Being Wrong Is Not the Real Problem
Being Wrong Is Not the Real Problem
Movements Start Small #26
I am certain there is too much certainty in the world. - Michael Crichton
Believe those that seek the truth; doubt those that find it. - Andre Gide
You may have read (or heard about) Emily Oster’s recent article We Need to Declare a COVID Amnesty.
She makes the reasonable case that we should stop revisiting errors made during COVID. We were dealing with imperfect information and mistakes were inevitable, she argues. Seeking retribution now is not moving us forward. I agree with the sentiment.
But, she misses the real sin of our COVID response. The failure was not being wrong, it was being certain. In complex situations, the only way to get to the right answer is to debate, learn and constantly course-correct your way to the truth. Our public health and political leaders (of both parties!) failed miserably in this regard.
As early as April of 2020, many highly respected doctors were starting to question the conventional wisdom of COVID policy. Experts from Harvard, Stanford and Oxford cited real world data supporting their view that the massively differential risk of COVID across ages and risk factors demanded a totally different response than the broadly restrictive policies in place.
Their work resulted in the publication of the Great Barrington Declaration in October of 2020 which was co-signed by hundreds of doctors and scientists. Today it has been signed by almost a million. It was instantly rejected as an “unethical” and “ridiculous” strategy and actively silenced by the NIH leadership including Anthony Fauci. The authors were labeled “fringe” scientists not due to their credentials or data, but their different conclusions on policy.
While time has been favorable to the “focused protection” approach of Barrington, that is not the point. Even if they were wrong, their ideas should have been addressed directly. These were smart, qualified scientists rationally questioning policies whose impact could not be overstated. Instead they were silenced and demonized.
This type of behavior went on and on. The lab leak theory? Racist! Vaccines have limited impact on spreading disease. Anti-vaxxer! Schools are not areas of material spread or risk. Child killers!
These reactions have not aged well.
Were there other contrarian ideas about COVID that were truly wrong (or even ridiculous)? Absolutely. But that is the cost of an open, free society. We need a marketplace of ideas that truly battle it out. Instead of banning Joe Rogan, why not go on his show and counter the arguments? Persuade don’t cancel. Yes, not every crackpot idea has to be dealt with by leaders (vaccines as 5G tracking devices for example!) - but credible challenges like Barrington should. Why? Because they will be embraced by a good percentage of the people you are trying to lead. And when you simply cancel the perspective and end up being wrong, your credibility is shot. Predictably, we now have a confidence crisis in public health.
Complex situations demand smart experts, but above all they demand massive curiosity and humility. The learning mindset is mandatory. And when a minority of qualified experts disagree, no one gets to claim the mantle of “THE” science against them. Science is nothing more than a process to get to the truth. After all, almost all scientific progress started with a few smart contrarians pushing back (little things, like germ theory, heliocentrism, ending racism, smoking causes lung cancer!) No question we have to make choices based on what is known to be true at the time, but when the facts change, the “experts” must too…even if it means admitting a mistake.
To this day, there has been little to no admission of error in policy or, even worse, in process. I agree that the experts in charge made the best decisions they could based on what they knew. Their intentions were good. The issue is they were not fully open to knowing more even when confronted with credible ideas of other experts. And this was at a time when the only certainty was a lack of certainty. It won’t be easy to correct the instinct to silence dissent in our politically charged culture. But admitting we have a problem is a good first step.
Good Links
Ah, the good old days of reasoned debate. Liberal Phil Donahue hosts free marketeer Milton Friedman in 1979. Logical, calm and interesting discussion ensues.
Liberal activist Tim Robbins reflects on the pandemic, art and the movies. Rare intellectual honesty and open questioning of professed allegiances.
This is how you do apologies and self-correction. Erik Wemple of the Washington Post on the mob canceling James Bennet.
George Will remembers the last time we put complete faith in “the best and the brightest.”
Snoop Dog does science. Takes over narration of Planet Earth. Snakes vs Iguana edition: