This post will have some things in common with a post I wrote last March, but it’s worth saying again. Because I think most of the conservative commentariat is having the wrong reaction to this story, and so perhaps missing a moment that could be grabbed to change things for the better.
Now I know everyone enjoys a “ha ha” moment. These were the Democratic legislators who left Texas like spoiled children. They took a charming photo of themselves all unmasked on a plane, thus violating the TSA guidelines they love so much, in another shining example of “the rules are for you little people”. And now several of them have tested positive for COVID, getting your just desserts huh.
But here’s a better question - why are we testing vaccinated people for COVID, at considerable expense (with taxpayers picking up the bill), so that some of them can discover, sans any symptoms, that they “have COVID”? How many symptom-free diseases would you “have” every winter (or perhaps right now) if you were subject to a regular, sensitive testing campaign to find them all? I bet a ton. Would the world be a better place if every morning you received a printout listing every “and you’ve got a little bit of this right now too, be careful!”? I don’t think so.
So politically, it might do more long-term good if the conservative commentariat could forsake the low-hanging fruit for the moment and use this it as an example as to why we should stop constantly testing people, and recognize that a “case” in July 2021 is apt to be even less genuinely concerning than a “case” was in July 2020 (and many of those cases weren’t very concerning either).
But the Deeper Question
But the deeper question is, can you reach a point at which more data actually makes your society worse, and are we already past that point? And if so, what do you do about it? And “it makes your society worse” could fall into at least two categories, I’d imagine:
Political leaders want data gathered because they can use that data to further some selfish or malicious end they have.
The data all by itself, just acting on normal human nature, effects to make life worse.
When it came to our response to COVID-19, I think both happened. Some leaders either intended from the beginning, or quickly figured out, that keeping fear levels high was in their personal and party interest, and one way to do that was to constantly hype case numbers. (However I would direct you to this alternative interpretation by @eugyppius, whom I chat with from time to time, who has been pretty consistent that - no, your leaders are just really dumb, that’s the explanation for most of their actions.)
Or, on #2, you can imagine the person who really is paralyzed by being constantly told “and yesterday, this many people died of this disease”, even if the number is fractionally quite small and smaller than several other things that killed people yesterday and have been killing people the whole 47 years of their life and they just didn’t have it thrown in their face every day before. But now it is, and it’s paralyzing. I could imagine a hypothetical “and today, since your toilet tests you every time you go, we can tell you that you’re carrying and might transmit the following pathogens!” would be likewise paralyzing to some people.
What are we supposed to do about this? I would throw out just a couple suggestions.
Concern #1 above, about political leaders, is in a way easier to deal with - if they want data so they can use it selfishly or maliciously, then try not to give them that data. Precautionarily, if you can’t tell, but trust the state as little as I do, you might just to decline to tell the state anything unless required. I have joked that all of my personal characteristics have recently turned into “decline to share”.
There is actually a long history in the United States of private institutions, in a sort of “mind your own business” way, simply declining to share stuff with the state. Some of you know that I do work with one private school. With COVID came orders from many states that schools (including private schools) must write up some kind of COVID health response plan and file it with the state. I was a little surprised to see one private school association send a notice out to all of their members that basically said, “we know many of your states are requiring you to create this plan and file it. Historically, many private schools have objected to filing anything with the state. You can just file your plan with us instead, as private schools instead filing with their association has historically been accepted as an alternative”.Secondly, we could adopt a sort of Amish attitude toward data. What I mean is not “reject it all!” but rather, recognizing the real limitations and follies of human nature, think carefully about whether “bringing that data into our lives”, if you will, is apt to make things better or worse. Again, just to emphasize, it must be considered how that data would affect real human nature as it is, not some ideal human nature we wish existed. If the data is going to paralyze and destroy the lives of a good fraction of the populace because they have some sort of psychological flaw, that’s still a good reason to not collect the data.
I’ve said that one of the problems with our COVID response is that there are 150 things that matter in a human life, and we’ve put people who have an obsessive concern with only one of those things (disease) in charge of all 150. Well no wonder it has been disastrous then. If more data might help us do #1 of the 150 better, but would destroy #s 45, 76, and 134, then we ought to consider seriously if and how we want that data.
Great article. "Conventional wisdom" is very often not so wise.
Regarding #1, can we really trust private institutions, these days, when they say they won't share our information with the state?
Ugh, Biden says CDC is going to recommend masks for all kids under 12 until they get stuck.
It's political so I have to imagine it's more popular than not.