4 ms·

I don't think the denial was within the independent scientific establishment. From what I saw as it was spreading, many people in academia knew something was wr

I don't think the denial was within the independent scientific establishment. From what I saw as it was spreading, many people in academia knew something was wrong. But, the scientific community that was tied to politics (public health officials, government appointees, etc) were singing a very different tune, and the political pressure to tell a nice story to the public seemed to be incredibly intense. IMO, this underscores the need to have public health agencies be independent of political pressures and find ways to mitigate political influence on these agencies, sort of like how the federal reserve is theoretically independent. I think things would have looked different if government science officials hadn't intervened in favor of their preferred narratives early on. This includes the WHO as well - their early denials of the severity of the spread and apparent willingness to go along with China's narrative just confused the scientific and political response.

hodgesrm 6y ago
I think you are right about independent scientists in some cases having a better view of the pandemic on the ground. At the same time it's not clear independent health authorities are the solution. The problem we're facing with reopening is that we have to balance health outcomes with economic trade-offs to create a solution that maximizes both. In theory that's what we pay politicians to do, especially in democracies.
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  I think one thing that happened is a total break down between policy makers and institutional scientists. Institutional scientists simply will not speculate publicly. Normally they work with executive branches and political leaders to formulate a coherent policy. Non institutional scientists on the other hand were free to say what they believed was prudent. In the west over the last 40 years there has been a complete breakdown in the ability of governments to formulate coherent policy followed by action.

hodgesrm 6y ago

I think you are right about independent scientists in some cases having a better view of the pandemic on the ground. At the same time it's not clear independent health authorities are the solution. The problem we're facing with reopening is that we have to balance health outcomes with economic trade-offs to create a solution that maximizes both. In theory that's what we pay politicians to do, especially in democracies.

Gibbon1 6y ago
I think one thing that happened is a total break down between policy makers and institutional scientists. Institutional scientists simply will not speculate publicly. Normally they work with executive branches and political leaders to formulate a coherent policy. Non institutional scientists on the other hand were free to say what they believed was prudent. In the west over the last 40 years there has been a complete breakdown in the ability of governments to formulate coherent policy followed by action.