Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been a number of people who grow frustrated with the constant changes in guidance on measures like wearing masks, social distancing, and other recommendations to help prevent the spread of the virus. More alarmingly, some people have discounted science entirely, instead choosing to believe that scientists, doctors, and governments around the world are in some sort of conspiracy to advance nefarious ulterior motives through restrictions in the name of control. This blog entry attempts to address some of the frustrations and distrust towards science which have arisen over the last several years.

"Science" is not an unwavering religion; it is a process through which we explore the world, ask questions, suggest answers, and try to figure out if there is a solution which can be repeated. It is not an arbitrary process, though it may seem that way if you do not understand what science is and what it is not. We could talk about the scientific method, literature reviews and doing actual research, and scientific studies and how to interpret them (including meta-analysis of scientific studies), but those who are somehow opposed to science in this day and age generally do not seem to be interested in actually discussing any of those topics.

Our understanding of the world through science changes often, and we've become accustomed to wanting instant updates and definitive answers from scientific and authority figures when new situations come about. But good science takes time, and it can take years or even decades to fully study complex topics and subjects and arrive at a conclusion. This reality is inconvenient in a situation like a pandemic, and with the emergence of a new variant of a common type of virus which has proven to be both transmissive and deadly. Governments and scientific bodies are forced to try to find a balance between completing thorough studies which take time, and providing timely information and recommendations which may save lives if implemented early enough.

The ability to understand this balance is based upon the attribute of rationality. A rational person can understand that it takes a while to find solid answers through science, and that when people are dying of a disease it is sometimes best to err on the side of caution with recommendations and restrictions if it means a number of lives may be saved in doing so. This was especially true prior to vaccine availability, when we had no other defense against COVID-19 than to try to avoid it. Now that vaccines are available, risk assessments and recommendations on additional protective measures must be reassessed so long as new variants emerge. Sometimes recommendations are made, and it is later found that they were too lax or too strict. This is the nature of dealing with the unknowns of a new virus, and trying to maintain the balance mentioned above.

While it is understandable that people have grown tired of the whiplash of ever-changing restrictions, and of receiving new information today which would have been good to know months ago, a new category has emerged: a segment of the population which seems to believe that if scientists didn't get some things right the first time, they can't be trusted to get anything right. This extends to the trustworthiness of vaccines, the science of masks and their effectiveness, and the medications and treatments which are or are not effective against COVID-19 infection. Unsurprisingly, these behaviors also seem to exist alongside attitudes of anti-authority and invulnerability. Many people simply do not want to be told what to do, and they think that severe illness or death will not happen to them - and nothing will change their minds until severe illness or death does personally happen to them, at which point it's usually too late to change course. In a situation such as a deadly global pandemic, these views ultimately mean that trusting "science" is incompatible with such a person's worldview because it means they must follow inconvenient restrictions from authority and confront the mortality of the situation. This, of course, is assuming a person hasn't simply written the whole thing off as being fake in the first place, despite the overwhelming worldwide evidence otherwise; such a person is usually beyond any form of productive discussion.

To those who hold rational thoughts and understand that science is a process involving data which changes and results which may not be instant, thank you for being reasonable. To those who grow tired of the pandemic and the recommendations which change every month, I hear you and I sympathize; we are all tired of the restrictions, the hazards, the sacrifices, and the loss of life, regardless of how well we understand that it is a dynamic situation. For those who have discounted science because it hasn't gotten some things right, I would ask if you apply that same distrust to other areas of the world: medical science which allows us to do marvelous things like beat cancer or transfer organs between donors, or technological science which has given us computers, cell phones, cars and air travel. If your distrust in science is rooted in political or personal affiliations, I would urge you to return to logic and reason in matters where scientific reality doesn't care about your politics, or about the thoughts of your friends or your family. Viruses don't discriminate or cease to exist based on those factors. Understand that science is a process, and that collectively as a species we're doing the best we can with the information we've got at any given time.

Fortunately, I believe that we're nearly through the worst of COVID-19, and that hopefully this discussion will not be as relevant once we're able to return to "normal" again shortly.