Navigating the Complexity of 'Following the Science' in a Pandemic
Written on
Chapter 1: Understanding the Phrase “Follow the Science”
The popular expression “follow the science” often reduces to following the opinions of others rather than adhering to strict empirical evidence. This phrase has become a frequent catchphrase, surpassing even the overused “at the end of the day.” But what happens when scientific consensus is absent? This situation arises more often than one might think.
In a recent editorial from “The Tampa Bay Times” dated August 23, 2020, a graph titled “Know Your Risk” presented a risk assessment for contracting COVID-19 through various activities. The graph ranked these activities from 1 (lowest risk) to 9 (highest risk), revealing some thought-provoking insights. The risk levels are more nuanced than they initially appear.
For instance, the activity deemed to carry the lowest risk, a rating of 1, is “Opening the mail.” While no studies specifically address this activity, existing knowledge about coronavirus transmission supports this classification. Conversely, the highest risk activity is “Going to a bar,” rated at 9, which aligns with numerous real-world observations.
Section 1.1: The Nuances of Risk Assessment
The assessment of activities such as “Going for a walk, run, or bike ride with others” is categorized as a 3, indicating low to moderate risk. However, this rating fails to clarify the proximity to others, the number of participants, or the duration of the activity. Similarly, “Going to a hair salon or barbershop” is assigned a risk level of 7 (moderate to high risk). Pre-pandemic, I frequented a packed barbershop, but I now prefer a friend’s small salon where the chairs are spaced more than ten feet apart, and interactions are brief—certainly not a fair comparison.
Other high-risk activities (rated 9) include “Attending a large music concert” and “going to a sports stadium.” While this seems reasonable, there has been little opportunity to test these claims until recently. CNN reported a study conducted in Leipzig, Germany, where researchers organized a 1,500-person indoor concert to analyze COVID-19 transmission dynamics at large events. The findings from this study will be pivotal.
Furthermore, “Sending kids to school” is rated as moderate risk (6), yet the CDC has indicated this is acceptable if community positivity rates are low and other precautions are in place.
Section 1.2: The Political Dimension of Science
The phrase “follow the science” has gained traction for various reasons, not least because it provides a counterpoint to political narratives. In the face of numerous unproven therapies suggested by the President, invoking this phrase suggests a higher level of understanding. However, opinions on the President's intelligence vary widely.
After examining the source of the risk assessment (www.texmed.org), I found that it was developed by a task force composed of physicians who assumed that participants would observe all recommended safety precautions. Yet, the term “safety precautions” can differ significantly from one individual to another.
Consider proven medical science, such as antibiotics effectively treating strep throat. But when it comes to cleaning surfaces to reduce coronavirus risk, the situation is less clear. While many engage in sanitization practices, transmission primarily occurs through airborne particles, not via surfaces. Although rare instances exist where surface contact could lead to infection, the widespread sanitizing of spaces like schools or gyms may not be the most effective strategy for controlling virus spread.
Chapter 2: The Changing Landscape of Science
During this pandemic, experts have frequently revised their stances. The dynamic nature of scientific understanding can often lead to confusion. For instance, initial guidance against mask-wearing shifted to a recommendation for universal usage. Similarly, early advice to wash grocery items was later deemed unnecessary.
As a physician, I have witnessed firsthand the frequent disagreements among scientists. The challenge lies in specialization; each expert approaches issues from their specific area of expertise. For example, Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has primarily focused on infectious disease control. His perspective justified prolonged lockdowns, but did not account for the potential economic, mental health, and other societal repercussions.
Ultimately, the phrase “follow the science” intertwines with political narratives surrounding the election. Critics of the President often use it to highlight perceived gaps in his scientific understanding. While the call to “follow the science” is sound, it is essential to recognize the limitations of scientific knowledge. While we have learned a great deal about COVID-19, much remains uncertain.
The first video titled "Follow the Science is a Broken, Empty Slogan | A Doctor Reflects" explores the implications of this phrase in the context of the pandemic, emphasizing the disconnect between science and public perception.
The second video, "Why No One Trusts Scientists Anymore | My lecture to WASH U | COVID19 policy," discusses the erosion of public trust in scientists and the challenges faced in communication during the pandemic.