It turns out it might have been a lab leak after all.
As new evidence emerges lending credence to the idea that COVID-19 could have emerged from a laboratory accident in Wuhan, we are now faced with yet another set of news article corrections and walk-backs from public health officials — another embarrassing episode in squandering the trust public had bestowed upon experts in the early days of the pandemic.
Now, as two-thirds of Americans say the worst is behind us and as re-opening begins apace, the core challenge we face is encouraging more citizens to trust that vaccines are safe and that they work well enough to justify loosening mask requirements and lockdowns.
At the beginning of the pandemic, public health officials enjoyed a great deal of trust from Americans of all types. Some 84%of Republicans and 77% of Democrats said they had a favorable view of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the spring of 2020. Yet, trust is harder to come by these days. By February of this year, less than half of Republicans said they felt public health officials at the CDC had done a good job.
I truly believe that had the world’s scientific and public health establishment been more comfortable saying three small words, “We don’t know,” lives could have been saved during the pandemic and in the future. Now, because of missteps and miscommunication, don’t be surprised if Americans tune out the experts when the next public health emergency comes around.
One year ago, I wrote in this very paper that our scientists and experts would have done themselves well by simply embracing that phrase, “I don’t know.” They would have done themselves well by being candid about the uncertainty we all faced in a world plagued by a new, poorly understood respiratory virus. Models are subject to a scientist’s assumptions and inputs; rarely will they be perfect. Science is always evolving as we learn more and build on the discoveries of others.
When you’ve properly conveyed the uncertainty of it all on the front end, updating your position feels less like a flip-flop. For example, having originally told Americans not to wear masks, the CDC and Dr. Anthony Fauci changed their position when there was less of a shortage of masks and when more information was gathered about their relative benefits. This kind of walk-back would have been less jarring if public health officials like the U.S. surgeon general hadn’t just weeks earlier been blasting out all-caps “STOP BUYING MASKS…NOT effective” messaging.
Similarly, it is one thing if you have been clear all along that we are not certain about, say, the origins of COVID-19, and to then update your conclusion as new evidence emerges. It is quite another if the view that COVID-19 could have resulted from a lab accident was drummed entirely out of the public square, deemed too blasphemous or racist to even consider as a possibility.
Understanding the origins of the virus are important to prevent future crises. The quashing of public debate over the evidence and privileging a particular group of scientists as if they are speaking for all scientists is not just counterproductive to those ends, but also it diminishes the view that our general scientific community can be trusted — something that can further undercut views on other major science issues such as climate change.
By making bold, confident pronouncements, you’ve staked your credibility on your position — and you better be right.
So who can blame people who don’t trust social media companies who preach “trust the science” and then shut down videos of scientists debating the value of children wearing masks, a position where even the CDC and the World Health Organization have updated and changed guidelines and do not remain in lockstep with one another? (Even the CDC now says children should at least be able to go maskless outdoors and at camps this summer.)
Or for those, largely on the Left, who proudly touted their embrace of CDC guidelines until those same guidelines loosened up, which ran counter to their own views and comfort level?
Conservatives already looked skeptically at the media and occasionally at the general scientific consensus around issues like climate change. But you don’t need to be a conservative to come away from COVID-19 with a deeply diminished view of institutions that were once held in high esteem. Instead of a moment when we should be marveling at the scientific community’s amazing work beating this virus back through rapidly developed vaccines, we see trust in scientists and institutions erode.
Changing your position in light of new evidence is no crime. But this only holds provided that you were initially humble and forthright about what you did not know. By not saying, “I don’t know” when they should have, too many Americans now wonder if experts know anything at all.
