Get Published | Subscribe | About | Write for Our Blog    

Posted on June 19, 2020 at 1:16 AM

As I write this I have been fielding messages from a friend
and interlocutor who, a knowledgeable health industry professional, seems quite
confident that had President Trump been successfully impeached—or, better,
never elected—the COVID-19 pandemic would not have been such a trouble for
us. 

And there may well be something, more than a little
something, to this.  Catalogued
charges of missed opportunities and willful neglect
are well known.  At the same time, in some quarters anyway, Trump’s
adversaries have
not escaped criticism
.

Of the first 100,000 or so deaths from COVID, about 40% are said
to have occurred
in nursing homes and assisted-living facilities for
elderly people.  Joy Riley discussed the
situation in
a fine post
on June 6.  But how
accurate is the count?  We don’t know.
The government can’t quite get the data, or its rules block collection of
the data, or something. 

All the counts are imprecise.  The self-declared
uncertainty in the IHME estimates
appears rather narrower now than it did
in April—it should, with more data—but it still gets wide after a while.  One doesn’t hear much about that uncertainty,
unless you consult a site like five thirty-eight.  Lack of certainty does not mean that the
modelers are purposefully misleading us, but, although they are making their
best estimates to help guide public decision-making, it does guarantee that
their projections will be “wrong.” 
(The National Weather Service forecasts thunderstorms for Omaha next
Monday night, June 22.  I think they are
more likely to be accurate.)

How much of a greater outbreak will there be this fall?  We don’t know.  We can and should be concerned, and prudent,
and considerate of our neighbors, but we don’t know.

Right now we’re overrun by people of all political persuasions,
not just at one “end of the spectrum,” who are quite certain they are
right and the other guys and gals are knee-walking stumblebums of the
apocalypse.  Add in a dash of ulterior
motive or hastiness and you get a lot of folks who, as President Reagan said,
“know so many things that aren’t so.” 
And then you get high-profile
retractions

The pandemic is a poor topic for a bioethics blog because so
much of bioethical discourse is about logical argument rather than decisions
under uncertainty, or judgments unencumbered by data, and because there is a
temptation to get on rather a high horse about matters.  Your correspondent confesses he is all too
familiar with the latter.

When the humble (we hope), uncertain, doing-their-best
public health forecasters speak, it would help if they would take care to sort
value judgments from judgment calls, if they would stay in their lane and point
out where their expertise ends and their opinions begin, and if they would
resist expanding their remit to make every social concern, as great as those may
be, a “public health” issue, and therefore a matter of science, with
the attendant risk of false precision and, indeed, category error.  As readers of this blog have recently been
reminded, what is
“essential
,” or more important than something else, is not subject
to measurement and experimental verification.

And the rest of us should give those forecasters some grace.

Gerald Seib of the Wall Street Journal recently wrote that
there is no
goodwill in America
anymore.  Sixty
percent of people in each major political party think the opposing party is “a
serious threat” to the nation.  Forty
percent of each party think that the opposing party is “evil.”  About 15 percent (give or take a little) of
each party think that violence would be “somewhat justified” if the
other side wins the next presidential election.

I once heard a story—no doubt apocryphal, I can’t find it, but
it serves my purpose—that Abraham Lincoln, at a friend’s funeral, listened to
several people speak then rose to eulogize his dead friend—and just cried and
sat down without uttering a word.

Maybe there’s a lesson there.

Comments are closed.