COVID-19 and the pace of science

One of the insights I've gained from the COVID-19 pandemic is the realization that most people have no idea how science is done and how evidence-based decision making works. Even among physicians, the fact that a term like "evidence-based medicine" exists tells you that there remains a lot of daylight between science and clinical practice.

Sciencing is hard, slow, tedious. And it is done by humans, so it is fraught with unintended errors. Fortunately, good science is self-correcting. Contrary to what the radical right wing will tell you, it is iconoclasm, not conformity, that is ultimately rewarded. The scientist who proves that the overwhelming evidence for anthropogenic globals warming is a mirage will win a Nobel Prize and deserve our undying gratitude.

In the age of the COVID-19 pandemic, people want a avuncular voice to tell them what is happening now and what will happen in the future. COVID-19 is too new, the current data too limited, and the process of gathering reliable data too slow.

So we're left with this:

If your null hypothesis is that a healthy economy is paramount, you'll listen to the voices that minimize human risk and take your chances that many people will die unnecessarily.

If your null hypothesis is the the lives of your fellow humans is paramount, you'll listen to the voices that err on the side of economic harm and take your chances with the ability of state and federal government to blunt that harm.

https://www.vox.com/2020/4/18/21221202/listen-to-experts-science