Reasonable Minds

Pandemic Sense Making

Ubiquitous strife provided our species a moment of solidarity. If you blinked, you missed it. A global pandemic burgeoned an opportunity to bring people together, but we’ve never been further apart. Acerbic rhetoric caused blow back, pushing us deeper into silos of information. Much of the early inanity can be excused, we didn’t know what the hell was going on. Months removed from a year many wish to forget, we are no closer to sense making than the early days infested with bat soup memes.

An unpredictable emergence of new political bickering muddied the waters. Traditional left/right dichotomy was blurred. Drawn were new lines in the sand. One side trusting lock-down measures and the others favouring a laissez-faire approach. One camp scolded the other, “Stay at home or you’re going to kill grandma”. The other faction assured their peers, “Staying at home will surely kill grandma, and that little restaurant you love”. As with most things in life, the truth is a shade of gray.

Unsurprisingly, a third group emerged, as most people tend to be apolitical. Those in the middle heard one side saying, “follow the science” and on the other “it’s just like the flu”. Flanked by incurious people, the middle group asked reasonable questions; what science is being done, who is paying the scientists, if it resembles the flu why is lung and other organ damage arising1, why is there a healthy supply of death models, yet no projections of societal damage?

If the conversation about a new virus has provided us anything, it is contemporary examples of irony. The side demanding we “listen to experts” has fallen trap to a logical fallacy. “Appeal to authority” has been deemed unacceptable for a high school essay, yet we hear it daily from our leaders. Confident announcements from the “experts” group have been given a pass, because it sounds smart. However, scientists and experts are human. They are vulnerable to confirmation bias and every other shortfall which defines our experience. Moreover, when did scientific experts become adept at conducting accurate risk/benefit analysis? Such a task is often failed even by those with the requisite skill set. Scientists may be trusted to conduct experiments in a lab, but our faith should be questioned when we become lab rats.

More excusable are the “it’s just the flu” people. The proposition is steeped in ignorance. However, in a world where we have greater access to information than in all history, that myopic postulation grows tiresome. To be fair to the “flu” people, some may exist within the same informational framework as their counterparts. Perhaps they purposefully jettison the particulars to conserve their libertarian ideals. Regardless, no gain can be achieved from a suspension of thinking critically. Deeply unnerving, the “flu” group appear unoccupied with any semblance of constructive pondering. Our discourse, now a matter of survival, has been hijacked.

A quiet consensus has been building among the meek middle forced to abide the grandstanding. The middle agrees more with the “experts” people as to the severity of Covid. Conversely, they are closer aligned with the “flu” people as to what measures need implemented. A populace has proven to gain tremendous flexibility in supporting public health. Forfeiture of pleasures came naturally. Empathy is not idiosyncratic, it is wired in all of us. Over time evidence of poor decisions revealed horrors. Businesses swiftly went under, substance abuse went up, children became abused at higher rates2 and we did not save the old people. Somehow, our trusted leaders did not see the inevitability of a highly transmissible respiratory illness spreading like wildfire, as workers floated from one care home to the next. A cursory risk/benefit analysis failed to murderous effect. The pitfall of having workers traverse multiple venues was predictable. My family successfully conducted our own analysis in dealing with our mother’s chemotherapy treatment. Recovering from breast cancer required her to have an injection after each treatment. We decided to forego the assistance of a traveling nurse. Presented with an opportunity to pay for the assistance, our family decided to self administer, eliminating risk.

The scientific method is the crown jewel of our modern era. Pursuit of understanding our world has enriched our lives. Now, here comes a but, and it’s a big but. Elevation of the scientific community to some untouchable level, away from scrutiny, provides no benefit. Doing so moves us towards an untenable technocratic governance, akin to when our society was ruled by a priesthood. The idea of settled science runs contrary to the method itself. Exemplary is the word Atom, Greek for indivisible. Investigation has expanded our comprehension to reveal atoms are divisible by particles, and those particles distinguishable by quarks. The newest experimentation and observation has revealed the existence of a further division, pentaquarks. The most recognizable name in science, Einstein, got plenty things wrong. He was known to embrace his mistakes, cognizant that humility made him a better thinker. Scientists being wrong is a feature of the method, not a bug.

Backwards thinking can be set straight with a renewed vigor to solution based rhetoric. Conversations about which leadership succeeded and which failed are doomed to be unproductive. Speaking early and often about personal prophylactic measures could change our course. Walking outside, vitamin D supplementation and exercise need to be encouraged equally to social distancing and mask wearing. Meditation and mindfulness practice would also help greatly. I’m aware some people are not ready for that final suggestion. Our culture still resists mysticism. As a first step, less Netflix binge watching would help, opening a book couldn’t hurt either.

The time has come to enter a new phase, now that all the aspersions have been cast; denier, Authoritarian, idiot, fence sitter. Hopefully, being out of ammunition compels a cease fire. A healthy reminder, all people want the same things; freedom, a fair shake, prosperity and a healthy long life. Our division is not ideological, it resides in our disagreement over implementation. Abrasive demands lead to closed minds. People are more prone to accepting views outside their structure, if presented respectfully. Humble introspection and a renewed accord can remove the unpleasantness. If we decide to be done with unproductive thinking, a cathartic bliss awaits us.