I often complain about “rule by experts” — the idea that some saintly genius can figure out the best path, and the rest of us should follow it.
It’s a deadly idea. Nobody is that smart or that saintly. Somehow or other, the ignorant masses, making their own decisions based on faulty logic and bad data, tend to collectively muddle their way through things better than the experts can ever predict or determine. This gets into the mysterious wisdom of crowds.
But there are times for experts. Like when you’re having a pandemic. But you can’t rely on only one kind of expert.
I’m reminded of the dispute between dermatologists and regular doctors over sun exposure. Dermatologists want us to stay out of the sun and wear sunscreen all the time, while regular doctors say Vitamin D deficiency is a far more serious problem than skin cancer.
IOW, just as the man with a hammer sees every problem as a nail, every expert has his own set of biases as well. The infectious disease people aren’t going to look at the problem from the perspective of the economists, or the police, or the civil libertarians, or ….
Lockdowns may have made sense from the perspective of an infectious disease expert, but other experts knew they were going to cause other problems. One simple example is the increase in alcohol-related deaths. Although there were a lot of other casualties of the lockdowns.
I hope we’ve learned this lesson and never again let one set of experts make the decisions.
QUOTE: But there are times for experts. Like when you’re having a pandemic. But you can’t rely on only one kind of expert. Lockdowns may have made sense from the perspective of an infectious disease expert, but other experts knew they were going to cause other problems.
Now that we are a couple of years out and can see things a “bit” more clearly, some act as if “they” had the right answers…quick to criticize those experts that were on the front lines making real-time life or death decisions. When dealing with novel situations, it seems to make sense to give deference to experts who may have more experience and useful insights. Nothing is without trade offs and no surprise mistakes were made. Still, I would have liked to have seen those who now feel they know better to have led us through the hardest days of the pandemic. Would we have had a vaccine or other interventions that helped get us to a better place? We’ve had over 800,000 deaths…would we have had less with them in charge or possibly more? What would have happened if we followed the “expert” guidance of those who emphatically promised there would be “no second wave” or hailed hydroxychloroquine as a cure?
That said, no one really knew what to do…so we had to ferret our way through it. Now that we are further down the road, let’s hope a thorough postmortem will cause us to deal more effectively with the next crisis and use the input of various types of experts.
You obviously need to have priorities. When you have a medical problem, you primarily need to consult medical experts, although experts of other kind might come into consideration in a secondary way.
QUOTE: When you have a medical problem, you primarily need to consult medical experts, although experts of other kind might come into consideration in a secondary way.
Some will likely argue the medical experts weren’t all on the same page and the dissenting voices should have been given more deference. Yet, during a crisis, there typically isn’t time to exercise a very democratic method in selecting interventions. Assessments and decisions need to be made quickly because undue delay could cost unnecessary loss of life. Yet, now that the dust is settling a bit…the Monday morning quarterback critics act as if those who had more influential voices got it all wrong and their methods may have been better. Hindsight is 20/20 and it’s typically easier to make informed decisions (and point fingers) in the rear view. Indeed, some mistakes and misjudgments were made by the influential medical experts. The critics want to hold them to a standard of perfection that is never possible in novel situations….not even for the critics. Interestingly, in hindsight, the critics too made errors in their predictions and judgements, with the use of Ivermectin being the latest. Somehow those don’t get as much attention from them.
Hopefully, going forward, we will learn from the errors made and not repeat them…considering input from all sectors of the medical community. Yet, also remember that no sector of the medical community got it 100% correct initially…not even the critics.