COVID debates are more than just science vs. misinformation
During the time before vaccines, a friend of mine told me he was traveling home for Christmas despite the pandemic but would not visit his 93-year-old grandmother. A perfectly reasonable position: She was in a high-risk group for COVID-19 based on age. No one would want to make their loved ones sick.
And yet, how many more Christmases and how many more visits can a 93-year-old grandmother be expected to enjoy? Actuarially speaking, not visiting her may mean never seeing her again. Perhaps, if she is up for the risk, you should be too? It would also still be understandable for you to not want to bear the responsibility of making her potentially fatally ill, even if she extended the invitation.
The above dilemma is a common one in the COVID era and it does not come down to science versus misinformation. People can reach different conclusions about what the correct answer is while looking at the same data. Many of the conflicts we have over the pandemic are not about having different views of what the science says, although that certainly does happen as well. The biggest debates involve trade-offs and differences in values or priorities.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Those debates can be informed by the science. But science cannot resolve them. Science can help understanding of the risk of exposing my grandmother to COVID. It can also tell me what a normal human lifespan is. But it cannot tell me what the right answer is in terms of visiting her, at least in a way that is acceptable to everyone.
Some of the differences of opinion over business restrictions during the pandemic or mask mandates or other public policies may stem from how seriously one takes the virus. But often, they come down to valuing certain cost-benefit analyses differently. The government, of course, has to try to make these decisions based on the common good. But individual policymakers will differ, sometimes based even on their own areas of expertise.
None of this is to say there isn't a great deal of misinformation circulating, especially about the vaccines. But believing in science is not the same as believing it resolves all questions in life.
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
W. James Antle III is the politics editor of the Washington Examiner, the former editor of The American Conservative, and author of Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?.
-
Will California tax its billionaires?Talking Points A proposed one-time levy would shore up education and Medicaid
-
A free speech debate is raging over sign language at the White HouseTalking Points The administration has been accused of excluding deaf Americans from press briefings
-
Is Trump a lame duck president?Talking Points Republicans are considering a post-Trump future
-
Has Zohran Mamdani shown the Democrats how to win again?Today’s Big Question New York City mayoral election touted as victory for left-wing populists but moderate centrist wins elsewhere present more complex path for Democratic Party
-
Nick Fuentes’ Groyper antisemitism is splitting the rightTalking Points Interview with Tucker Carlson draws conservative backlash
-
Is Mike Johnson rendering the House ‘irrelevant’?Talking Points Speaker has put the House on indefinite hiatus
-
Will Republicans kill the filibuster to end the shutdown?Talking Points GOP officials contemplate the ‘nuclear option’
-
Millions turn out for anti-Trump ‘No Kings’ ralliesSpeed Read An estimated 7 million people participated, 2 million more than at the first ‘No Kings’ protest in June



