THE DEMS, COVID AND SCIENCE

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.

 

The Dems' Covid Pinata 

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.