Humanity is now in its third year
of battling the SARS-CoV-2 virus (aka Covid). We have become frightened,
pained, upset and wounded, as well as wearied and drained. Even Democratic
Governors – from California to
Connecticut – have been announcing relaxed rules for dealing with Covid during
the past three (3) weeks.
Today the CDC finally issued new,
eased and science-based Covid guidelines, following the relaxation already
begun at the State level. The CDC guidelines focus on preventing hospitals and
health care facilities from being overwhelmed, rather than prior guidelines
that emphasized eliminating the transmission of Covid among people. I doubt the
CDC would have issued their new guidelines now without being forced by the governors’
prior decisions.
Can we breathe an un-masked sigh
of relief? Hope springs eternal. Such hope may now be especially appropriate
since Spring will formally appear in less than a month. But what about the BA.2
variant that’s now entering our viral stage?
Throughout this ever-shifting
pandemic, Dems have consistently proclaimed their allegiance to “following
science” as the only valid way of overcoming this virus. It’s seriously doubtful
we will ever overcome Covid. But thanks to vaccines and other health care improvements,
we may be able to live with it endemically, as I mentioned in a previous blog
.
The Dems’ following science
mantra is necessary for Covid policies’ groundwork, but the mantra may not be
sufficient as a policy justification. The vaunted Scientific Method, which
western science has used for over 400 years, has promoted significant,
broad-based societal benefits. Despite this impressive chronicle, many Repubs seemingly
beg to differ about using science. That’s farcical.
In contrast, by emphasizing their
policies follow science, the Dems seem to believe they can circumvent stating other
relevant justifications. That is mistaken. Two issues test this mantra’s policy
efficacy. First, certifiable medical science can take considerable time to become
digested from its beginnings in academic or private labs into medicines and
practices, and finally public policies. Second, science rarely proscribes only
one solution. There’s often more than one scientific way to achieve an
objective. Each way invariably requires trade-offs to be considered and
resolved. Numerous scientific results are controversial at first. In a sense,
such trade-offs and resolution are at the heart of the Scientific Method.
A brightly shining star in
Covid’s firmament has been the impressively quick commercial development of the
vaccines. The first person in the US was inoculated with a Covid vaccine on
December 14, 2020. The mRNA vaccines’ production took just a gold medal sprint worthy
11 months to be produced, authorized and shot into arms.
But that swift production of mRNA
Covid vaccines required a foundation of basic, scientific research and
knowledge that began long ago in the early 1960s. One of the pioneering scientists
whose interest in mRNA vaccines began in the 1970s is Katalin Karikó, who is
now Senior Vice President of BioNTech. BioNTech, together with Pfizer, has provided
324 million Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA Covid vaccine doses in the US.
The Dems have inappropriately hoisted
“following science” as a needed policy pinata, shown below, that will ensure the production of
unambiguous, universal guidance for how we should deal with this pandemic. If an
FDA or CDC policy is science-based, as these agencies’ policy-makers and the
president routinely state, it must be right. If only.
Numerous groups, disagreeing with
such guidance for assorted reasons, have persistently attempted to sling sharp pokes
into the Dems’ follow science pinata. They have yet to be showered with treats,
but they keep on trying.
Historically, empirically-based
scientific inquiry has produced many valued changes that have fundamentally altered
and improved how we see ourselves, our world and beyond. An apocryphal apple
falling on Newton’s head is but one example.
Scientific inquiry is never
static. Scientific knowledge regularly evolves as more data are gathered and new
theories are postulated to describe them. Scientific findings on many topics of
public interest cannot be carved into a Mt. Rushmore for all time. Here are two
examples from the past.
The heliocentric model of the heavens. Talk about fundamental changes. When
Copernicus first suggested that the universe did not revolve around our Earth
it was a big deal for those in the know – meaning the Catholic Church.
Geocentrism – where the Earth is placed at the center of the heavens – had been
accepted wisdom from on high for eons. In 1543 Copernicus first proposed an
alternative sun-centered (heliocentric) model of the heavens. Astronomers and
others will celebrate his 550th birthday next year.
In 1609, Galileo defended Copernican
heliocentrism based on his own, original astronomical observations. For that he
incurred the Catholic Church’s unrelenting rath. During the Roman Inquisition
in 1615 Galileo was found to be a nasty heliocentric heretic and placed under
house arrest until he died nearly 50 years later. Yet the cloistered Church
could not stop the heliocentric sun from shining in.
The theory of evolution. Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace offered
their ground-breaking research about evolutionary natural selection in 1858 at
London’s Linnean Society. The next year, Darwin published On the Origin of
Species by Means of Natural Selection that was hugely controversial and consequential.
Quixotically, it still remains provocative for a few people mostly on
theological grounds. After the late-19th century, natural selection has become
a foundational cornerstone of modern biology. But folks still petition school
boards to stop teaching evolution to their children, not just CRT.
There is no unique, unambiguous prescriptive
policy to cure our Covid dilemmas. Policies must change as Covid-reality varies.
Science-based policy options involve shortcomings as well as benefits. These
trade-offs need to be recognized and discussed. Invariable remedies do not
spring forth because they have been wrapped within a mantle of science. Pronouncing
policies as “following science” does not obviate the need to acknowledge their
trade-offs.
Discussing these trade-offs is key.
That’s not something that Dems or policy-makers at the FDA and CDC have seemed
comfortable doing in prior stages of the pandemic. The Dems would be wise to
cease characterizing their policy remedies as loftier simply because they’re following
science and take a more holistic, inclusive approach.
