Policy details ‘portrayed as science’ during Covid

Australian epidemiologists pressed to defend unscientific aspects of lockdowns, as politicians exaggerate the evidence base

八月 11, 2021
Beach closed sign for Covid in Australia
Source: iStock

Academics who have stuck to their science during Covid have nevertheless found themselves embroiled in policy disagreements, an Australian forum has heard.

Deakin University epidemiologist Catherine Bennett said political leaders’ practice of “overstating the science” – by portraying certain aspects of Covid restrictions as science-based, when in fact they were applied for other reasons – had “pushed more people into the sceptical basket” during the coronavirus crisis.

Professor Bennett said leaders had used epidemiological grounds to justify lockdown measures employed for enforcement purposes. This had put scientists in a difficult position, reluctant to undermine public health efforts but unwilling to misrepresent those aspects of the restrictions as science-based.

People recognised that some measures had not been applied for scientific reasons, she told a webinar hosted by Deakin’s Research for Educational Impact centre. “And we as scientists couldn’t defend it. When we were asked, ‘What does the curfew do?’ we couldn’t defend it. When we were asked, ‘Why are we still in lockdown [after] weeks with no cases?’, we couldn’t defend it.

“You’re…pulled into the lens as a scientist [when it is] no longer specifically about the science. That’s a challenge. I’m hoping that…science won’t bear the burden of too many of those decisions.”

Public trust in science had also been eroded by “mixed messages”, as different Australian states rolled out different containment measures. “If our leaders…are listening to the science, as they always say, then why is the response different? When you don’t have consistency across states or between state and federal [governments], that contributes to some of the difficulty.

“If you’re expressing science that is seen to support a policy [which] someone takes a very strong position on, you are not talking science – you are talking policy. And you are classified within that context,” she said.

She said she had been castigated as a dictator’s “mouthpiece” for advocating lockdowns and offered a tin hat for not believing in lockdowns, all in the same week. “People will attack the science, and if they can’t get satisfaction with that, they will attack the scientists.”

Academics had also been played off against each other, as quickfire interviews with commentators with different specialties – or different access to information – exposed disagreements between experts whose views might have converged “if you had them in a room together, having a conversation”.

She said had encouraged communication among Australia’s epidemiologists, to share information rather than to achieve consensus. “But, generally, we find we’re very much on the same page.”

Australian National University vice-chancellor Brian Schmidt said policy characterised as evidence-based was often merely “evidence-informed”, with political decisions and other “contextual bits” contributing to the finished product.

“What we do in the public sphere is really hard and ambiguous,” Professor Schmidt told the forum. “We need to be very careful about where we’re on solid ground, and where we’re going on to other ground.”

Deakin University science historian Alexandra Roginski said the pandemic had opened a window on the apparently chaotic interplay of science and policy. “This is a unique moment in terms of people being able to [get] under the bonnet of science to see how a lot of these discussions and processes take place,” she said.

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com

请先注册再继续

为何要注册?

  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
注册
Please 登录 or 注册 to read this article.

Reader's comments (2)

Few of the decisions made to 'protect' populations from the pandemic have been properly informed by science and indeed by the appropriate disciplines in science. Debate, opposing views and findings even where robust have been blocked. There is a paucity of sound scientific evidence for many of the measures taken across the world, from lockdowns, mask wearing and mass vaccination that have sufficient basis for their enforcement. The suffocation of views that oppose those who 'advise' governments is a disgrace and history will judge it so.
I think that we, and politicians who actually (should) make the decisions, need to operate in the real world of both imperatives and imperfect knowledge in this pandemic. Rather than being indefensible, nearly all lockdown-type measures mentioned here will have, or are likely to have, some use in suppressing infection spread. What is not clear is how important each one is to achieve suppression. However in the real world there is not time to evaluate the relative importance of each measure because what is clear from precedent and example and also from models is that any measure works best if applied immediately. So, if you don't know precisely which measures are the 'best' measures, use all of 'em at once. With a hard nut, to speedily apply a sledgehammer may seem disproportionate yet it is a perfectly effective way to crack a nut, because given time this nut has the habit of evolving into a Tiger tank and then the belated use of the sledgehammer has much less effect. The recent examples of delta-variant outbreaks in Sydney and Melbourne are instructive comparisons since these are cities of similar size and demographics and both have similarly low-vaccination levels. Sydney applied the 'common-sense' graduated proportional approach to its delta outbreak (dismissed by Melburnians as lockdown-lite) and has a still increasing infection wave for two months whereas Melbourne adopted the 'go fast go hard' approach and suppressed two separate delta infections in two weeks. So these extreme lockdown measures do work but they must be fast as well as strong, they must be clearly and unequivocally explained to the population, and the populace must trust their government and its experts to ensure their compliance. But the relative importance of each component of the lockdown strategy is still pretty obscure.