Among the many criticisms of the government’s response to the coronavirus that Nocera and MacLean outlined in their recent book, “The Great Failure,” is that public health officials were not quite on the same level as the American people. Health officials presented their claims with far more certainty than the evidence warranted. Returning to why the pandemic preparedness book, which took years of effort to create, has been of little help, Nocera and MacLean say:
One of the key problems for public health officials trying to combat the new coronavirus has been that it is a different type of virus. All of the government’s plans were made in anticipation of an influenza pandemic. Not much was known about how the coronavirus spread and how deadly it was, especially in the early months. And Fauci never acknowledged that uncertainty.
I don’t think it’s entirely true that Anthony Fauci was never willing to acknowledge uncertainty. He often did so, usually after the fact to explain why he had changed his position. That in itself is not a problem. We want public officials to change their minds after learning new information. But what Fauci was definitely not good at is acknowledging some degree of uncertainty in the moment, especially when there is so much uncertainty about the current situation that reasonable disagreement about current policy is possible. It was an acceptance that meant there was a lot of room. With each backlash to his statements, the prospect that such backlash might justifiably be based on uncertainty disappears, and those who disagree with his views are left with “unthinkable reasons for the backlash people have.” He explained that it is motivated by “scientific bias.” I don’t understand it. They don’t believe in science or authority. ”
Consider the problem of masking. Early in the coronavirus pandemic, many public health officials confidently declared to the public that there was no benefit to wearing masks to prevent disease transmission. It later turned out that they believed masks were beneficial in preventing the spread of the disease, but feared that if they openly admitted so, there wouldn’t be enough masks for health care workers. So they deliberately downplayed the value of masks, at least initially, to prevent people from panic-hoarding masks that were in limited supply and to make more masks available to hospital staff.
Then came a change in guidance from above.
In April 2020, the CDC reversed its original position that no one needed a mask and said Americans should start wearing masks, including cloth masks, immediately. Overnight, tens of millions of Americans began wearing the shoes, and hundreds of entrepreneurs began mass-producing them, many of them from closed businesses. But as we learn more about the coronavirus, some experts are realizing that cloth masks aren’t very useful. “We’ve known for months that the coronavirus is airborne and cannot be transmitted through a simple cloth mask,” said Lena Wen, a public health professor at George Washington University. In early 2022, nearly two years into the pandemic, the CDC finally — finally — acknowledged that “loosely woven fabrics offer the least protection from the virus.” Such an involuntary change did not inspire confidence.
Additionally, Dr. Fauci has stated at various points that his public statements are not intended to reflect what he actually believes to be true, but rather to convince people what he wants to be most effective. He seemed to accept that it had been orchestrated to make a point, even if what he said was not true or justified by the evidence. Fauci said of his approach to vaccination rates:
When polls showed that only about half of Americans would get vaccinated, I said we could achieve herd immunity at 70 to 75 percent, but then new polls showed that over 60 percent would get vaccinated. This is what I thought when I got the results that I should be vaccinated. I thought, ‘Hey,’ so I went to 80 and 85.
(More than anything, this reminds me of Bart Simpson’s famous line, “I lied because it was the easiest way to get what I wanted!”)
Perhaps in these and many other similar cases, public health officials felt the best course of action was to come up with some kind of noble lie approach. Maybe so, and I think it’s worth a try, but I’m not sure. But publicly acknowledging that uncertainty can undermine people’s willingness to accept either, so act as if the situation is settled and those who disagree simply “follow the science.” You should act as if you are just refusing.
But this creates a problem similar to what economists call the signal extraction problem. As soon as public health officials start making statements based on more than what they know to be true, or based on things they know aren’t actually true but with the purpose of moving people in the “right” direction. , they contaminate signals such as: The message should be sent. From that point on, every time public health advice is given, people say, “Okay, are they saying this because they believe it’s actually true based on good reason? Or? , are they exaggerating their confidence too much because they think that’s the best way to get people to do what they want? Or are they just not getting the reaction they want when they answer honestly? Are you saying things you don’t actually believe because you’re worried about it?”
It is often said that a serious problem in America is that people are losing faith in institutions. But is this loss of trust due to Americans failing to show their institutions the proper trust they have earned, or because the players running those institutions have not acted in a manner worthy of trust? Is it worth asking?
And trust in institutions can make a big difference. In their book, Nocera and MacLean state:
As a point of comparison, [Dr. Jay] Bhattachary liked to use the Swedish example. Sweden caused controversy by enforcing a lockdown to keep society running. But once the vaccine became available, “Sweden vaccinated 97% of adults without any obligations,” Bhattachary said. “Why? It’s because people trusted the government. And the reason they trusted the government was because officials were honest about what they knew and what they didn’t know. And they trusted the government. We did not force people to do anything beyond their control.”
The decline in trust in this institution in America has been ongoing for a long time. In his book, The Conservative Sensibility, George Will writes:
In 1964, 76 percent of Americans trusted the government to do the right thing “almost always or most of the time.” Currently, fewer than 20% do so. The previous number is one of the reasons [President Lyndon] Johnson did many things. The latter is one of the consequences of his actions.
I believe that loss of trust in institutions is one of the biggest problems facing American society today. But I also believe that a significant portion of that trust has been lost. Because the elites within the system believe and act as if the masses are betraying them. Ordinary people do not show elites the respect and deference that they believe they deserve. .
(0 comments)
Source link
