George Rebane

[This is the addended transcript of my regular KVMR commentary broadcast on 23 September 2020.]

The most recent Covid news is that the CDC “pulled new guidelines acknowledging the new coronavirus could be transmitted by tiny particles that linger in the air, saying a draft version of proposed changes was posted in error on the agency’s website.”  Apparently there are still some unknowns, and the debate continues about how the virus spreads through the air. (more here)  The point here is that the science isn’t settled, and moreover, science is rarely settled, and then only in the minds of people who know next to nothing about science.

We have survived for eons and continue to do so in pathogen-rich environments where all kinds of bugs are always floating around, which in sufficient concentrations could kill us.  Our immune system has knocked out the overwhelming share of these, and allowed us to lead ever longer lives.  But not all immune systems are created equal, and from time to time we do dumb things to weaken them.  And then there’s the science that attempts to discover the known unknowns about things like, say, the toxicity of Covid aerosols.  In what size volumes at what levels of concentrations, and for how long will the aerosol-transmitted Covid virus infect a healthy person in this or that age range with a given likelihood or probability?

I hope you’re getting the picture here about all the unknowns and uncertainties involved that must be recognized in the making of a coherent, let alone reasonable, pandemic response policy.  Science does not speak with a single, comprehensible, and clear voice saying ‘do this, and then you’ll be OK’.  Science speaks in many tongues, and it’s up to us humans to sort things out, select what we think is important and likely, and then put that into a complex mix with all kinds of other impacting factors, to come up with a decision or plan with which to go forward.  Only naïfs, media charlatans, and politicians attempt to dumb down this process into something simple and certain.

To dwell a bit on this very important aspect of understanding science, the well-read person knows that science seldom settles anything.  The power of the scientific method is that it is the most reliable way with which we can discover realworld relationships between stuff we can measure.  Science tells us that so much of this causes so much of that, or more precisely, this rarely/sometimes/always causes that, and attempts to put a number on it.  And with more science, these relationships often change.  And then there’s the reality that not all scientists know all these relationships at any given time.

Finally, science does not and cannot put a value on its outcomes that prescribe ‘do this and not that’ from a list of alternative actions.  Such prescriptions result only from various groups of humans putting different values on certain expected outcomes.  Today we again see an example of that in where the CDC has formed an advisory panel to determine how to roll out the various Covid vaccines that will shortly become available in increasing quantities. (more here)  Each of these vaccines will have certain prophylactic properties – immunity levels and durations for various demographic categories – all of which will be known only to within certain probability ranges.  It is the panel which must evaluate risks, pick performance thresholds, target populations, and distribution policies all based on their adopted consensus of subjective values.  In such policy-making realms, science is silent.

With this in mind, we all should pay attention, as this kind of policy-making goes on behind the scenes, and as we will continue to be assured by politicians of various hues, that they will only ‘follow the science’ and not be swayed by politics.  I hope that with some reflection, dear listener, that you will now understand that such demagoguery is pure nonsense.  Politics will drive all such decisions and response policies, which are then painted with the best coat of science before they are trotted out for public consumption.

My name is Rebane, and I also expand on this and related themes on Rebane’s Ruminations where the transcript of this commentary is posted with relevant links, and where such issues are debated extensively.  However, my views are not necessarily shared by KVMR.  Thank you for listening.

[Addendum]  Here in America and across the world we have been subjected to the Covid-19 pandemic, and additionally to an “ ‘infodemic’, i.e. the systematic censorship of all dissenting opinions in the media.”  The responses of most governments, particularly ours, have ranged between hysterical and insane – most certainly these policies have not been advised by the growing body of knowledge about the virus and its virulence gained during the course of this year.

A group of over a thousand Belgian physicians and medically trained health professionals have written an open letter (here) to their government that lays out the clinical particulars of the disease along with the statistics of its international impact, and concludes with the following –

There is no state of emergency. … An open discussion on corona measures means that, in addition to the years of life gained by corona patients, we must also take into account other factors affecting the health of the entire population. These include damage in the psychosocial domain (increase in depression, anxiety, suicides, intra-family violence and child abuse)16 and economic damage. … If we take this collateral damage into account, the current policy is out of all proportion, the proverbial use of a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

We find it shocking that the government is invoking health as a reason for the emergency law.

As doctors and health professionals, in the face of a virus which, in terms of its harmfulness, mortality and transmissibility, approaches the seasonal influenza, we can only reject these extremely disproportionate measures.

• We therefore demand an immediate end to all measures.
• We are questioning the legitimacy of the current advisory experts, who meet behind closed doors.
• Following on from ACU 2020 46https://acu2020.org/nederlandse-versie/ we call for an in-depth examination of the role of the WHO and the possible influence of conflicts of interest in this organisation. It was also at the heart of the fight against the “infodemic”, i.e. the systematic censorship of all dissenting opinions in the media. This is unacceptable for a democratic state governed by the rule of law.

We would like to make a public appeal to our professional associations and fellow carers to give their opinion on the current measures. … We draw attention to and call for an open discussion in which carers can and dare to speak out.

With this open letter, we send out the signal that progress on the same footing does more harm than good, and call on politicians to inform themselves independently and critically about the available evidence – including that from experts with different views, as long as it is based on sound science – when rolling out a policy, with the aim of promoting optimum health.

This letter with some of its disturbing revelations is now making its rounds internationally.  You can help by informing your elected representatives.  H/T to one of our more attentive readers.