Polarisation among scientists on Covid-19 responses

Last week, at the (virtual) ITM colloquium, a debate took place on whether the Covid-19 response had been balanced enough. In the slipstream of the discussion, before and after the debate a poll was also conducted with as main choices, ‘a top-down blueprint’ versus ‘a more flexible’ approach.

It was a rather animated debate, not unlike the fierce discussions some of us can witness on the Covid19- Sub-Saharan Africa Google group (where discussions don’t seem confined to SSA, as it’s hard to just refrain from commenting on one’s own setting or country, especially when there’s a new “wave”).

Even if the virus and Covid-19 still present many mysteries, it’s fair to say we know a lot more now than at the start of the pandemic. As scientists got to know the virus better over time, you would expect that polarization, at least amongst scientists, would have decreased, eight months into the pandemic. But the opposite seems true.

What are some of the reasons for this (continuing) scientific disagreement?  Let me give it a try. Below some tentative reasons, but I’m sure there’s a lot more to it.

Unlike polarization in public opinion, we can’t really blame the “Infodemic”, let alone wacko conspiracy theories for this disagreement. No scientist thinks that 6G will bring the ultimate solution, or that Bill Gates (of whom many of us agree that he’s way too powerful in the Covid19  ecosystem (and global health in general)) will include a chip in vaccines to make people more docile, etc.   (PS: there are also other reasons why public opinion is polarized, amongst others of course the impact of public health measures on their own lives)

Scientists, however, mostly know “the facts” (though some understand the intricacies of the virus or, say, modelling, probably better than others). Put differently, by and large, they tend to have all the ‘health literacy’ needed on Covid-19, unlike many ordinary citizens. Yet, we seem to interpret these facts in very different ways at this stage in the pandemic.

It appears many scientists currently want to occupy some pristine territory in between the Great Barrington Declaration and the John Snow memorandum. The poll also pointed in that direction, with more people favouring the ‘flexible approach’ over the ‘blueprint approach’ (PS: a bit problematic wording, if you ask me, as most scientists (who like to think of themselves as being “smartasses”), will always want be ‘flexible’ rather than seen as ‘rigid’)).   8 Months into the pandemic, most scientists now try to live in the mythical land of  “systemic Pasteurists”.  While I subscribe to that aim too, unfortunately, it’s not quite clear what that involves. And so we hugely differ in opinion on this “middle ground”. Even, in some cases, for some looking with more or less similar ideological glasses to the world.

And that’s part of the reason, I guess, why at the end of the day, you might get some “strange bedfellows” (as was also noticed this summer in the streets of Berlin, where at some point ‘dreamy left’ and ‘extreme right’ were demonstrating happily together against the measures). From my vantage point, some of the more maverick scientists even get rather close to Trumpean statements, even if they embrace a radically different paradigm and structural measures.

I don’t think ‘scientific discipline’ is the main explanatory factor. Some MDs are very much into Foucault, I notice, while others rigorously subscribe to the John Snow Memorandum (disclaimer: I signed the memorandum), and virologists’ views.  Conversely, some social scientists hear these days they suffer from a “medical gaze” 😊.  

So what is it then? A mix of personality (cfr: scientists with a libertarian streak, with for some a touch of machismo as well (?), vs more cautious ones); the  “path dependency” of scientists (professional and personal, some for example having worked in dire humanitarian situations), their ideology (how they perceive/frame  ‘Sweden’ & ‘South Korea’ tends to be a good indicator) (although even scientists with relatively similar ideology seem to end up sometimes very far from each other on the response approach they favour), including with respect to neoliberal austerity damage done in recent decades in health systems and society in general); the fact that first order (health) & second order impact (socio economic, mental health) are, to a large extent, occurring at the same time; a tendency to (over)generalize lessons from one’s own country (or countries you know very well, having lived there for many years), scientists’ philosophy of life, …  ?

It’s probably a mix of all of these. And then some more, like their comparative attention for civil rights & rule of law, and respective worry about “surveillance states”.

Long-term strategy no doubt also has to do with it:  how to capitalize on this Covid pandemic moment to get to a fairer & more sustainable world, and thus not squander a great opportunity for real structural change? As the saying goes, “If not now, then when?”  (as compared to what is seen by some as ‘propping up the status quo’, in the mainstream ‘pandemic mitigation’ discourse)  Others think, first things first, let’s first try to deal with the health care emergency, while trying to mitigate consequences for the vulnerable. And then, in a few months, pick up the indeed all-important structural agenda. Like the Allied forces also already started preparing for the world after WW II, while still focusing on beating Hitler and his gang.

One’s main focus of empathy (except family, of course) also seems to play a role. That is for many scientists (depending on family members, own professional environment & history) different.   (eg: some will focus more on (health) care staff under enormous pressure, whereas others who know single mothers with children, know they’re probably more afraid of lockdowns, or think of the enormous tragedies now happening in many LMICs or humanitarian settings, far away from Western media coverage).

Another factor: although all scientists agree that a vaccine will not be a ‘silver bullet’, they often differ in their assessment of the likelihood that a vaccine or some other medical treatment/invention will drastically change the picture in the months to come.

Finally, with Covid-19 implying a major paradigm shift at least as big as HIV (and probably bigger), scientists differ on how to interpret this paradigm shift. For some, the pandemic, as a syndemic, allows finally for more attention for social and political determinants, NCDs, … allowing us all to look with new eyes at these key issues, that have been overlooked for too long. For others, Covid rather feels like a “black hole” that sucks up all attention from these many other worthy causes, often (certainly in some settings) making many more casualties. As for my preference, having signed the JS memorandum, as you can imagine, I’m quite in favour of strict enough public health measures, fast enough, if the trend is going in the wrong direction, and I would personally just look in the direction of the “winners” of this Covid pandemic (billionaires, the financial sector, GAFA, and some other MNCs that still rake in extra billions while billions of people are suffering) to mitigate the socio-economic havoc wreaked on the many precarious people through lockdown or other strict public health measures.

So even if one agrees on the framing of Covid-19 as a ‘syndemic pandemic’, preferred responses by scientists can still be very different, as the pandemic hits those who are most vulnerable, but so does the ‘collateral damage’. That leads to very different assessments on what response is needed when, it turns out.

Anyway, these are some of the reasons I see for the sometimes ferocious disagreement between scientists on Covid-19 responses. I’m sure there are many more. And of course, feel free to disagree.

Still, in a democracy, it’s good to disagree and make your reasons why explicit. 

Hopefully, we’ll all get wiser as a result!