Read on Twitter
Thread on these recent DIY articles on how to keep yourself safe(r) in the time of the pandemic.
On the face of it, these articles are helpful, right? They also give us a sense of control. 1/ https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/23/861325631/from-camping-to-dining-out-heres-how-experts-rate-the-risks-of-14-summer-activit
On the face of it, these articles are helpful, right? They also give us a sense of control. 1/ https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/23/861325631/from-camping-to-dining-out-heres-how-experts-rate-the-risks-of-14-summer-activit
For an analogy, see these DIY guides on how to survive nuclear winter. Differences of course are stark, but the basic tenor is the same: they individualize something that can fundamentally not be individualized 2/
Problem with individualizing risk management is that it can lead to further burdening already vulnerable people. See this article. What if you decide, hm, I'm in my 20s, healthy, risk is low for me, I'll go out, do stuff, you might put others at risk
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52758024 3/
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52758024 3/
So that now puts the burden on older folks, immunocompromised etc. to manage their risk (already before of course, but now greatly amplified). Also, how to manage risk if it's difficult to predict how your personal assessment will impact others (e.g., elderly relatives?) 4/
The articles might also amplify anxiety if you are in a situation where you have little control, e.g., you're a healthcare worker, or you're a hairdresser in need of a wage and your state has reopened. It's cold comfort to see those articles saying haircuts are high-risk 5/
But in the absence of any meaningful testing, or tracing, or enforced guidance of e.g., mask-wearing people will resort to DYI keep yourself safe in the pandemic. Personal responsibility. Personal agency. Problem is, what one person does affects many others, e.g., mask-wearing 6/
In the absence of meaningful sick leave policies or clear government directives, even just one person can expose hundreds (fortunately, this person wore a mask so hopefully not a huge spreading event) 7/ https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/499301-missouri-officials-hairstylist-with-covid-19-serviced-nearly-100-clients
John Dewey recognized that what we do affect many others, and thus argued that we elect governments, state officials to protect ourselves from harm from the public actions of others in his classic The Public and Its Problems (1927)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Public_and_its_Problems 8/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Public_and_its_Problems 8/
So for Dewey we have government to help protect public interests. What does this mean? Well, if our best scientific evidence suggests mask-wearing and increased sanitation help to contain the virus, then governments ought to enforce it 9/
It is simply wrong-headed to turn face coverings into a matter of personal responsibility precisely because they *protect others from you* and do relatively little to *protect yourself from others*. Face masks are not like seat belts, and note that seat belts are mandatory 10/
Worse, they've now become part of culture wars and expressing particular political affiliations and identities. If wearing masks is protective, then I do think that governments ought to enforce wearing them in public rather than leaving it up to people's individual feeling 11/
We also will need to tackle deeper questions, like what if we can't find a vaccine (soon) or we can't find effective treatment? How long are we willing to wait and put in place stark measures like lockdowns? What alternatives might we consider? How do we live with this? 12/
These are all hard questions and note that scientists cannot answer them. Scientists and other experts can only tell us how effective some measures might be (with some degree of uncertainty), but people in a democracy then still need to take that info and make decisions 13/
Even the science itself is value laden--the problem of inductive risk (as identified by Carl Hempel, and discussed here by Heather Douglas). It's inevitable that with data collection etc. bias comes in. For example... 14/ https://www.jstor.org/stable/188707?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
See for instance this critique of a recent paper that estimated very low IFC (infection fatality rate) of Covid-19. "It seems the author is not a fan of lockdowns". Now, Hempel and Douglas say this is unavoidable in science 15/ https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1262956011872280577
That doesn't mean we should just chuck the science overboard. But, as no science is value free and scientists cannot decide on our behalf what to do with the data, people should be involved in the public decision making process about what to do in this pandemic 16/
We should have (properly socially distanced) citizens' assemblies of randomly selected people from all walks of life, including healthcare workers, grocery workers, older folk, young people, to help think us through these very hard questions. 17/
Questions such as
* if track and trace works, how can we safeguard privacy?
* what should people be compelled to do (e.g., mask-wearing, vaccination if available) and what not for the common good?
* if no vaccine or treatment forthcoming, what do we do next? 18/
* if track and trace works, how can we safeguard privacy?
* what should people be compelled to do (e.g., mask-wearing, vaccination if available) and what not for the common good?
* if no vaccine or treatment forthcoming, what do we do next? 18/
If you look at the majority of current governmental responses, there is a lack of acknowledgment of the different options, a lack of involvement of people in the decision process, and yet, this is a matter that concerns us all and it cannot be solely solved by "the science" 19/
Instead we have opaque rule by experts, who based on questionable low IFC (infection fatality) rates decide on a herd immunity strategy, as in Sweden.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2020/may/23/sweden-covid-19-policy-model-for-right-also-a-deadly-folly?fbclid=IwAR1a38DzNb2l8DbXfXACG_Mn2kOi0hlLtiSogSX2Xzt_BOLKnVbaJYsqmFI 20/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2020/may/23/sweden-covid-19-policy-model-for-right-also-a-deadly-folly?fbclid=IwAR1a38DzNb2l8DbXfXACG_Mn2kOi0hlLtiSogSX2Xzt_BOLKnVbaJYsqmFI 20/
The Swedish model shows why rule by experts by itself can't work. Experts are not democratically accountable. Sure, democracy's a mess but the alternatives are worse. In the case of the pandemic, we need more democracy, less demagoguery 21/
We do need to take responsibility. But unlike what the DIY articles on how to keep yourself safe in the pandemic promise, this responsibility is collective, not individual. With a highly contageous disease that affects ppl unequally, individual responsibility is a non-starter/end
