A dedomenocracy fears nothing while a democracy fears everything. In this context, everything refers to the collective library of scientific knowledge. Nothing refers to the empty space that may harbor plans that we will can only learn by paying close attention to the present, allowing observations to contradict theories we accepted in the past.
In a democracy, the declaration of an emergency is a declaration to freeze science, particularly in those areas that tend to predict the most pessimistic results if nothing is done. I suspect this is inevitable because a democracy selects specific individuals to be leaders, and human leadership demands steadfast determination to see a policy to completion and the install confidence of the population. Given the recent experience, this particular property of democracy raises doubts about a democracy’s ability to handle a new emergency that is inconsistent with established theories and the operational plans based on those theories.
All government funded scientists, whether through salary, contract, or grant, have a conflict of interest when it comes to providing science to support government policies. The strong bias is toward supporting those policies and avoiding any challenge to those policies.
The continued obsession on COVID19 is shining a bright light on this very fundamental fact: we are asking the young to sacrifice their future calendars for the sole sake of preserving the future calendars of the retirement-age group. Eventually, that light will shine on the massive qualitative difference of those calendars.
It is conceivable that our faith in science over observations could return the human condition to where it was at after the fall of the bronze age, only the mysterious monuments would need to be explained by even bigger giants. The risk of this happening is significant even if it is unlikely.
This vaccine will become the largest human experiment in history. Unlike science we were taught in school, this experiment has no control group, and the experiment will involve every living human in the country. If it succeeds fantastically, we will avoid the loss of a few hundred thousand frail elderly people over the course of a few years. If it fails, we may wipe out our civilization.
My previous post outlines the ideas I have about a fantasy government of data and urgency as it relates to the COVID19 situation. Here, I want to contrast different approaches to governing.
The dark data observations are actually assertions that the present world obeys the expectations for how the world operates according to very small number of people’s (often just one) understanding. This presents the opportunity for those same individuals to force the simulated world to the way that best conforms to their wishes. No one else will know whether the tests are for actual science or for some agenda.
Going back to 1986, the situation at the time was a declaration of urgency by the vaccination industry that threatened to discontinue their production (and research capabilities) unless there was some kind of immunity from lawsuits. The urgency was further justified by the science at that time that vaccines are especially effective as controlling epidemics when applied to large populations of healthy people. The only ruling available to government is a permanent one that basically says from date forward to infinity vaccines are an essential part of life on earth so that any risks involved must be accepted.
The science for how to deal with COVID19 is clear, and it clearly goes against all common sense. This may be a time when the best response to scientific recommendation is to dismiss it as ridiculous.