on an accumulation of data and scientific studies, I have indeed questioned whether masks work. So what? Shouldn’t we all be doing that? Or are we to just obsequiously do whatever we’re told?
I don’t presume to know, and certainly can’t say with assurance, that face coverings are appropriate for every person and in every situation. They wouldn’t seem to be. After all, what else is? My point is that the experts, and certainly other ignoramuses like me, don’t know either.
Again, why is that controversial? The “experts” aren’t some monolithic priesthood adhering to one unanimous opinion. Like economists, theologians, or lawyers, medical specialists have their share of differing perspectives among thoughtful professionals, quack charlatans, and political opportunists.
Actual data (as opposed to contrived models) appears at best to be inconclusive, and often contradicts what we would expect based on what we are all being told to do. I have no idea what really works and what doesn’t. I think most people are as unaware as I am. But not enough seem to be as uncertain.
Too many of them fall back on quick answers and glib responses, often making confident assertions about complicated matters they hadn’t even heard of ten months ago. I marvel at the lack of curiosity and dearth of humility in the face of what, at the very least, is complex and often perplexing information.
As just one example, yesterday I noted that the Washington Post (one of the more apocalyptic papers) informed that not one case of COVID transmission has ever been traced to a surface. Does that not surprise anyone? It surprised me. Yet places continue to maniacally wipe everything down and only use disposable materials.
We are told that the science dictates they should do this. But does it? It doesn’t seem to. And, truth be told, science doesn’t “tell us“ to do anything. That’s not it’s rôle. Science is descriptive, not prescriptive.
What should we do when confronted with new data? Should we perhaps re-assess our assumptions? Or must we always stick with them once they are made? Are we catering to science or hysteria? In what areas are we doing useless or damaging things because we misinterpret or mis-apply what we think we know? Are we not allowed to ask?
As Keynes was supposed to have said, “when the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you so, sir?”
My broader point is not that science isn’t valuable (that would be silly), but that it is an ongoing pursuit, is often misunderstood, and is currently being misappropriated. I of course don’t know any of the immunologists advising our governments, but have no reason to question their competence in their field.
My issue is not with them determining and informing how viruses spread, identifying who is most vulnerable, and suggesting potential mitigation measures. That is their area of expertise and, like any reasonable observer, I welcome whatever information they provide.
What I do question is their qualification, as well as that of any politician or anyone else, to unilaterally decide for each of hundreds of millions of people how they must react to that information. These are no longer a medical questions, but philosophical ones. And they entail value judgments that can be made only by each person, based on his collection of individual beliefs, preferences, goals, situation, priorities, and risk-profile. No scientist, doctor, politician, or bureaucrat can possibly know that.
Nor should we expect them to. But, apparently a lot of people do.
I feel uncomfortable telling my friends and family what they should do. Half the time, I have trouble making a decision for myself. I can’t fathom a level of arrogance that would arrogate to itself the ethical, moral, spiritual, economic, and medical decisions of several billion people.
To think that can be done, one must truly be off the deep end.
JD
