The debate that rages on about the COVID-19 quarantine suffers from the classic complexity of trade-offs that are non-resolvable. Shutting down saved lives but it also destroyed [socioeconomic] lives. Opening up too soon or too quickly will cost lives, but remaining closed will destroy more lives. Saving lives means delaying herd immunity, but achieving herd immunity means losing lives. The list of trade-offs goes on, and the real socioeconomic costs of quarantine measures can only be justified by estimated benefits of undertaking them, making such measures difficult to defend in concrete terms. In these kinds of situations, no amount of data or science can build adequate consensus, and this is especially true when the data comes into question (e.g. the variance in death rate based on the true infection rate, which we do not know) and the science comes into question (e.g. the general population being unable to grasp that the very basis of the scientific method). The only thing that can build consensus in these types of situations is trust in government, as in: "I know that they do not have all the answers, I know that they might get it wrong from time to time, but I also know that they are taking advantage of the best data and science that the country has to offer and are making the most informed decision they can on my behalf." I need not say why we do not have this level of trust in government today, but I do need to say that the breakdown along party lines is a sad state of affairs. If we had stronger leadership, we would be more unified, especially in troubled times. I think we can all agree on that, but maybe not.
No comments:
Post a Comment