Scientists, especially at the CDC and National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, have come under fire from "conservative" opinion-makers in print and on the airwaves for having been "wrong" repeatedly with regard to COVID-19. The criticism comes down to the claim that recommendations from the scientific community throughout the pandemic have been - take your pick - contradictory, confusing, misleading and downright wrong. This "fact" in turn, is used to denigrate those in the press, public and politicians (usually on the left) who have chosen to follow the science and, by contrast, laud those (usually on the right) who have chosen to do the opposite. The latter are, therefore, deemed praiseworthy for standing up for personal liberty and refusing to blindly follow the scientific advice. This tactic conveniently dovetails with the proudly know-nothing attitude prevalent on the right. What is lost in this bloviation is that no one is infallible; which does not prevent the know-nothings from asserting their position with certitude. Scientists, on the other hand, almost always assume they could be wrong and spend time and energy checking and re-checking their findings. When it comes to dealing with something unprecedented like a new viral illness, this inevitably means frequent course corrections as new facts are uncovered. Skepticism is warranted when weighing scientific advice; throwing the baby out with the bath water is not and allowing our judgement to be clouded by political considerations is not helpful. The possibility of a rational handling of the situation was unfortunately eliminated by the fact that President Trump saw it as a threat to his re-election and decided to turn it into an advantage with his characteristic "I know better than the experts" bombast. We may never know with certainty the degree to which his mishandling of the crisis contributed to the morbidity and mortality associated with the pandemic. We can safely conclude though that while Trump succeeded in stirring up his base he was even more successful in persuading the rest of the electorate to turn out as well - a fitting reproof to callousness, hubris and sheer ignorance. So what does all this have to do with a broken clock? It is said (tongue in cheek, of course) that a broken clock is right twice a day. By comparison, a clock that loses or gains a minute or two a day is never right. A significant number of our compatriots seem to prefer the fake reliability of the broken clock. To them I would like to address a quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, philosophers and divines." While we wait for them to come to their senses we must not let up in making our voices heard, especially at the polls.
- drrama7