This is a great piece which I commend to you all. It reflects an issue I’ve been pondering, for the lay person, who to trust? https://twitter.com/jeremyfarrar/status/1313888997043773441
It is symptomatic of our belief driven age that for every highly complex situation people performatively branded as experts are available to support views on either side.
Climate change is the most famous example. The economic impact of Brexit and now the virus are others.
A lack of trust in government is also symptomatic. Why not simply trust what the government says? Of course, you can, and people do, but the prevalence of sideism (ie the constant definition of opinion based on which side you’re on) means that many don’t.
Let’s take me as an example. I think I know me reasonably well. Well enough to admit to my many priors, to accept that my priors have an impact on who I trust, and what I believe. And also, me, and I can’t emphasise this enough, has virtually zero scientific training.
So, like many people, I have lots of biases and close to zero expertise. Whose view on the virus then to trust? The expert consensus or the sceptics?
I think scepticism is very healthy. And by scepticism I mean the constant interrogation of views / opinions to try to determine whether or not they are / remain valid. Herr I make one large sceptical assumption - no theory / view / opinion will survive unscathed, over time.
Quite often, scepticism is associated with support for a minority versus a majority view. I reject this. Scepticism should be universally applied.
All of that said, I return to my earlier point - I have no scientific expertise. As a result, I will disproportionately weight the view of the clear majority of the scientific community on any given view.
Why? Because I have no reasonable grounds not to. This is relatively straightforward for the virus where the consensus is overwhelming. This doesn’t mean that I can’t take a variant ethical view but for anything related to ‘the science’...
...for example, the physical characteristics of the virus, the efficacy of masks, the statistics of prevalence, immunity, seroprevalence etc I am (while continually updating my view based on new evidence) wholly & I would argue rationally on the side of the scientific consensus.
Conduct is, for me, also important. Signing something called The Great Barrington Declaration does not fill me with confidence. Neither does penning vituperative, name-calling op eds.
More substantively, I am highly sceptical of views that never seem to change. Or, worse, views that seem capable of repackaging almost any piece of evidence to be supportive.
Let’s take the achievement of herd immunity as an example. I think it is very healthy to question the % of the population required (let’s not get into immunity per se) because I think the transmission dynamics of the virus are very complicated.
But it seems to me to be patently obvious now (waves at the second wave) that even in the most afflicted cities in Europe we are not close to achieving herd immunity (eg Paris).
To avoid this conclusion you have to construct a quite complicated counter scenario. For example, that current testing regimes are not just a bit but wildly exaggerating both the scale and trend of positive cases.
And / or perhaps that all those hospital beds are filling up with victims of other mysterious respiratory viruses. Hmmmm.
Be sceptical, by all means. Always be sceptical. Debate different ethical views. Politely and respectfully. But on the science I will be mostly trusting the scientists. /ends
You can follow @Sime0nStylites.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: