Quick thoughts on coronavirus and experts
In 2016 Britain was said to have ‘had enough of experts’. Shortly after, we had Trump’s ‘alternative facts’. But with the coronavirus, there’ve been claims of an end to all that — no more ‘post-truth’ — as people clamour for reliable information. Is this the moment the experts ride back into town?
I’ve seen comment to that effect — and it makes me nervous. I say this simply because of the uncertainty. Maybe I’m wrong but seems to me there’s plenty of room for everyone to be wrong, and I’m not sure how much tolerance there’ll be for errors of judgement. Maybe the public and politicians will be forgiving, maybe not. Of course, I’d rather be guided by Chris Whitty than Boris Johnson, but I really hope we’re not staking the reputational ranch on this one.
What worries me next is if we make matters worse by the way we deal with the uncertainty, and by how we talk about it. If one expert suggests publicly that another expert will be responsible for needless slaughter, what would you think about expertise? If some experts call shutting schools a no-brainer and others say ‘pointless’, then I’m not sure anyone comes out looking rosy. There’s too much that could be wrong. We might never know which. Hard views and soft data are an unnerving mix.
But they seem, weirdly, to go together. Uncertainty creates room for difference. Maybe we feel licenced to be more assertive, not less.
Which is another way of wondering if we need to reflect more before we shout. What’s the best way to have this argument? Maybe it’s bound to be fierce, given what’s at stake. Maybe not. One thought might be to go big on communicating the uncertainty a) because it’s true and nothing to be ashamed of and b) because to claim it’s clear what we need to do is such a hostage to fortune. Another is to try to keep the conversation civilised and see if it’s possible to resist the temptation to call each other stupid or careless of life. A third is just generally to be a bit humble in our comments on strategy when there’s so much guessing going on. All right, highly-educated guessing involving extraordinary expertise, but still with big unknowns.
I’m not at all saying we can’t disagree. That’s inevitable. It’s also easier now with social media, and there’s a lot at stake, so no one needs to feel they have to bury their differences for the sake of appearances. But there are ways to disagree, and reasons why that needn’t imply incompetence just when the public wants someone to trust.
Discussing them with David Spiegelhalter of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication, he kicked off with three:
“a) different values — e.g. favouring economic stability over health (although recession will cause massive ill-health, but not easily measured)
b) access to different info — which is why people have been asking for more openness from government
c) different interpretation of existing info — such as behavioural scientists questioning the size of ‘behavioural fatigue’ “
I’d throw in more: different levels of trust in different sources, different experience in different contexts. The list could go on.
None of these differences feels to me like a cue for outrage. It’s debatable which are the best models, right conclusions, etc, and that’s fine. Argue it out. But are you sure you’re on a rock and they’re on sand? Doesn’t look like that from here.
If we want to rebut the thoughtless criticism of experts, I think we need to have a thought of our own for how expertise behaves when it handles uncertainty. Many people manage this perfectly well, in epidemiology as elsewhere. ‘Climate science has had to deal with this for years,’ David Speigelhalter told me, which is why they use the label ‘high confidence’ if there’s good quality evidence and scientific agreement.
At least, I think that’s what I think. Given the uncertainties, maybe I’m wrong. By all means disagree.
