Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

The limits of "following the science"

#1
C C Offline
https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-pandem...fa7ff.html

EXCERPT: . . . The big picture: President Biden took office vowing to "follow the science." But science is much less of a road map than it is information that should be used to choose the best route.
  • For example, science told us last summer that the vaccines' effectiveness had waned over time. But it didn't tell us what level of effectiveness was acceptable, or if and when a booster shot was needed. Policymakers and regulators had to provide those answers.
  • Similarly, there is no scientific marker for when someone needs to wear a mask. This allows health experts and scientists to be able to disagree on what policy should be while still claiming that they are following the science.
  • "Two different scientists can look at the same set of data and come up with different conclusions. That's not to say that one person is being unscientific or ignoring the scientific process," said Leana Wen, an emergency physician and a professor at George Washington University. "Public health policy is also a measure of values."

Between the lines: Science isn't absolute - data can come with uncertainties and unknowns.
  • A clinical trial gives much more irrefutable information than modeling, for example, which relies on assumptions to make a projection.
  • Sometimes decisions are made with limited available data. For example, some countries are starting to give second booster shots before we have longer-term effectiveness data on the first ones.
  • Making policies led by science also involves judgement calls that account for economics, mental health, education and other facets of daily life, including what society is actually willing to do.

Even once a decision is made, policymakers and health officials can then fail to adequately communicate how they made it - including by overstating the role of science.
  • The CDC's decision to reduce the recommended isolation period for people who test positive for COVID, for example, drew criticism from some experts who argued that leaving isolation after five days should be dependent on receiving a negative rapid test.
  • Although the agency claimed the change was "motivated by science," its own data now shows that it's common for people to continue to continue testing positive for several days after the recommended isolation period.
  • But many Americans didn't have access to rapid tests during the Omicron surge. Even more importantly, Omicron was spreading so quickly at the time that officials were worried about society being able to operate.
(MORE - missing details)
Reply
#2
Leigha Offline
When Covid became political, I think that's when 'follow the science' meant different things to different 'sides.' Is scientific research politically motivated? It seemed to stand out that way for the past two years.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Fate of the Earth: Remains of a planet following violent death of its parent star C C 0 298 Apr 4, 2019 09:20 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)