Common sense, “science”, and public health
Here’s a brief summary of collected perspectives, including my own, regarding the new COVID variant and public health policy.
On the one hand, the information with which we have been presented has changed substantially since Trump was in office. Personally, I give the authorities the benefit of the doubt and accept the excuse that we simply don’t know what we don’t know… until we do… and that they have been entirely transparent and apolitical (if that still exists) in their dissemination of evolving expert knowledge / advice. The other side of the argument is that information was withheld until after the election. Understandable based on the last couple of decades of the politicization of federal agencies. But unlikely given that the CDC guidance has generally aligned with the WHO.
Next: Again, along the lines of “we don’t know what we don’t know.” Some people are suspicious of vaccines. You may not question the safety or efficacy of vaccines, even knowing that they were approved for emergency after a very short period of testing, but understand that others have a right to their opinion on this issue. And further, people have a right to autonomy over their own health care and the care of their own children. (Related: how do you reconcile being pro-abortion but also in favor of mandating medical treatment? It seems like there’s a better argument against “my body, my choice” when there’s another body involved. But I digress.)
On the other hand, you may choose not to self-vaccinate but you must acknowledge that public safety IS one of the purposes of government, you ARE more likely to transmit the virus if not vaccinated (as far as we know) and other people with whom you interact publicly may suffer as a result of your choice. Therefore this is not merely an issue of personal liberty. The issue is not black-and-white.
So as far as I see it: We all need to calm the f*k down, put aside the partisan rhetoric and do the sensible thing for all concerned, each private AND federal business should have two options:
- Require masks
- Require proof of vaccination in lieu of masks
… but not both.
Similarly, citizens should have three options:
- Get vaccinated and wear a mask.
- Get vaccinated and ditch the mask.
- Wear a mask when directed.
The same rules should apply to (public) schools. I understand the argument against this, but it makes sense for the reasons outlined above. It should not be acceptable for public schools to ideologically indoctrinate children, but that is not what this is. HOWEVER, public schools have a responsibility to provide an education to children in their districts while respecting the families’ health care decisions. Therefore, parents should have three options.
- Vaccinate your children
- Instruct your children to wear a mask as directed.
- Allow your children to work fully remotely.
Note that this requires (public) schools to continue to provide full distance-learning for as long as the mandates remain in effect. (The resources for this continuance should be subsidized under the ridiculously huge government bills, with the funds prioritized over progressive pet projects that are entirely unrelated to COVID.)
But the idea of cooperation and common sense prevailing in today’s America?
Unlikely.
- Erin
Erin is a rebounding social media junkie. Despite her New England upbringing (and to the dismay of her liberal friends), she's a moderately conservative Republican. Her interests include psychology, philosophy, politics, debate, aviation and human engineering. Her guilty obsessions center around 1970s-1990s pop culture and online shopping. Having lived in 7 states and worked in 3 countries, she's currently domiciled in Florida with her husband and two teenagers, dodging hurricanes and sipping margaritas.
- Guns in Trees December 20, 2024
- America's Acting President and the Importance of Importance December 19, 2024
- Commerican Dream November 20, 2024
- The Pit and the Pendulum November 3, 2024
- Barack Obama, and a short history of division July 5, 2024
I agree with you for the most part; one or two details, not as much… 😉
One of the great things about science is that – as you point out – it refines its theories as more information becomes available. They’re now seeing that with the Delta variant (which was eminently foreseeable if you understand even the rudiments of how viruses work) even vaccinated people can carry a virus load sufficient to spread it to others. The vaccinated don’t have to worry as much about going the hospital and dying – the vaccines work, boys and girls – but if you’re spreading it to medically fragile or unvaccinated people, it could be a death sentence to them. Delta is more contagious (again, entirely foreseeable if you understand even a little of how viruses work), which means our children are more vulnerable to it that they were with the original strain.
Almost all the current hospitalizations – over 98%, if I recall correctly – are unvaccinated people infected with Delta.
Anyway, that’s why the mask mandates are coming back, even for the vaccinated. Because we still need to a) protect those who can’t be vaccinated, and b) because some of us refuse to recognize the public health aspects of this pandemic. Check out my last post (And We Lose Again) for more of my take on the Covid response.
You make a good argument, but also, sadly, demonstrate why people are vehemently opposed to the COVID vaccines. You’re also being a little ironic with your first paragraph. You echo my statement that “the science” is constantly changing, but then go on to say if someone has an iota of sense they would have foreseen the variant coming (if they had a rudimentary understanding of science) and that they would understand how contagious it is, even after being vaccinated (if they understand just a little of what you do).
What’s problematic about the sudden proliferation of virology expertise – especially apparent to those of us in a field of research – is that the most important thing to understand is that science is not an end state. It’s a process. And it’s usually a very long process before it becomes an accepted theory, never mind a law (universal “truth”). You can replicate a study a thousand times and be unaware of a confounding factor that renders your result statistically insignificant. Granted I only know the psychological/ behavioral side of formal research but I’m guessing it’s the same all around. And this vaccine was only approved for emergency use for a reason.
It’s difficult for me to have this debate, because we agree – to the extent that the most logical thing to do is accept the safest path to take given what we currently “know” (or are told). Many would counter that Big Pharma definitely has an interest in the way this and subsequent booster mandates play out. A lot of those people are simply staying true to their existing feelings about western medicine. They are not trying to hurt anyone.
Think of it this way. An evolutionist and a creationist are discussing the dawn of human existence. The Darwinist may have all of the “science” on his side, but the theologian has a right to his theory, correct? And neither of those people were there at the dawn of man. Now the Darwinist might actually bring the other to question his religious beliefs, but certainly not by completely discounting his beliefs and admonishing him for being ignorant. It’s more likely he would bring him around by asking questions and talking about the work that has been done in his area of knowledge. Unfortunately that’s not how online debates work – and hence the hostility.
Another thought that might resonate… There’s plenty of evidence that completely banning firearms in America would make it harder for them to fall into the hands of people who shouldn’t handle them, such as the mentally ill, or children. And this on at least some level could save lives. You might argue that gangs, criminals and cartels will still be able to access them illegally; you might argue that “good guys with guns” can prevent crime; you might say that bad things are going to happen with unsupervised children anyway. Conversely, a gun control advocate might point to examples of other countries with much lower violent crime rates which do not allow guns. There are statistics involved in all of those assertions, but which constitute “the science”? We have strong opinions on both sides- and both supported by research.
And does it matter, in the context of how our constitution addresses basic human rights?
Medical freedom is a human right, whether we think those who demand it are ignorant or not. That said, we are a society of laws and (our largely useless) elected representatives have to decide where to draw the line for public safety. But it’s not entirely on one side of the other.
And one undeniable truth remains. We don’t know what we don’t know.
I stand by my statement that anyone who knows anything about how viruses work could have seen Delta coming, particularly given the haphazard and politically-motivated response to the original strain of Covid. Because there was no coherent and universal response, there was adequate time (and unvaccinated people) for the original virus to develop receptor proteins more attractive to human cells, making it more contagious. This is how viruses work in general. Science knew this long before Covid was first incubating in that Wuhan bat. Or Wuhan lab… We’ll never know for sure. And as science learns more about this specific virus, the message gets updated. No irony there – except maybe directed at our piecemeal responses.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again – we’re the United States of America, not the United States of Europe or the United States of Australia or the United States of the UK. We’re a breed apart – or we used to be. Those places have always had government restrictions on private arms, so that their subjects could not present a threat to that government. Goes back centuries; swords were regulated in the Middle Ages. Hundreds, if not thousands of years of it, generation after generation.
Not us – in fact, the Constitution is written so that we, the people, CAN be a threat to a government gone tyrannical. We attracted the people who chafed under the restrictions of their governments and socially-regimented societies, who could not reach their full potential anywhere else. Who risked everything to gain everything, to stand on their own two feet. Polar opposite mindsets. So we’ve always had more firearms in the hands of private citizens than most other places on Earth, and for more reasons than just as a protection against a tyrannical government.
So you cannot take seriously any statistical analysis on “gun violence” that doesn’t take that into account. And none of the statistics being quoted by gun control advocates do. And the reality is that if the government is successful in instituting a ban and/or confiscation, only a small percentage of the firearms out there will ever be found, and of those about 0% will be those currently in the hands of violent criminals.
And yes, I agree. Useless… 😉