When “science” becomes virtue signalling

From time to time I see articles about how some organization or other has made a decision “after carefully reviewing the science.”

I call BS.

What they mean is, “we’re scared to death of making a decision that will anger Karen.”

“COVID-19 is a new disease and we are still learning about how it spreads,” says the CDC’s recently updated guidelines. (Source: The CDC says coronavirus ‘does not spread easily’ on surfaces or objects. Here’s what we know.

Or, IOW, “the science” is all over the map and nobody’s really sure.

Does sanitizing surfaces and wearing gloves do any good? Yes, no, maybe, we’re not sure. Ask again next week.

Does wearing a mask help? No, then yes, then … wait a week and it will be no again.

Responding to this mess is a very complicated dance. Obviously we want to listen to the experts, but that bugle’s been making an indistinct sound. Sometimes it sounds like charge, sometimes retreat, and sometimes taps.

Decisions are (and should be) made politically, not scientifically.

8 thoughts on “When “science” becomes virtue signalling”

  1. QUOTE: Decisions are (and should be) made politically, not scientifically.

    Isn’t this how it’s already done? For instance…

    * NOAA issued a warning about the path of hurricane Dorian. Yet, with a stroke of a pen (a sharpie), the known and observable path of the hurricane was changed (to something that wasn’t objectively accurate).
    *The POTUS has mused publicly to scientists about considerations for research and actions. During a public press conference, he suggested that injecting disinfectants into the body might be something scientist should explore for treating Covid-19. As well, allegedly he suggested to senior Homeland Security and national security officials that they explore using nuclear bombs to stop hurricanes from hitting the United States.
    * White House staffers didn’t uniformly wear face masks in the West Wing, allegedly due to the rhetoric of the POTUS. Yet, when two staffers tested positive for Covid-19, they now wear them. If face masks are simply a public scare tactic, why did WH staffers start wearing them?

    QUOTE: Or, IOW, “the science” is all over the map and nobody’s really sure.

    Couldn’t the same be said for politics? What gives politics a greater reliability than science? For instance…

    Not so long ago, the POTUS stated:
    * “Now we are working very strong with China on the Coronavirus.”
    * “We are offering them [China] tremendous help…we’ve offered China help.”
    * “We have a tremendous relationship with China which is a very positive thing.”
    * “I’m confident that they [China] are trying very hard. I know President Xi and we get along very well…they are trying very, very hard. ” (in response to the question… “how confident are you that China is being 100% honest with us when it comes to this scary virus?”)

    Yet, more recently he’s stated he has no interest in speaking to President Xi right now and suggested he could even cut ties with China. So, which should we rely upon…China as an ally in fighting Covid-19 or our foe that should be punished? Both?

    1. You’re confirming the meme that all news now revolves around Trump. 🙂

  2. QUOTE: You’re confirming the meme that all news now revolves around Trump. 🙂

    Doesn’t it?

  3. Given his severe instability in terms of cognitive and emotional performance on the one hand and the vast extent of his power on the other, it can hardly be otherwise.

    1. Given the proposal was about making decisions based on politics, not science, it seemed reasonable to use the POTUS as an example of this principle in operation, given the role’s prominence and significance in US politics.

      That said, even without invoking the POTUS (which seems silly to avoid), the dynamic seems to be similar in some cases. For instance, it seems the reporting of Covid-19 cases in Georgia was subject to political influences. Left unchecked, it’s likely the public would have been under the false impression the trend in cases was declining. This isn’t the only time this has occurred. So, it leaves to question if politics is more reliable than science, for the public, in this case.

  4. The response to war has consistently been science-based. Why can’t the response to disease be so as well?

  5. Not sure. I’m waiting for conclusive evidence that politics is more reliable and a better basis for decision making than science, relative to Covid-19.

    1. It’s quite simple. Science won’t have any real answers for months or even years. There have to be peer-reviewed studies that have to be tested and re-examined. But political decisions can’t wait that long.

Comments are closed.