Trump's Covid-19 response: science or pseudo-science?

-

 What if Trump’s disregard for masks and social distancing, combined with his demand to reopen the economy, reflects his advisors’ push for developing herd immunity in the U.S.? if so, Trump may think he is acting in accordance with scientific principles in spite of usually disregarding science as fake and fraudulent.

Herd immunity implicitly presumes culling the herd of its weaker members, those least able to survive a present threat. This adheres to the evolutionary principle of the survival of those best suited for current conditions.

Not wearing masks and not socially distancing allows the Covid-19 virus to spread more easily from person to person. Persons who have an asymptomatic or very mild case are well-suited for survival. Those who develop a serious, life-threatening case are less well-suited for survival.

Reopening the economy increases the probability of these cases overwhelming the healthcare system’s capacity. The human herd collectively – in the U.S. and/or on earth – will become stronger as the weaker die. Existing data suggests, most fatalities will be older individuals, have pre-existing conditions, or be elderly with pre-existing conditions. By the time the population reaches herd immunity, the result will be similar to what a rancher hopes to achieve by culling a herd. Survivors will be less vulnerable to death or serious illness cause by the Covid-19 virus. If enough people die, life will measurably improve for survivors: the rate of global warming will slow, fewer persons will suffer from expensive health problems such as obesity and emphysema, and demand for safety-net programs decrease.

Regardless of those potential benefits, advocating herd immunity smacks of eugenics, i.e., intentional efforts to breed a better, healthier human through genetic selection. In the case of herd immunity, the genetic selection is indirect, a function of demonstrated survivability rather than direct genetic selection. Nevertheless, the parallels are strikingly similar. Both

  • Cull or eliminate the weaker or less desirable, however defined
  • Presume that humans possess the wisdom to know what trait(s) will best equip humans and the rest of the cosmos for flourishing in the future
  • Ignore the accumulating evidence that human flourishing depends upon reciprocal altruism and its presumption that human flourishing requires healthy interdependence based upon mutual respect and care

In sum, words and actions that promote the ideas that masks are superfluous, social distancing is unnecessary, and the economy should fully and immediately reopen suffer from the same scientific defects and ethical shortcomings that led to the rapid branding of eugenics as an unethical and baseless pseudo-science.

Comments

Ted said…
Stop blaming Trump for every ill in America. No political or scientific entity has elucidated a workable solution that would work and not destroy our economy and maybe our society. Until there is a workable vaccine people will ignore all attempts to make everyone social distance or wear a mask. Where are the mayors and governors making rules or laws requiring wearing masks and social distance? Most people I see do wear a mask but forget to stay apart. The CDC keeps changing what they feel is safe. Watch last weeks 60 minutes and see how the CDC failed to do basic monitoring of people coming back to the US. Take your politics out of discussions and give good plausible answers to our situations.
October 25, 2020 at 2:35 PM
George Clifford said…
Ted, you're correct that the way to end the pandemic is unclear. However, there is consistent scientific emphasis on the need to wear masks, socially distance and to sanitize hands. Trump and his campaign have consistently failed to model mask wearing and socially distancing. His staff, especially Dr. Atlas, advocates developing herd immunity as a way to end the pandemic. Those are facts, not opinion. Trump frequently belittles science and shows disdain for scientists and the scientific method. Again, that's a matter of fact and not opinion. Trump may or may not have many positive qualities. That's a matter of opinion based upon a personal assessment of what is or is not a positive quality. Trump, regardless of his personal qualities and abilities, is not a scientist. I prefer to trust scientists for information about the pandemic even though that information emerges slowly and sometimes in contradictory steps. That is how science advances. Hypothesize, test, and then revise in light of any new data. In the case of Covid-19, scientific and medical guidance from the beginning has emphasized mask wearing, distancing and sanitation. Those are steps typically utilized to control the spread of any virus.
October 25, 2020 at 5:02 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why won't Trump release his tax returns?

-
President Trump’s refusal to make his tax returns public is intriguing and troubling. The IRS routinely audits Presidential and Congressional tax returns. Yet former Presidents and most members of Congress have made their tax returns public. Possible explanations for Trump’s refusal include: His tax returns may reveal that he is not as wealthy as he would like for people to believe. Many real estate investments are heavily leveraged (i.e., mortgaged), so perhaps his substantial real estate holdings represent a relatively small net worth totaling in the hundreds of millions instead of billions. His tax returns may reveal that he derives a disproportionate share of his income from licensing his name instead of the successful real estate deals about which he boasts. His tax returns may reveal aggressive interpretations of the tax code that trigger repeated audits that are not always resolved in his favor. If Trump’s tax returns would enhance his public image by showing th
Read more

Mass murder in Orlando

-
The recent mass murder at a gay nightclub in Orlando has prompted four musings. First, the shooters in both the Orlando and the San Bernardino attacks apparently fully complied with Federal firearms laws when the attackers purchased the weapons used in those attacks. This is not an argument against background checks and other requirements. Instead, this observation points to the inadequacy of present laws to keep people safe. Second, the shooter in Orlando, like the shooters in San Bernardino, appears to have had no links to any terror group, domestic or foreign. As I have previously argued in Ethical Musings, considering all mass murder as terrorism unhelpfully conflates two different types of crime. Tightening immigration policies would not have prevented the Orlando attack. Third, the ultimate path to a safer society consists of promoting respect for the dignity and worth of all persons. Laws that encourage divisiveness (e.g., laws in North Carolina about who can use which pu
Read more

Post-election blues

-
 This Veteran’s Day has prompted some musings about the color blue, the election and Veteran’s Day. First, former Vice President Biden is now President-elect Biden. The Democrats, generally depicted by the color blue in color graphics, won the presidential election. The chaos and lack of character widely associated with President Trump will soon vacate the White House. The US has now had both a Black president and a Black woman Vice President-elect. When I was born, both were unimaginable in the segregated Jim Crow south as well as, if we're honest, in the rest of the US. Second, President Trump probably feels depressed, an emotion associated with the color blue. His depression is obvious in his mien. He, from all appearances, is not a person who copes well with losing or rejection. Similarly, other candidates, Democrats and Republicans alike, who invested considerable time, emotion and resources in losing campaigns for office also probably feel depressed. Yet, I’m grateful f
Read more