Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY
/
COVID-19: the tyranny of experts
COVID-19: the tyranny of experts
Oct 9, 2024 2:15 PM

You already know the basic story of the 2020 coronavirus global pandemic, but the proper interpretation is still in flux. If we fail to discern the role of the tyranny of experts, we will miss the linchpin that turned a pandemic into a catastrophe.

As a public-health problem, COVID-19 started in late 2019, when a mysterious new coronavirus infected people in Wuhan, China. Within a couple of months, it had spread to every corner of the occupied world. At first, when officials outside China did not know how dangerous it was, reactions varied. In late January, President Donald Trump responded to the news by restricting travel from China. At the time, the World Health Organization still downplayed the risk and criticized limits on travel. Trump’s opponents, from Joe Biden to Nancy Pelosi, accused him of xenophobia. By late March, though, panic was setting in, and Trump’s domestic critics were claiming he had not acted fast enough.

In downplaying the danger early on, the World Health Organization seemed to be carrying water for the regime in Beijing. (We provide the details in our new book, The Price of Panic.) But in March, the UN agency reversed course. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus pointed to a scary model from the Imperial College London, which predicted as many as 40 million people could die worldwide without draconian efforts to reduce the spread of the virus. It would be more than a month before non-experts learned that the model was little more than high tech, unreliable conjecture.

American public health experts followed the lead of WHO and advised the president accordingly. On April 8, Trump explained that “two very smart people walked into my office and said, ‘Listen these are your alternatives.’ And that was a projection of 1.5 to 2.2 million people would die if we didn’t close [the economy] up.” One of these was public health official Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Dr. Fauci and a few other officials soon became household names, thanks to a viral boost from the press and social media. As a result, government bureaucrats with narrow expertise gained the status of infallible oracles. This made it politically deadly for the president to weigh their advice against the advice of other experts.

That arrangement, we should now realize, set the stage for disaster. The coronavirus was surely a danger, especially to the elderly who suffered from ill health. But it’s not nearly as severe as the Spanish flu a century ago, and it poses less risk than the ordinary flu to the young and healthy. As a result, we argue in The Price of Panic that the cost of the public response – which involved untested, population-wide lockdowns rather than targeted quarantines – vastly exceeded even their promised benefits.

Let’s grant that the federal government has a proper role to play in public health and, in particular, during a pandemic. Still, public health officials left to their own devices should not have this sort of power over government leaders or public perception. Executing policy is finally the job of elected officials, practical men and women who are accountable to the public and who are charged with balancing the advice peting experts, not getting rolled by them.

The problem here is not that public health officials are wicked. Let’s assume they are all noble and well-meaning. The problem is that they are bound to maximize a certain kind of safety, to the neglect of other goods. In this way, they are like anxious doctors who run every possible test on a patient. Looking for problems is a physician’s job. Misdiagnosis could be considered malpractice. This makes them risk-averse and hypervigilant. They tend to respond to the worst-case scenario. But you, as a patient, have different aims. What you deem best for you, weighing costs and benefits, may not be what is best for the doctor who is treating you.

In the same way, putting medical specialists in charge of nations – or the whole globe – is asking for overly cautious and even oppressive policies. These experts tend to e fixated on the single malady in front of them, to the exclusion of any other concern – with tragic results for us in the United States and every other country that followed the doctors’ orders.

Consider, as Exhibit A, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel – oncologist, bioethicist, and one-time public health guru under President Barack Obama. Probably for shock value, news outlets quoted him in April saying that the whole country must be locked down for 12 to 18 months until there is a vaccine. “Realistically, COVID-19 will be here for the next 18 months or more. We will not be able to return to normalcy until we find a vaccine or effective medications,” he said. “I know that’s dreadful news to hear. How are people supposed to find work if this goes on in some form for a year and a half? Is all that economic pain worth trying to stop COVID-19? The truth is we have no choice.”

The doctor was wrong: There is always a choice. We could have quarantined the sick, isolated those at high risk, monsense precautions, and then gone on with our lives – just as people did during the swine flu, the Asian flu, the Hong Kong flu, and on and on. Failing that, at least we could have pivoted as soon as we saw that the coronavirus was not as deadly and indiscriminate as predicted.

Why couldn’t Emanuel see this? For the same reason that Exhibit B, presidential advisor Anthony Fauci, said: “I don’t think we should ever shake hands, ever again, to be honest with you. Not only would it be good to prevent coronavirus disease, it probably would decrease instances of influenza dramatically in this country.” This from the man the New Yorker called “America’s doctor.”

In mid-May, Dr. Fauci spoke to a Senate mittee about the dangers of reopening schools and warned governors of “needless suffering and death” if we reopened states “prematurely.” pared to what? The word implies a fixed end date, like a due date during a pregnancy. But Fauci promised no end date to the madness.

Why do public health officials like Emanuel and Fauci say such things? Because they are in the grip of a single goal. Such officials tend to think in bulk, to focus on the quantity of abstract life protected in the near term, rather than the quality of actual lives lived over the long term. Imagine, for instance, what might happen if a risk-averse public health expert who had spent 30 years obsessing over traffic deaths could dictate the driving choices of 330 million Americans, or eight billion humans. It would not be pretty.

The problem is not expertise. We all benefit from experts. The problem is the tyranny of experts – when their constricted focus dictates policy for everyone. In a sane world, the media would grasp that experts like Emanuel and Fauci offer one narrow take on a vast plex problem, and that while we should not ignore them, we should not idolize them, either.

Regrettably, the press weaponized Fauci against President Trump and other politicians who challenged the wisdom of an indefinite shutdown. The headlines reporting on Fauci’s May testimony before a mittee – when Senator (and doctor) Rand Paul had the temerity to tell him, “You’re not the end-all” – were predictable: “Trump’s Push to Reopen Schools Clashes with Fauci’s Call for Caution”; “Fauci Warns of Colossal, Deadly Mistake. Will Trump Listen?”; “Fauci Warns: More Death, Econ Damage If US Reopens Too Fast.”

Of course, Fauci has no expertise in economics, and even his health advice changed over the course of the winter and spring. As Steve Deace noted on May 14:

In January, Fauci did an interview in his native NYC saying coronavirus was just another flu. In February, he wrote virtually the same in the New England Journal of Medicine. In March, he said Americans don’t need to be walking around wearing masks. Then later in March he told Congress this would kill 10 times more people than the flu. He signed up to lockdown the country based on the disgraced Imperial College Model in March, too. In April, he sentenced us to further lockdown based on the always wrong IHME model. Later in April he said he wasn’t sure we could trust the models. Now in May he’s not sure we can send the kids back to school this fall, a linchpin to reopening the country, despite the fact kids are returning to school in China, Japan, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, France, Israel, and Sweden.

So, how do you know which Fauci to worship? Your demigod sure does change his mind a lot.

No matter. The press had elevated Fauci and other specialists to the status of infallible oracles – whose most recent pronouncements erased whatever they had said the day before – and dared governors and presidents to challenge them. But challenge them we must, if we’re going to avoid a repeat of the 2020 catastrophe.

Jay W. Richards, Douglas Axe, and William Briggs are the authors of The Price of Panic: How the Tyranny of Experts Turned a Pandemic into a Catastrophe.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY
C.S. Lewis and the Apocalypse of Gender
From very nearly the beginning, Christianity has wrestled with the question of the body. Heretics from gnostics to docetists devalued physical reality and the body, while orthodox Christianity insisted that the physical world offers us true signs pointing to God. This quarrel persists today, and one form it takes is the general confusion among Christians and non-Christians alike about gender. Is gender an abstracted idea? Is it reducible to biological characteristics? Is it a set of behaviors determined by...
Up from the Liberal Founding
During the 20th century, scholars of the American founding generally believed that it was liberal. Specifically, they saw the founding as rooted in the political thought of 17th-century English philosopher John Locke. In addition, they saw Locke as a primarily secular thinker, one who sought to isolate the role of religion from political considerations except when necessary to prop up the various assumptions he made for natural rights. These included a divine creator responsible for a rational world for...
Jesus and Class Warfare
Plenty of Marxists have turned to the New Testament and the origins of Christianity. Memorable examples include the works of F.D. Maurice and Zhu Weizhi’s Jesus the Proletarian. After criticizing how so many translations of the New Testament soften Jesus’ teachings regarding material possessions, greed, and wealth, Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart has gone so far to ask, “Are Christians supposed to be Communists?” In the Huffington Post, Dan Arel has even claimed that “Jesus was clearly a Marxist,...
Creating an Economy of Inclusion
The poor have been the main subject of concern in the whole tradition of Catholic Social Teaching. The Catholic Church talks often about a “preferential option for the poor.” In recent years, many of the Church’s social teaching documents have been particularly focused on the needs of the poorest people in the world’s poorest countries. The first major analysis of this topic could be said to have been in the papal encyclical Populorum Progressio, published in 1967 by Pope...
Spurgeon and the Poverty-Fighting Church
Religion & Liberty: Volume 33, Number 4 Spurgeon and the Poverty-Fighting Church by Christopher Parr • October 30, 2023 Portrait of Charles Spurgeon by Alexander Melville (1885) Charles Spurgeon was a young, zealous 15-year-old boy when he came to faith in Christ. A letter to his mother at the time captures the enthusiasm of his newfound Christian faith: “Oh, how I wish that I could do something for Christ.” God granted that wish, as Spurgeon would e “the prince of...
Adam Smith and the Poor
Adam Smith did not seem to think that riches were requisite to happiness: “the beggar, who suns himself by the side of the highway, possesses that security which kings are fighting for” (The Theory of Moral Sentiments). But he did not mend beggary. The beggar here is not any beggar, but Diogenes the Cynic, who asked of Alexander the Great only to step back so as not to cast a shadow upon Diogenes as he reclined alongside the highway....
How Dispensationalism Got Left Behind
Whether we like it or not, Americans, in one way or another, have all been indelibly shaped by dispensationalism. Such is the subtext of Daniel Hummel’s provocative telling of the rise and fall of dispensationalism in America. In a little less than 350 pages, Hummel traces how a relatively insignificant Irishman from the Plymouth Brethren, John Nelson Darby, prompted the proliferation of dispensational theology, especially its eschatology, or theology of the end times, among our ecclesiastical, cultural, and political...
Lord Jonathan Sacks: The West’s Rabbi
In October 1798, the president of the United States wrote to officers of the Massachusetts militia, acknowledging a limitation of federal rule. “We have no government,” John Adams wrote, “armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, and revenge or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.” The nation that Adams had helped to found would require the parts of the body...
Mistaken About Poverty
Perhaps it is because America is the land of liberty and opportunity that debates about poverty are especially intense in the United States. Americans and would-be Americans have long been told that if they work hard enough and persevere they can achieve their dreams. For many people, the mere existence of poverty—absolute or relative—raises doubts about that promise and the American experiment more generally. Is it true that America suffers more poverty than any other advanced democracy in the...
Conversation Starters with … Anne Bradley
Anne Bradley is an Acton affiliate scholar, the vice president of academic affairs at The Fund for American Studies, and professor of economics at The Institute of World Politics. There’s much talk about mon good capitalism” these days, especially from the New Right. Is this long overdue, that a hyper-individualism be beaten back, or is it merely cover for increasing state control of the economy? Let me begin by saying that I hate “capitalism with adjectives” in general. This...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2024 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved