Handling the Covid-19 Epidemic

How not to handle a scientific discussion

Stanford epidemiologist and economist Dr. Jay Bhattacharya has been named to lead the National Institutes of Health. At the peak of the Covid problem in 2020, his views were contrary to those held by the leadership at NIH. The debate was held in an inelegant and unprofessional manner. That may not be the fault of the scientists. Politicians and journalists had much to gain by adding emotion to the situation. But the public’s view of scientists, politicians, and journalists took a hit.

The biggest frustration of the public during Trump’s term was watching the media’s refusal to believe that Trump could be right about anything. Also, when he seemed to take advice from legitimate, qualified sources, those people were demeaned or canceled, at least in the minds of the fashionable. This is why we don’t believe them anymore.

There were two possible approaches to the Covid problem. Doctors wanted a different approach in part because they had different specialties. Infectious Disease specialists and Epidemiologists saw the problem differently.

Both groups agreed the elderly and those at medical risk needed to stay isolated because they could not cope with the impact of being sick with COVID-19. For the record, my wife and I were in this group. So, from a personal standpoint, both groups agreed about how we should be treated. We lost nothing by staying at home. We did not need to leave the house to earn money.

Dr. Anthony Fauci of NIH is known for his work in Infectious Diseases. He aimed to limit the spread of the disease by limiting the number of possible contacts by any means possible. In his view, anyone who came into contact was at risk. We’ll call this the “Cautious” approach.

Epidemiologists took a different view. They tried to end the problem as soon as possible. They felt that since most of the population suffered no significant harm when they caught COVID-19, it would be better to let most people get exposed, suffer mild symptoms, and build immunity. When most people were exposed, “herd immunity’ would reduce the danger of the disease. Let’s call this the “Active” approach.

Dr. Bhattacharya and others compiled an online document called the Great Barrington Declaration.

As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

Let’s be clear. The President is not the Surgeon General. He is the Chief Executive. Article 2 of the Constitution specifies the duties of the President and begins with,

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

Trump is a manager. He made a comment that was ridiculed, but I understood it immediately. “Let’s not make the cure worse than the problem.” I spent my career in the computer field. Every so often, a computer problem would shut down the systems used by the company’s clerical staff to interact with their customers. It was easy to define a cautious approach that would perfectly fix the computers and an active approach that would engage the customers and clerical people again. The managers always said, “I don’t want it perfect; I want it yesterday!

As the chief executive and a manager, Trump obviously would side with the active approach. Many doctors from respected hospitals and multiple specialties signed the Barrington Declaration. He had no real reason to doubt their qualifications or beliefs.

Then why couldn’t or didn’t he implement that approach? The problem was the environment and the tone of the discussion.

Bhattacharya noted that “science can’t do its job in an environment where anyone who challenges the status quo gets shut down or canceled.” There was no rational scientific discussion or debate. One and only one approach was acceptable. That was the response to anything offered that might ease the impact of COVID-19. Alternatives to lockdowns, prophylactics like Ivermectin, and even going out for fresh air and sunshine were all considered life-threatening and/or political statements.

However, support for the lockdowns was always weak. The costs were uneven and hurt hourly, non-government people the most. Anyone who had to report for work to earn their pay had a problem. Business owners had to pay rent even if they couldn’t open their businesses.

Officials urged citizens to report violations by their neighbors. We came to see how close we can come to a dictatorial state. We kept our eyes wide open for hypocrisy on the part of our leaders and had no trouble finding it.

When average citizens protested lockdowns, they were a threat to civilization. When Black Lives Matter started their “mostly peaceful” demonstrations,” all the rules changed. They had the right to express their opinions. Again, anything is OK if the approved people are doing it.

The main thing the lockdown approach taught us is simple. We can’t trust our leaders. They manipulate anything they can use for their purposes. “Journalists” are simply advocates for one side of the political spectrum. They are not a source of balanced information. We can’t “trust the science” because, as it is selectively presented to the public, it is merely a justification for whatever the leadership wants.

Perhaps the saddest thing of all is the cooperation of many of our neighbors in enforcing the lockdown. Many years ago, I read about Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and even dystopias like 1984. I was disturbed by everyone going along and reporting their neighbors to their authorities. I’ve heard of that in HOAs, but I hoped it wouldn’t be that bad in the broader community.

I was wrong.