Objectivity, rationality also victims of COVID-19

We cannot afford to ignore challenging facts when deciding what our society looks like

With indications that the curve is flattening and the demands on our health care system are abating, the fear that has gripped much of our society is slowly receding. We are now faced with the most significant public policy decisions in our history. Notwithstanding the stakes, there is remarkably little constructive public debate about the decisions that are being made that will define our future. A fact that at least partially explains growing public protests. We should all be concerned about this state of affairs.

As we all stand on this precipice, our society may be better served by our reflecting on the need for a commitment to the following values:

Perspective. The “visuals” of this pandemic make for dramatic media. Hospitals, masks, respirators, the ritual of evening updates on “infections” and “deaths.” But there is insufficient discussion as to the other — less obvious — side of this societal balance sheet; the postponement of necessary elective procedures, skyrocketing rates of abuse, chronic unemployment and crushing debt, increasing drug and alcohol dependency, growing homelessness, childhood malnutrition, the looming mental health crisis and the macro economic implications of this much stimulus spending and its impact on future generations. We urgently need a more comprehensive public accounting of all these issues by those with expertise in these areas so that more balanced and informed decisions can be made — and understood — by all of us.

Understanding. We live in a democratic society, one that espouses the importance of diversity. Is it any surprise then that on the question of whether and to what extent the most basic civil liberties of our citizenry can be abrogated by proclamation that there is a divergence of very strongly held views? This is not the time to discourage open debate, parliamentary or otherwise, but to embrace thoughtful and respectful dialogue as necessary in maintaining the consent of the governed. And welcoming dialogue without impugning the motives, intelligence or good faith of others is essential in our doing so.

A real regard for science. Leaders at every level have been quick to make clear that their every action will be determined by the advice of the medical and scientific community. Setting aside for a moment whether political decisions around fundamental rights should simply be delegated to experts, respect for the scientific process must allow for the fact that science proceeds from the premise of rigorous skepticism. Contrary to the impression left by many in the media, there is a great deal we don’t know about the prevalence, transmissibility and lethality of COVID-19. The scientific community has, after all, had a fairly spotty track record in this in first discounting the severity and risks of the pandemic and now embracing projections and responses that they themselves thought unjustifiable just two months ago, and which may, with greater study, ultimately be determined to be excessive. We must always therefore proceed with some degree of humility, inviting the challenging of hypothesis and encouraging debate as fundamental to the scientific process. And not see every question or divergent hypothesis as “insulting the sacrifice of our front line workers.”

Practicality. There is an understandable desire to proclaim that we won’t relax restrictions in the absence of more comprehensive testing while we work toward a vaccine. However, it is entirely likely that this disease is much more widespread than previously thought. As such, the eradication of this virus is by no means a forgone conclusion. Nor is there any certainty that we will find a vaccine. A vaccine for AIDS has alluded us for decades after all. Viruses have always been with us — they are part of our environment. As so we need to figure out how to have a functioning society notwithstanding. This will of course demand that we continue to practice evolving degrees of social distancing and protect our more vulnerable populations. But it will also involve a tolerance for trade-offs of the sort that we have always made — in not banning tobacco or alcohol for example — as a necessary element of public policy.

In reflecting on our recent history I am in awe of the bravery of our front line workers, possess new and profound respect for the truckers, grocers and “practical doers” in our society who have preserved and maintained us, reminded of the selflessness of our volunteer communities that are tending to our most vulnerable, and inspired by the charity and creativeness of our entrepreneurs. Being mindful of the considerations above, doesn’t diminish these contributions. It is honouring them.