Problems with "follow the science"

The phrase “follow the science” has been articulated ad nauseam since March of last year. Everyone loves to believe they are doing that. Most of the time they truly believe that is what they are doing. In reality, very few people are consistent about it. In their defense, it is very difficult to do in part because science is not static. What can be thought to be true at one point can turn out to be false and vice-versa. With the CCP Virus, that has been the case more times than I can even begin to count.

Mass media, especially social media, makes it much more difficult to know what is scientifically right and what is not. It is all too easy to misconstrue something and then spread it around the world. Obviously, those pushing misinformation or lies are capable of causing harm and panic, but so are outlets not intending to do that. An example of the latter is this headline. What the headline is suggesting is that the CDC report that came out justifying their changed stance on mask wearing said that vaccinated people are as likely to become infected as unvaccinated people are. That is patently false and not what the report said. That is just one example of how easily false ideas can be spread by accident.

Science is not always clear cut. For example, there was a debate among scientists about whether the CCP Virus vaccine second doses should be spread out longer than their usual 3–4-week periods. The idea was that because the first dose provides plenty of protection, it would be better to spread out the time in between doses because that would allow more people to get their first doses and obtain some level of protection. In the US, those arguing against spreading out the second doses won out and in light of the limited effectiveness the first dose of Pfizer and AstraZeneca (and likely Moderna, too) provides against the Delta variant, it looks like they were right. Still, it was a legitimate debate at the time and plenty of legitimate science and health authorities argued for spreading out the second doses. The moral of the story is that scientists do not always agree on things and when that is the case, anyone on either side can claim to be following the science.

When the pandemic first began, it was not known whether the CCP Virus spreads on surfaces. It turns out that almost never happens. Yet there were plenty of places where people were scrubbing surfaces like crazy long after that was known. While there are plenty of good reasons to clean surfaces and to wash your hands, stopping the CCP Virus is not one of them. Anyone doing that is not following the science. Before vaccinations were available, the ways to stop or reduce the spread of the virus were to have good ventilation, wear masks and socially distance (not necessarily 6 feet apart). Anything else was performative theater at best.

Not only are surface transmissions barely a thing, but outdoor transmissions, too, are almost non-existent. That is why the huge protests last year did not lead to any super spreader events. In fact, documented cases of transmissions from places like beaches and parks are almost non-existent. Despite that, many such places remained closed long after that was known. Schools, too, have been proven not to be a big transmitter, but many of them remained closed long after that was known. Those who made those decisions almost certainly believed they were following the science, but they were not.

Telling people to wear masks outdoors is also not following the science. That is even more true when dealing with kids. That is what made the CDC’s summer camp guidance beyond absurd. It said kids should wear masks at all times, regardless of whether they are inside or outside and that they need to remain distanced and not share any physical objects. They made those recommendations even for camps where all the adults were vaccinated. All that despite the risk to kids from the flu being about the same as the CCP Virus. Needless to say, the CDC has never made those kinds of recommendations to avoid getting the flu.

The latest imposition of mask mandates is another example of not following the science. The places that are imposing them are places where vaccination rates are the highest and cases are the lowest. Washington DC, for example, is now requiring masks to be worn indoors even though they have had only one death from the CCP Virus in the last two weeks. They also are nowhere close to having their hospitals fill up. At the same time, city employees are still not required to get vaccinated. The science says that vaccines are the way to beat the virus. Any measure taken in the name of stopping the virus that does not involve increasing vaccinations is not following the science.

What really is going on

Like everything else, science is subservient to value judgments and pre-existing beliefs. Science is what it is, regardless of anyone’s subjective beliefs. The way it works is not that they look at what the science says and adjust their beliefs accordingly. What happens is people have their beliefs and then will invoke science when it validates them and ignore it when it does not. Claiming to follow the science, with the exception of a handful of people who really do it, is really just a way of trying to make one’s beliefs look as if they are scientific and therefore indisputable. Consciously or not, it is an attempt to gain moral superiority and to make one’s beliefs above reproach.

Strictly speaking, when it comes to beliefs and value judgments, there is no right answer. That is what makes all the debates about values fun and frustrating because they can never end since nobody is definitively right or wrong. In pure philosophy, isolating oneself forever and never going out because of the CCP Virus is neither bad or good. Someone wearing a mask outside far away from anyone is not bad or good. The same is true with ordering groceries online and wiping them down before eating them to avoid getting the CCP Virus. What those things are not, however, is following the science. They are value judgments of people who are extremely risk averse.

Parents who are so worried about their kids’ safety that they prevent them from having any kind of social life are not being bad or good. Keeping them away from their friends and from doing any kind of activities is not being done by parents who are morally superior or inferior. In their minds, that tradeoff is worth it. They almost certainly believe that keeping them safe is their number one goal above all else even if that means subjecting them to potentially serious psychological harms. While making that calculation is a value judgment and not inherently morally right or wrong, it is not following the science.

Yes, dear reader, you may be wondering why I have spent all this time criticizing those who took extreme cautions against the CCP Virus and have not said anything about those who have not taken it seriously enough. If you want to know how I feel about vaccine refusers, feel free to read these posts. I have devoted plenty of time to criticizing that crowd and anticipate continuing to do so in the future. The reason I am criticizing those who have been excessively cautious is because it is that crowd that has invoked the phrase “follow the science” to justify their non-science-based actions. Those who did not and are not taking the virus seriously may have used plenty of different words and phrases, but follow the science has not been one of them.

Claiming to follow the science while doing anything but that is not unique to the pandemic. Those on the left and right are equally capable of denying science when it goes against their ideological leanings. Climate change is instructive in that it illustrates the problem both sides have. For those on the right, denying it exists is a denial of science because many on the right believe acknowledging it means endorsing something like the Green New Deal. For the left, their denial of science comes from apocalyptic claims about civilization ending even though that is not something any credible scientist believes. The left is guilty, too, of denying science on climate change when it comes to the safety of fracking and nuclear power. Like those on the right who deny climate change, those on the left who wildly overstate the problems it will cause do so because they have an ideological agenda that supersedes their concern about greenhouse gas emissions. Many of those in the environmental crowd are against economic growth and capitalism and would love to transform society into their utopian ideal. That is basically what the Green New Deal is. Supporting fracking and nuclear power while acknowledging the world is not going to end would make enacting that fantasy a good bit harder so they do not do those things.

Other issues where science is attacked include evolution. Here, it is the right who is the biggest offender by denying it and claiming the world is only 6000 years old. When it comes to Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), it is usually the left who is in denial of science by claiming they are dangerous. In fact, the are safe to eat and requiring GMO labeling on food is pure theater.

The case of anti-vaxxers is a fascinating one because the modern anti-vaccine movement mostly started off with the left, but is now a mostly right-wing phenomenon. The CCP Virus anti-vaxxers are almost entirely on the right, but some of the original modern crusaders against childhood vaccinations were on the left, including some Hollywood celebrities.* One of the biggest anti-vaxxers in the US is Robert F Kennedy Jr, a left-winger. When California tightened vaccine requirements after a measles outbreak at Disneyland in 2015, the most vocal opposition was from the left. True, there are those on the right who were anti-vaxxers or flirted with it, including Trump, but the modern anti-vaccine movement mostly started on the left.

Much of the opposition on the left to vaccines stems from a distrust of corporations. On the right, it stems from a distrust of government. Both believe in conspiracy theories, i.e., vaccines cause autism, because that then justifies their ignoring science to suit their ideology. After all, if vaccines are dangerous and are just being pushed by big corporations or big government, you would have to be crazy to take them. What both sides share in common is that they have a pre-existing worldview and are ignoring science that does not conform to it.

How well are you following the science?

To see how well you are following the science, here are a few things that are scientifically sound, but do not conform neatly to left-right ideological beliefs. First, climate change is real and caused by human activity. Second, the earth is around 4.5 billion years old. Third, nuclear power and fracking are safe. Fourth, GMOs are safe to eat. Fifth, the CCP Virus almost never spreads on surfaces or outdoors and taking measures to restrict such activities involving either is pure theater. Sixth, vaccines are safe and have no link whatsoever to autism. If you believe all six of those things then you are following the science, at least on those matters. If you disagree with any of those, that is your right, but do not claim that you follow the science.

One of the most important things to keep in mind is that science is always changing. That is especially true when dealing with a new virus that nobody has ever seen before. It is inevitable that new facts will emerge that disprove prior facts or ideas. Even the best scientists will be wrong about things. That is because they are human and humans are imperfect. There is nothing wrong with being wrong as long as it was in good faith and the errors made are corrected. It is when things are not done in good faith and/or people double down on wrong assertions that problems arise.

I would love to believe that I am following the science. I really hope that I am doing it and have tried my best, not just with respect to the pandemic, but on all matters where science can offer answers. That is another thing to remember: science cannot answer everything. Even not following the science is not inherently bad just as long as it is acknowledged that someone is doing that. We all have beliefs and values and most of us want to stick to them regardless of what science says. That is only natural. That is not by itself good or bad, just as long as we are upfront about what we are doing.

*A favorite line of anti-vaxxers is to say something along the lines of, “I am not against vaccines, but…” Pro tip, when someone says, “I am not against X, but…” they absolutely are against whatever X is. Robert F Kennedy Jr has said that many times and yet again and again spreads misinformation about vaccines and has done everything he can to discourage people from getting vaccinated. He is an awful person and has tried to spread misinformation to poor and vulnerable people about vaccines. Those on the left who are older and remember him as an environmental champion need to shed that image. Leaving aside the validity of how much of an environmental champion he was, who he is today has nothing to do with environmentalism. He is nothing but an anti-vaccine crusader and should not be welcome in polite company.