This is a piece that looks into the Great Barrington Declaration (sometimes hereafter GBD).
Great Barrington Declaration and website1
And contrastingly, also looks a the John Snow Memorandum.John Snow Memo
Both are important documents that speak to society's response to the CoVid 19 pandemic (as it has sometimes been called).
Both have been signed by a large number of scientists, researchers, and healthcare professionals. Both were composed by genuine luminaries in their professions. And, the fact is they reach polar opposite conclusions - if you succumb to the click bait connected with each.
What are we, the plebs, supposed to make of all this?? Two groups of prominent world class science people, considering the same question, at the same time, with access to the same information, reaching conflicting, opposite positions.
The Great Barrington Declaration was composed by 3 standout academic scientists. One from Standford U., one from Harvard U., and one from Oxford U. The peak of the academic hierarchy does not get any higher, leastwise in the English speaking world. This is not really contentious.
It was the document first out of the blocks, in early October 2020, some 9 months after Covid reached America, and 7 months after the shutdown/lockdowns began.
Less than a week or two later The J. Snow Memo was composed and circulated.
It too had a large number of signing dignitaries. Truly world class scientists, no less distinguished than their GBD counterparts. These people were clearly unhappy with the GBD. They thought it misguided or worse.
Here I make no effort to pick a winner as between these competing ideologies, though I certainly have my personal preferences.
Rather, my purpose is simply to acknowledge that for these difficult questions, different groups of people of science come to strikingly different conclusions.
Said another way, two respected groups each totally committed to 'Science', and committed to following the science to guide their thinking, analysis and recommendations, can not agree on the points in question.
Surely this is hard evidence that there is no one true scientific path. Both groups may claim that the science favours their conclusions, and both have sensible reasons for the views they hold. But make no mistake; these groups are not on the same page.
Now in debates like this, especially in an age of instant social media, a common tactic of all groups (leastwise among the less wise) is to bad mouth the opposing group. The other side is composed of bozos, or corrupt people you will hear. Their motives are suspect. They've been bought off. They really don't have experience in the field. And in any event, some of the ring leaders are just stupid.
This tactic is wrong, and certainly not helpful.
Neither group in this debate can legitimately disparage the credentials of the other group.
Both groups are peopled by honourable, thoughtful, unconflicted scientists of good standing.
Neither deserves the abusive criticism we so routinely see.
Here's the point.
The Science does not provide a single correct answer.
So, those of our political leaders that suggest there only is one correct path as determined by science -
are full of shit.
In the present situation we must acknowledge that The Science is still Under Construction. Science people are still trying to figure things out. And it is a very complex environment - with hundreds of nations and provinces each having a slightly different response, and different strains of the bug, and different susceptibilities, etc.
Here's another point.
While the two groups end up at different recommendations for how society and political leaders should respond, the two groups are not so far apart as the twitterverse would have you believe.
Indeed, there are big swaths of their positions that coincide and say the same thing. The differences are really quite nuanced. It takes effort and time to parse the manifestos to zero in on the differences, and also to appreciate the similarities in their statements.
We should invest time and effort into understanding where these two groups are together, and what principles they hold in common. This can be used as building blocks to move towards some scientific consensus.
A third point.
It is out-of-bounds to summarily dismiss the other side, as happens much too often.
Along the lines of; so you believe and have signed the GBD - then you must be a Denier, and I have nothing to say to you.
This is sad, sad.
It is a tactic for lazy (fatigued?) folk, that does them no credit.
Building consensus takes effort and respect.
Our political leaders and those science types who advise them have a duty to acknowledge that there are competing views on the appropriate societal response. They should not declare there is only one correct path which Science has determined. They are obligated to disclose the existence of respectable competing views, and should take steps to reconcile or balance these competing views.
(I am reminded of a tradition in the Courts which rely on common law principles, and the importance of precedents whereby advocates in Court are obliged to advise the Judge of case law that is opposite to what they advocate.)
And finally for this item, a comment about the Public and the Media is in order.
The public have an obligation to inform themselves if they are to participate in the debate. And that means being alert to what those with opposite leanings believe. We all have to bust out of our echo chambers to better understand the other side.
As for the Media, we need to avoid supporting any media outlet that has a strategy of exploiting differences, causing divisions, and generating hysteria. In the never ending big money game of capturing 'attention', we need to foster old fashioned journalism - fact based, science-centric, and truly independent.
Of course, all of these are Big Asks, and in no danger of coming to pass imminently.
But these are my aspirations...
MH
20210405
