Sometime in spring 2020, the science fiction writer Charlie Stross (@cstross) tweeted that generations of disaster movies and novels had gotten it wrong. All presumed that in a global crisis such as a pandemic world leaders and governments would be serious, responsible, and collaborative. Instead …
Around the same time, Natasha Loder began thinking of our ongoing crisis as the “first post-truth pandemic,” as she wrote at her “Overmatter” Substack. Loder is the health policy editor for The Economist, and as such she takes a global view of government policy on health. In her twenty years at the paper, she has also covered science and U.S. midwestern politics. We met long ago as fellow committee members of the Association of British Science Writers, which she chaired from 2009 to 2011.
As we speak, it’s a day or two after the first reports of the omicron variant. Given how fast it moved, ten days later she could begin to see evidence suggesting that some of the worst outcomes were highly unlikely, but in the meantime: How do you find a path for measured reporting in a situation of great uncertainty when scientists disagree and governments must make policy decisions that affect you personally as well as professionally? How do you separate legitimate warnings from scaremongering?
“My rule of thumb throughout the pandemic has been don’t worry about variants until there’s solid evidence to worry about them,” she said. In the case of some previous variants, the “coverage-to-fact ratio” was off the charts. Loder couldn’t understand why until she realized: this is the first pandemic in which we’ve been able to genetically sequence pathogens faster than we could collect data about their effect: “The genetic information tail is wagging the media dog.”
So, with omicron, like with previous variants, Loder began with the “wait and see approach” while noting that some of its mutations were worrying and that it seemed clearly more transmissible. “We do know more than last year but not how competitive it will be when released into the world.” None of the information published to date could answer everyone’s burning question: Would omicron evade vaccine protection against death and severe disease? Loder’s approach requires patience from both journalists and publications. It would take a few weeks to sense that the worst prognostications were unlikely.
In another Overmatter post, she wrote movingly about the difficulty and importance of pinpointing COVID-19’s origins: “I can see why the media keeps covering it,” she says. “It’s journalistically compelling.” She is, however, willing to accept the uncertainty of saying we don’t know, although, “Natural origin is the default.”
The origin story is complicated by the evolving meaning of “gain of function research” and what Loder calls a “genuine and legitimate scientific debate about what gain of function is.” At one time, “gain of function research” might have included AstraZeneca’s vaccine development, which involved altering adenovirus. “Nobody thinks that way anymore.” Today, “gain of function” more commonly means enhancing the infectiousness of an already infectious virus. But that description leaves room for disagreement. Is it “gain of function research” if you fail? Or if you don’t expect your virus research to lead to enhanced infectivity but accidentally it does? In the broadest sense, all vaccine research could be seen as “gain of function.”
The issue that overwhelms everything, however, is this: “Elect better leaders.”
As it is, “This doesn’t follow what we expected from Hollywood,” she said. In her Overmatter piece, she used the hypothetical example of an asteroid hurtling toward us to highlight the dangerous absurdity of politicizing the fact of an imminent existential threat (this was well before the release of Don’t Look Up).
Education is one aspect; the best counter to wild claims about hydroxychloroquine is some understanding of the importance of scientific trials.
And yet Loder tells a disturbing story: “[The United States] had an Emergency Use Authorization by March 28, 2020. By May 19 the FDA knew the drug [hydroxychloroquine] was linked to 400 adverse health events and 87 deaths—and the White House still wanted it distributed. The FDA got a spine eventually, and on July 1 withdrew the authorization, and only then posted the report from May. It speaks to the political pressure behind the scenes.”
It’s tempting—particularly for Americans—to focus on Trump. Loder, however, must take a wider view: “These forces are found in other countries as well.” Every politician everywhere has the same desire: a source of hope.
“What mystifies me about any political group telling its followers not to wear masks or use no-evidence drugs is that they’re going to kill off a certain number who follow this advice. Families will be pissed off. … I don’t understand how that’s a winning strategy unless you figure very few will feel the ill effects.”
In a serious situation such as this one, “It’s a problem that we have populist leaders who really think they can lead by the seat of their pants—on instinct.” Instead, “It requires a different kind of leadership. People have to consider when they elect them, are these serious people?” Discussions are just beginning on pandemic treaties and whether we need to strengthen the global framework, but even then, “Ultimately countries are sovereign, and even if they sign up will they sign up to fighting the infodemic? Who’s in charge matters.”