Read on Twitter
An op ed is basically an extended argument and philosophers examine arguments, so here is a rapid review of this perspective piece by @mlipsitch, @gregggonsalves, @CarlosdelRio7, @RWalensky from a philosopher (why should scientists have all the fun?)
Thread https://twitter.com/mlipsitch/status/1316460635811610624
Thread https://twitter.com/mlipsitch/status/1316460635811610624
The authors argue against a Focused Protection (FP) approach to #COVID19 like that defended in the Great Barrington (GB) Declaration, which involves protecting the vulnerable while allowing the non-vulnerable to live normally and generate herd immunity.
Their preferred alternative is a ‘belt-and-suspenders’ approach of protection for the vulnerable combined with population-wide viral suppression. The authors support the new #JohnSnowMemo ( https://www.johnsnowmemo.com/ ).
They stake a common ground with defenders of FP: a common moral concern with protecting the vulnerable. (“Supporters of this view are half right: We must indeed do all in our power to protect the vulnerable.”)
They disagree with FP about the best means to achieve that goal and over the scientific basis of FP.
Overall, this piece is important, well argued, sensible, well supported by evidence (recognizing it’s not a journal article) and compelling. My recommendation: read it, share it.
My main concern is that there may be less common ground than at first sight with some (though not all) defenders of FP. Disagreement might (in some cases) stem from disagreement over moral priorities, though this has not been as transparent.
“until we have a way to reduce the devastation of this virus, through treatments or vaccines, we have a moral obligation to suppress its spread while enhancing economic, educational and medical support for those whose lives are most disrupted by our control measures.”
-->The ethical priorities underlying this argument seem to be (1) reduce deaths/severe outcomes (partly through viral suppression strategies), while (2) minimizing other harms imposed by those strategies. (These priorities are defensible.)
But this is not trivial because there are several ethical priorities we could undertake, some of which might conflict with the prioritization above…maximize utility, reduce inequalities, respect individual liberties, first do no harm…
Given the moral claims in this op ed and the moral undertones in the GB (self-described as a more ‘humane approach’) and its libertarian connections, this issue is partly ethical and political (like all policy issues).
Of course, public health policies should also be backed by science, and @mlipsitch et al. justifiably criticize the scientific basis of GB/FP.
But disagreements over values can sometimes masquerade over disagreements over scientific facts ( http://bostonreview.net/science-nature-philosophy-religion/jonathan-fuller-pandemic-facts-pandemic-policies). I suspect that both kinds of disagreements are variously at play among FP supporters and detractors. Science can only resolve the latter.
By the way, it’s not clear to me that libertarians can consistently oppose viral suppression measures that are often meant to prevent them from (unintentionally) harming others.
But anyway, here’s a special issue of @kieatgu to help us think through some of the ethics and politics of #COVID19: https://kiej.georgetown.edu/special-issue-covid-19/
Footnote: the #JohnSnowMemo ( https://www.johnsnowmemo.com/ ) may be the right kind of international consensus statement that’s been missing in this pandemic: straight from the mouths of independent academics.
Legitimate scientific consensus is important because it can provide strong epistemic warrant for policy. While there has been guidance from orgs like #WHO, given widespread distrust of institutions these days, I think it’s useful to have something more grassroots like this Memo.
