The year 2020 will certainly be remembered by those of us who lived through this extraordinary moment in human history. If it was not the rampant respiratory virus itself, it was the intermittent lockdowns that brought everything to a halt. If it was not the lockdowns it was the abrupt border closures, the isolation, and the curfews. International travel stalled as the economy stuttered to a standstill. And if it was not any of that, it was the avalanche of opinions and conspiracy theories scrambling to alert us to what was supposedly going on.
Albert Einstein famously said, and I believe the citation to be accurate, that unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. In 2020 we were subject to a daily litany of fallacies and half-truths uttered on the steps of town halls around the world - ostensibly from those elected to lead though, in many cases, dummies mouthing advice sought from unelected ventriloquists who presumed to know precisely what to do in these unprecedented circumstances.
Subsequently a jumble of conflicting, mostly draconian, measures foisted arbitrarily on a naive and bewildered populace, betrayed an extraordinary lack of foresight and preparation.
If these events were not sufficiently alarming we also witnessed outbreaks of panic, science being twisted to fit the sanctioned narrative, billionaires sitting back and profiting just by doing nothing, and autocratic governments using the virus as a smokescreen in barely disguised opportunistic efforts to curtail civil liberties.
And amidst all the lingering confusion, the collective shock and pain of loss, the heroic actions of first responders, emergency workers and frontline healthcare professionals, and solitary deaths inflicted upon the elderly and infirm, one horrific feature stood out. State-authorized propaganda was left in the dust in comparison with the dread, false assertions, and mischief perpetrated by a few self-serving conspiracy theorists, including far-right anti-vaccination activists whose intentions ranged from seeding doubts about the efficacy of vaccines in the minds of the community, to self-deification as the sole arbiters of the truth.
At a time when humanity is just coming to terms with evidence of global warming, and starting to ramp up the urgency of what needs to be done; setting aside the theatre of the absurd starring Boris Johnson and the Brexit blunder, Donald Trump's extravagant efforts to mimic King Canute, and Scott Morrison's gaffes in Australia's relationship with the Chinese dragon; this conduct was shamefully craven.
Conspiracy theories not withstanding, the five factors that most concern me in all of the current chaos and potential for collapse all lack effective remedial strategies:
- The erosion of trust, much of it valid, in our most venerable institutions - particularly the legal, public health, and justice systems - at a time when their veracity is urgently needed.
- The misappropriation of science to reinforce official narratives - often used as a shield against any untoward criticism of officials, their conduct, or more peremptory policies.
- The reckless role adopted by sections of the media, that only serves to generate panic and outrage on the back of disinformation, misinformation and, at times, sheer fantasy.
- The next pandemic, already on the horizon in the train of COVID-19, comprising a wave of mental health and domestic violence issues triggered by the decision taken to quarantine and separate whole societies and individuals from one another.
- The fissures that have opened up in society by this pandemic, illustrating the brittleness in so many of the complex, life-critical systems, upon which we all depend each day.
Pandemics are not random events. Nor is it that we have just been unlucky. Like every other mass infectious outbreak, SARS-CoV-2 has its own unique properties. And, like every other pandemic, we can expect it to afflict us most through our inherent vulnerabilities - explicitly in terms of our relations with nature, different species, and each other.
It is possible that COVID-19 - not the virus so much as our reactions to it - will continue to impact our emotional and social wellbeing for years to come. So what pre-emptive actions can be taken now to avoid unwanted consequences in the future? There are two obvious requirements:
- Better preparation for potentially catastrophic events at all levels of our globalized society. This could include simulation-based strategy gaming, wide-ranging scenario risk analysis, planning for socio-economic continuity and stability, and predetermined agreements for staged emergency measures to be put in place everywhere, concurrently and instantly.
- Coordinated action based on scientific evidence and evolving real-time intelligence. This might also include developing the capacity of citizens, via all social and corporate media channels, to distinguish between evidence-based facts and highly improbable fictions.
The first of these is really just a management issue, a practice that should happen automatically, without the need to plead a special cause. There have probably been as many plagues as wars in our history. Yet we always seem unprepared when wars and pestilence occur.
Councils and state legislatures are responsible for the wellbeing and security of citizens residing in their jurisdictions. Though not so evident, there is an implicit acknowledgement that regional forums and global institutions like the United Nations are there to protect people and to keep the peace. National governments pledge to do so at every election. After all, along with maintaining order, that is their primary role in a modern society.
But extensive cross-border cooperation is the only way promises such as these can be kept within the context of crises impacting the international community. To suggest this needs more attention is an understatement.
Citizens should start demanding that crisis planning be incorporated into the praxis of every state legislature. Indeed it should become a fundamental declaration of their willingness and ability to govern and they should be held accountable for it. Simply winning a political vanity contest held every few years is no substitute for relevant expertise and effective action. But because sovereign nations have been designed to compete with each other, such efforts are mostly spent on playing war games and working out new ways to kill each other.
But I will not dwell on those issues here. It is the second of these factors I find most fascinating, given that it impinges on so many societal norms concerning our ability to trust and communicate knowledge accurately. Epidemics are as central to understanding human evolution, as powerful forces of radical societal change, as are revolutions and wars. The bubonic plague known as the Black Death, for example, which caused the deaths of an estimated 20 million people, one-third of Europe’s population, foreshadowed the end of the medieval period and the start of a new era.
How will COVID-19 shape human ingenuity and innovation over the coming decades I wonder? How prepared are we as a society for future microbial challenges and the social ruin that could accompany such events? How can we deal with society-wide anomic breakdowns in the normative order that afflicted social institutions most recently?
These questions are made even more problematic by a range of culturally-explicit ways we have acquired to explain the appearance, spread and causes of epidemics. Although we no longer attribute the source of disease outbreaks to the devil, or perfidious Jews, we still tend to place the blame on rogue elements and responsible parties - including poisons planted and distributed by enemy agents, laboratory accidents, filth and poverty, and various animal carriers such as rodents, bats, sheep and cattle.
Thus it came as no surprise when President Trump constantly referred to the "Chinese virus" in his efforts to personify the threat and deflect any criticism surrounding his handling of the pandemic. Although the use of the term “Chinese” in this context was particularly concerning, given that it correlates the infection with an ethnicity, Trump insisted he was simply being accurate locating the source of the virus in Wuhan. Mike Pompeo used the same argument for defending his use of the term "Wuhan virus".
Characterization of this nature, however, is metaphorical. Its purpose is to help elucidate an abstract or unfamiliar idea by using language that is well-known and embodied. In spite of their denials to the contrary, this was a conscious tactic to shape political and cultural perceptions to their advantage. By associating the virus with China, Trump knowingly played to the cognitive bias of his devotees against foreigners, immigrants and their fear of contagion from outsiders.
In much the same vein a few dissenting practitioners from the scientific fringe, most with an axe to grind, insisted that either the virus was the result of an experiment gone wrong, or that it escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Among a range of entertaining anecdotes from others with little or no medical knowledge, it has been suggested that:
- The coronavirus was brought to China by US athletes participating in the Military World Games - an event held in Wuhan last year.
- Dr Anthony Fauci, the public face of the US coronavirus response team, is either a secret member of the "deep state" group plotting to undermine the President, or the beneficiary of a multimillion dollar scam involving his links to Big Pharma.
- It is actually 5G networks that are to blame - even though it is biologically impossible for viruses to spread using the electromagnetic spectrum.
- That COVID is part of a sinister scheme masterminded by Bill Gates to vaccinate the entire population as an experiment in mass mind control.
- That the virus does not actually exist and it is simply a rehearsal on the part of the elite for crushing humanity still further into servitude.
Needless to say, there is no evidence to support any of these allegations - just as there is no proof to support the notion that an inter-dimensional race of shape-shifting reptilians hijacked the Earth, and are manipulating global events to keep humans in a constant state of fear and trepidation.
They do, however, make for good story-telling, and provide ample material for weaving plausible myths - pitting an ingenuous public against supposed higher forms of authority and intelligence.
We should also remember that previous epidemics have almost always given rise to outbursts of strong religious and contrarian beliefs, scapegoating, and hysteria - any one of which needs to be present in order for large numbers of people to be fooled by such improbable fictions.
As the COVID-19 crisis worsens, we are also facing a pandemic of disinformation. Like the viruses they resemble, the plots and sub-plots in conspiracy theories constantly mutate. Today, several variants can be in circulation at any one time, spreading more rapidly online than SARS-CoV-2 does in the physical world - amplified and accelerated by social media.
Often assembled from incoherent and contradictory bits and pieces of information they appear to be logically consistent and at least partially credible. False narratives advance as these fragments are recited and reinterpreted - often by embellishing key elements, misjudging correlation with causation, reinterpreting randomness, and making illogical cognitive leaps driven by speculation and suspicion, inherent anxiety, and a mistrust of authority.
For a few sceptics these stories can be entertaining. Unhappily rumours and gossip thrive in the atmosphere of low trust and low confidence so customary today. Although they can be a coping mechanism for dealing with uncertainty, and a comfort for some in explaining unlikely events, they pose a danger to the community as a whole: casting doubts in the minds of the most vulnerable and powerless, obscuring truths at a time when scientific evidence struggles to be heard, least of all understood, eroding still further our trust in authority, decreasing any likeliness of engaging in politics or reducing our carbon footprint, and all the time infesting social media so utterly that it becomes virtually impossible to distinguish facts from fictions without embarking upon a forensic analysis of the data.
There are additional threats from these fancies we would do well to heed. The self-sealing nature of most conspiracy theories means they are generally immune to evidence rebutting the theory. In this manner any testimony purporting to disprove the narrative, or any one of its key elements, is interpreted as further proof for the conspiracy. As geopolitical tensions multiply, democracy stops working, and collaborative actions vital for the security of Homo sapiens are impeded, this trait is used in intentionally-constructed narratives weaponized for political or strategic gain. Still others are employed as rhetorical tools to avoid inconvenient conclusions - like the evidence of global heating or the massive loss of biodiversity we are witnessing, for example.
So many issues bordering on the misuse and suppression of knowledge are disturbing given our tendency to call into doubt and dismiss innovations, particularly in the realms of medical science, that could benefit humanity. Vaccines are a case in point. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that vaccines are one of the safest, and most effective, ways of eliminating infectious diseases. Though not without shortcomings, the elimination of smallpox, and the curbing of diseases like polio, measles, and tetanus, have had a staggering impact on reducing the burden of infectious diseases worldwide.
There is still a vocal minority who are wary of vaccines, and oppose their use, accusing them of causing autism and encephalitis for example. Most commonly confusing correlation with cause, the charges of medical malpractice and subsequent litigation have had a devastating effect on scientific research and patient welfare while swelling the numbers of the anti-vaxxer and anti-abortion movements, and their decisions, based upon little more than misinformation and "junk" science.
A spermicide used in many barrier contraceptives causes birth defects. Environmental pollutants cause chemically induced AIDS. Ineptitude by obstetricians is a leading cause of cerebral palsy. The whooping cough and MMR vaccines cause brain damage. All of these have been the topic of claims and lawsuits. And all are false.
Particularly frustrating is that more serious criticism of vaccines and new drugs has emerged, not from the popular press or quasi-documentaries, but from respected journals and in the archives of jurisprudence. One amazing case was a successful $l million award to a clairvoyant who, with expert testimony supporting her, claimed that a CAT scan had removed her psychic powers.
In 1998, Andrew Wakefield, a medical practitioner, suggested a possible link between the MMR vaccine and autism in children. The Lancet, a respected scientific journal, published his research, eventually withdrawing the article in 2004 after an investigation found major flaws in his study. A later inquiry found him guilty of deliberate fraud and led to the withdrawal of his medical license.
By then the damage had been done. Today the threat of litigation in countries like the UK, the US and Australia, is deterring large sections of the medical profession from prescribing certain drugs, and even screening for certain kinds of cancer, for example, while influencing parental attitudes regarding vaccination and what drugs doctors should or should not prescribe.
By use of selective or misleading evidence, often fomented by the press, lawsuits can help drive us away from making the best decisions in medicine - decisions that have the potential to help the majority yet rarely harm the individual - especially when epidemiology and statistics determine with such precision which associations are real and whether they are pivotal factors or not.
From the supposed risks of cervical cancer screening, to the links between the whooping cough vaccine and brain damage, just one example should suffice to show how society has established a system of judging the efficacy of medical care in the courts, and that this does not serve us well.
Debendox was an anti-nausea drug given to pregnant women in early pregnancy. Numerous tests failed to establish any links between Debendox and the occurrence of birth defects, but this did not deter either the courts or the media from declaring otherwise.
Evidence suggesting causality by Dr. William McBride, an Australian obstetrician who was used extensively by lawyers in the US and Australia as an expert witness, was found to be fraudulent. Primary researchers failed to come forward as expert witnesses. Lay juries were unable to weigh the evidence and underrated the value of epidemiological research. In the end story telling and emotive entreaties, in a world designed by men for men, held more sway than scientific evidence and any discomfort felt by pregnant women. Male politicians argued to ban the drug while smart male lawyers persuaded juries in favour of the plaintiffs. The presentation of thorough scientific evidence against Debendox being a teratogen, on the other hand, influenced them not one iota.
As a result women stopped taking Debendox. The costs of litigation were not being met by falling sales of the drug and eventually, in spite of no evidence of teratogenicity, Marion Merrill Dow stopped making the drug. In 1983 it was taken off the market. Today there is no effective and safe drug for use in pregnancy nausea. Women are too frightened to take anything else. Instead they just suffer or go into hospital for intravenous fluid replacement. No drug company is ever likely to make or market another drug of that nature given the Debendox fiasco.
Eventually most of the court cases were thrown out on appeal. Meanwhile the litigation spawned a huge number of research studies, each one confirming the efficacy of the drug. Today the safety of Debendox has been proved conclusively and somewhat unnecessarily over and over again. It is one of the best researched drugs in relation to pregnancy outcomes. But it is not able to be used as it is no longer available.
Debendox was removed from the market purely for economic reasons, not because it was a risk to birth abnormalities. But opinionated judges and ill-informed juries now tell doctors how to practise and what drugs to prescribe rather than rely on validated scientific research.
There is no evidence that increasing litigation has resulted in better obstetric care, fewer cases of brain damage following vaccines, fewer birth defects or better and cheaper screening programs to prevent cancer. Indeed litigation has had the reverse effect. Medical interventions and their associated costs have spiralled as a result of lawsuits, while useful and safe drugs and vaccines have been unfairly blamed for disasters.
In terms of the current outbreak there is already some indication that SARS-CoV-2 will not just go away, even allowing for extensive inoculation of the population with the new generation of mRFN vaccines. Successive waves could mean that this virus, or a mutation of it, could become endemic and an increasing threat to humans. If that is the case we will need to attend to the underlying flaws that have allowed specific microbes to invade the ecological niches we have so diligently prepared for them, with far greater urgency.
Meanwhile, genuine anti-vaxxers, along with shady entrepreneurs looking to make a quick buck, are now busy flooding social media with posts about how to “politely decline” a COVID-19 vaccine. This is part of a widespread disinformation campaign about the development and the effects of new vaccines officially approved for emergency use. These posts are shared by people who falsely believe governments and health agencies will mandate the taking these vaccines, a claim that has already been discredited given that such tactics backfired in the past.
Contagion does not happen accidentally. Viruses only flourish in particular conditions. The world we have crafted - a world in which 8 billion people, the majority of whom live in densely-packed and overcrowded cities - has generated a perfect environment for the release and spread of zoonotic diseases. Moreover, the land clearing and urbanization we have overseen during the past century has led to the widespread devastation of animal habitats, altering the relationship of humans to the natural world. Especially pertinent in this regard is our increased contact with bats, which are the repository of countless viruses capable of crossing the species barrier and infecting humans.
If we are to avoid future pandemics, and of falling into the trap of subverting knowledge or being duped by propaganda and untenable conspiracy theories aimed at stirring public furor for one or more reasons, we must take informed action.
Given the ease with which we can travel the world these days, preparatory disciplines of a much higher order are required, and this will mean scaling up cooperation across borders. By taking a small proportion of the budget currently spent on arms and the invention of new weapons, and allocating this to commons-owned scientific research initiatives aimed at improving world health, we could possibly eliminate most diseases of zoonotic origin.
There is also an urgent need to review the relationship of our species to nature - particularly how we treat (and mistreat) other species in the pursuit for more and more food. Thankfully there are technologies already in production that will allow us to grow, or manufacture, sufficient quantities of nutritious food to feed the world. Using far less land and water than industrialized agriculture, regenerative farming methods will have a restorative impact on the soils, oceans and forests we have brought to the edge of disaster. In combination with rewilding, reforestation, permaculture, and related initiatives, we should be able to slow the loss of species and achieve a better balance with the natural world by the turn of the next century.
There is also a need to apply learning in ways that improves critical thinking, along with our ability to distinguish fact from fiction. Undoubtedly this is getting harder with the introduction of digital deep fakes, and a capricious relationship to information where individuals assume their personal opinions to be just as valid as the insights from experts. In that regard, though science is just one epistemology from which to view reality, it remains the best way we have for making sense of our reality and the role Homo sapiens can play in terms of life on this planet.
Accordingly we must trust the rigour of the scientific method, and the laws of physics, accepting that there are elements in this world over which we have little or no control. The responsibility we do share, however, is to put ignorance, greed and selfishness to one side. By working together we can steward the environment we invent and build, over which we do have control, in ways that are ecologically regenerative, socially desirable, ethically defensible, systemically convincing, and that ultimately benefit all life on Earth.Science
Comments