Indeed, people (especially politicians) seem really afraid to simply say "we don't know". Rather appeal to science as an authority that everyone agrees on. Especially when it comes to large topics like climate-change or pandemics, scientists dedicate their lives to learn about a small part; yet somehow all scientists are in agreement on whatever someone posted on social media or what a politician wants to do.
“Follow the Science” Is a Cop-Out
11–20 of 45 posts
Re: “Follow the Science” Is a Cop-Out
#12Let's start with following the scientists, rather than following the reporters' priorities and interpretations of the scientists.
Re: “Follow the Science” Is a Cop-Out
#13"The “science” that politicians have claimed to follow rarely resembles the centuries-old process of making informed guesses, testing hypotheses, assembling data, and asking new questions in an effort to teeter toward the truth. It is rather a void at the center of technocratic politics into which leaders cast their responsibility." What would author suggest in March last year? What would be a better option?
Erring on the side of caution was always an option. Advising people to wear masks early on instead of insisting that hand washing is the only thing necessary could have helped. Also encouraging exercise to mitigate the effects of the virus in case you do get it is something we still haven’t risen to.
Ventilation and filtration are more important than either of those efforts because they require zero compliance from the public. No one walks into Walmart and demands the blower fans on the air filter be turned off.
Re: “Follow the Science” Is a Cop-Out
#14Makes the argument that politicians dropped the ball. Mentions Cuomo and di Blasio by name, but oddly omits to mention deSantis, Abbott, any other conservative governors, nor the the politician best equipped to address the crisis: Trump.
Re: “Follow the Science” Is a Cop-Out
#15"The “science” that politicians have claimed to follow rarely resembles the centuries-old process of making informed guesses, testing hypotheses, assembling data, and asking new questions in an effort to teeter toward the truth. It is rather a void at the center of technocratic politics into which leaders cast their responsibility." What would author suggest in March last year? What would be a better option?
> What would author suggest in March last year? What would be a better option? The technocratic apparatus might have been deployed toward a strategy of creative mitigation — say, mass manufacturing of N95 masks, test kits mailed to every American, testing at a large-enough scale to isolate only the actually infected instead of everyone. Instead, our leaders decided to indefinitely maintain crippling restrictions on i…
> our leaders
In the United States at least, that's a bit of a cop out. Lockdowns were applied at the local level and were originally meant to buy time and prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed. The Federal government could have then stepped in with mass manufacturing of masks and wide-scale testing. But Trump was reluctant to use the Defense Production Act, and Jared Kushner was put in charge of coordinating PPE supplies, and we saw how that worked out.
Re: “Follow the Science” Is a Cop-Out
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Erring on the side of caution was always an option. Advising people to wear masks early on instead of insisting that hand washing is the only thing necessary could have helped. Also encouraging exercise to mitigate the effects of the virus in case you do get it is something we still haven’t risen to.
Given the reaction when Michelle Obama suggested kids eat more vegetables, you can only guess how many heads would explode if EXERCISE was mentioned!
Fauci has mentioned eating a healthy diet. But most people consider their diets healthy so that doesn't help. Anyway, this was obviously a point glossed over by the pro maskers.
Re: “Follow the Science” Is a Cop-Out
#17"The “science” that politicians have claimed to follow rarely resembles the centuries-old process of making informed guesses, testing hypotheses, assembling data, and asking new questions in an effort to teeter toward the truth. It is rather a void at the center of technocratic politics into which leaders cast their responsibility." What would author suggest in March last year? What would be a better option?
Erring on the side of caution was always an option. Advising people to wear masks early on instead of insisting that hand washing is the only thing necessary could have helped. Also encouraging exercise to mitigate the effects of the virus in case you do get it is something we still haven’t risen to.
These are not alternatives to basing policies on scientific knowledge, they are either alternatives - chosen with the benefit of hindsight - to some of the specific policies followed for a time, or some additional science-informed actions that could be taken.
Human history has plenty of experience of what happens in epidemics when the response is not informed by science, and we do not need any more of that.
Furthermore, not erring on the side of caution is more frequently encouraged among those who are dismissive of the idea of using science to guide policy.
Re: “Follow the Science” Is a Cop-Out
#18"The “science” that politicians have claimed to follow rarely resembles the centuries-old process of making informed guesses, testing hypotheses, assembling data, and asking new questions in an effort to teeter toward the truth. It is rather a void at the center of technocratic politics into which leaders cast their responsibility." What would author suggest in March last year? What would be a better option?
> What would author suggest in March last year? What would be a better option? The technocratic apparatus might have been deployed toward a strategy of creative mitigation — say, mass manufacturing of N95 masks, test kits mailed to every American, testing at a large-enough scale to isolate only the actually infected instead of everyone. Instead, our leaders decided to indefinitely maintain crippling restrictions on i…
"mass manufacturing of N95 masks"
How? The shortage in March was one of the reasons why they did not recommend masks. Besides, the point made was tailored toward the negative attitude towards science in emarging crisis scenario - "The “science” [..] rarely resembles the centuries-old process of making informed guesses, testing hypotheses"
Did we have any superior alternatives?
Re: “Follow the Science” Is a Cop-Out
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Erring on the side of caution was always an option. Advising people to wear masks early on instead of insisting that hand washing is the only thing necessary could have helped. Also encouraging exercise to mitigate the effects of the virus in case you do get it is something we still haven’t risen to.
These are not alternatives to basing policies on scientific knowledge, they are either alternatives - chosen with the benefit of hindsight - to some of the specific policies followed for a time, or some additional science-informed actions that could be taken. Human history has plenty of experience of what happens in epidemics when the response is not informed by science, and we do not need any more of that. Furthermo…
We have plenty of science, hundreds if not thousands of years’ of scientific evidence, that solid objects stop particles. A mask in front of the face when there is an unknown disease is simply common sense, basic physics to be more precise. To say that you need hindsight to make this judgment is ludicrous. The only (legitimate) reason you would not want to encourage mask wearing is if there was some way the mask could actually make you more likely to catch the virus somehow, which there was no evidence of.
Re: “Follow the Science” Is a Cop-Out
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
These are not alternatives to basing policies on scientific knowledge, they are either alternatives - chosen with the benefit of hindsight - to some of the specific policies followed for a time, or some additional science-informed actions that could be taken. Human history has plenty of experience of what happens in epidemics when the response is not informed by science, and we do not need any more of that. Furthermo…
We have plenty of science, hundreds if not thousands of years’ of scientific evidence, that solid objects stop particles. A mask in front of the face when there is an unknown disease is simply common sense, basic physics to be more precise. To say that you need hindsight to make this judgment is ludicrous. The only (legitimate) reason you would not want to encourage mask wearing is if there was some way the mask coul…
Blocking particles does not look like a solution unless you know what is causing a given disease. Medieval practitioners might have had some sort of intuition that this might be effective, but it was at most one idea among many mostly false ones, it dd not have any empirical support, and it did not translate into effective prophylaxis.
Like I said, you are proposing alternative science-based policies, which does not support the thesis of the article.