S: I am curious about how people deal with information. It appears like the critical point during this “corona-crisis”. Processing information was always an issue, but now it seems like a crucial point which influences our normal behaviour. The sources of information are often contradictory, and it can be challenging to find the stand for what to believe. I would like to know your opinion, what you think and maybe your strategy.
H: Interesting, you mention “how people deal with information”. I just did a critique of the study connected to this topic. Some of my former professional colleagues I have been helping with research papers as well. I cannot show you that paper because it is in draft form. The article is about how two television “news/opinion” programs with contradictory views on COVID-19 impacted deaths in the USA. It will be likely published in June. The conclusion is that television information can impact people’s behaviour (at least regarding COVID-19 in the USA) and that behaviour can affect the probability of contracting the virus and dying as a result. The name of this article is “Misinformation During a Pandemic (We fight an infodemic)”.
S: That is a brilliant name for our interview.
We are overwhelmed by information from different sides. There is a scale of intensity in how people percept that the situation is dangerous. Many people think that it is just non-sense and the others are scared. I would like to know your opinion about all this.
H: On average, about 35,000 people die of influenza each year in the USA. In just three months 62,000 have died of COVID-19. COVID-19 is not the worst that could be, but it is serious. The influenza pandemic of 1918-1920 was worse..but it is early to make any definitive comparisons.
One could take either extremist opinion and make a rational arguement…but the truth always lies in between the extremes.
S: You can find sources which say that the reasons for the deaths are dubious. You can also find sources (medical) who say that this situation is only the sign that people aren’t in a good health condition and they have many chronic diseases which make it worse. Some people are also afraid of mandatory vaccination which they see as an economic focus of pharmaceutic companies
The statement that the truth lies in between the extremes is too general.
H: I am helping a former colleague on a study that is comparing death rates with and without COVID-19. However, if one does not even believe any of the numbers, there it is no point in further discussion. Acknowledging that all data is not perfect…but without from the basis of the information we have left math and science.
Our parents remember all too well the diseases that we no longer fear…because of vaccines. The list is long: (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough), poliomyelitis (polio), measles, mumps, rubella, haemophilus, influenza type b infections, hepatitis B, influenza, pneumococcal infections, cholera, hepatitis A, meningococcal disease, plague, rabies, bat lyssavirus, yellow fever, Japanese encephalitis, Q fever, tuberculosis, typhoid, varicella-zoster (chickenpox))
If some pharmaceutical company profits and I pay 5 to 20 euros to avoid dying or becoming seriously sick, I am OK with that trade.
I spend far more on other things.
S: Well, they don’t mind someone’s profit. They are afraid that the gain of these companies can be a reason why they want to push the vaccines as mandatory, and they can damage some people. They blame this part of an industry that the drugs are needed only in a few cases, but they are pushed to everyone and everywhere. They generally doubt the approach of western medicine to our health. Do you think they can be right regarding this disease?
H: That argument is just wishing for perfection…perfection does not exist. “Some people will be damaged by the vaccine”…the question is: What is the “acceptable” percentage. If it saves 900 million lives but kills 100 is that a good thing or a bad thing? What percent is “acceptable”. I think everyone would agree that 50 percent harm would not be “acceptable”…and 40%…and maybe even one percent, but at some point, it is “acceptable”. I am glad I do not have to make that decision.
S: I would like to know what do you think about mandatory vaccination?
And what do you think about the measures which in Europe now? And if you believe that the release is a good idea now?
H: When governments make laws, they are nearly always “mandatory”…and not 100% of the people comply. Taxes, traffic laws, well, everything. Some of these things can and do kill people that do not comply…like traffic laws. No one likes being told what they MUST do. Particularly children…..but as adults, we should be able to understand that for the good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the individual. Philosophically, one can disagree with the idea that others are not important as the self…but governments cannot exist for long if the rule of law is “every person can do whatever they want”. If governments did nothing and millions of people died, that government would not likely exist for very long. There would be a revolution of the survives. Nothing is perfect, but the perfect should not stand in the way of the good….although again, one can argue that personal freedom is the only good. I consider that approach to be selfish–by definition.
No, from a medical standpoint I think the opening in Europe is too soon, but it is a tough call for the governments as people’s livelihood, well being, and pursuit of happiness is impaired. But this is like watching a hundred experiments in real-time…we will learn, from the data (assuming one believes in the value of empirical evidence in knowledge and decision-making).
H: On another topic, this is a very different virus. It has a long period where no symptoms appear (sometimes no symptoms). As such a “healthy looking” person can infect many other people. On the other end, some people die, and not just the chronically ill or unhealthy people who are dying (to address another issue you mentioned before). Although, it is true that the population is older than has ever been. But ironically, this is because of the medical knowledge and vaccines that the same people often criticize–that is not rational.
S: Can you guess why the doubts about science, particularly about medicine and pharmacy, is rising?
It is not an extreme opinion. Many people are just not sure if it is a real thing if they can believe this or that. It is not only the stubborn part of the population which are completely out of the picture but there are many people somewhere in the middle with their opinions. Why do they doubt about science? Maybe they have some experience or do you think that it is just a bad influence of …xxx.
Why does this direction of thinking appear?
There must be a reason why too many people ask the same questions and why they share the same doubts.. media or something else?
H: Good question. And usually to such questions, there is more than one cause. I am now taking off my science hat…I think the primary reason people have doubts about science is that it is too complex…almost magical now. They do not and cannot understand it…so that makes them uncomfortable. The second reason is that people generally distrust government because of its history of corruption. Third, corporations are much like governments–a history of corruption, money for the few at the expense of the many. The fourth reason is that information from even the most uneducated, biased, and corrupt people can post misinformation on the internet via social media. This has never been possible before…in the past the news, narrative, and information was controlled by fewer people (and often they were corrupt as well). But more corrupt information from more corrupt sources does not improve the situation. It takes intelligence and education as well as experience to tease apart fact from fiction… Again, there is nothing perfect, and this will always be the human condition…
H: I understand that people are sceptical of mandates by scientists and governments. I think that is a good thing–keeps a balance. But the problem is with people’s expectation of “PERFECT”. No one is harmed, everyone is safe, no one has to pay any money…etc. That is not realistic. No one can provide perfection. There are always trade-offs…someone is going to get hurt, and someone is going to pay. I am glad I no longer am in that discussion with governments anymore. I am happy!
S: Yes, education is the key. We need to find how to distinguish what can we believe. Do you have your own picture how should look the right one?
H: I am a trained scientist, so my process is different from others. Media is usually the beginning of the process–that is how I find out “something is going on”. I then go to other media sources and read/see/hear what they are saying–both left and right politically as well as central. Then comes the hard part…finding the government documents, published scientific or economic research papers and reading them–in total. I evaluate methods, models, internal and external validity, statistics, and conclusions as limitations (there are always limitations). I then look at how wrote the paper, who funded the paper, what periodical it was published… Then I often look at the reference section and read other papers the researchers have cited. It is a long process, and one needs the years of skills to be able to do this…along with a lot of time and patience. People used to pay me to do this, so that was how I got good at it. For even the most educated and intelligent citizen without that expertise, it is nearly impossible for them to tease apart all of the good information from the bad information. I think this is the biggest challenge of humanity now in the “(MIS)-Information Age”.
S: Yes, this is exactly what I am talking about. If you want to find your truth, you have to spend a lot of time doing it, read all of this and pay attention to the sources. But if you do something else like your profession, you don’t have enough time to do your research and you need to adopt someone else’s results.
And you never have enough time to find all the sources about all the topics which you find interesting for you. How to deal with that?
You need to trust someone…
H: “adopt someone else’s results” that is how people have controlled other people since the beginning. Generally, people just want to live–not deal with academic complexities…and the people who desire power know this and use this reality to their advantage.
There was a nuclear policy back in the SALT 1 and 2 agreements between the USA and USSR. It was called “trust but verify”.
S: I get back to the people they don’t agree with the mainstream. They say exactly the same thing as you. That people just accept all the things which they don’t understand without any check because it is science and they trust science as a religion.
Many people just adopt the results of scientists because they must be right. And they don’t check them because they don’t know how and in case they know, they simply don’t have time. It is mission impossible.
H: Science differs from religion in important ways. First, it is empirical–to be science, it must be able to be measured. You cannot measure the colour of god’s eyes. Second, it is statistically/mathematically based. Math doesn’t lie, but liars do math and statistics. Third, any conclusion requires replication–meaning, just because one study comes to that conclusion it not sufficient–many must result in similar conclusions. Those three pillars are powerful…and have resulted in the computer or mobile phone and electricity and nearly everything that you see in your home…including what you are wearing…assuming you not naked.
H: I think the question is: Can you trust scientists? The answer is….trust but verify. You cannot trust anyone, because everyone lies.
S: I don’t agree with everything. Religion was something which had experts and believers. The science behaves in the same way. There are scientists – experts, people who spend their time reading and checking and testing. And the other side is just believers. They don’t understand the language of science, and they don’t have the necessary background to check the results of scientific literature. And in case they have all the skills, they don’t have enough time for it. You can’t check everything. You must know it.
H: You are, of course, correct. In the end, people have to make decisions…based on what they believe, know, or think they know. It is not a perfect world, and there are no easy answers or ways of obtaining the facts. But that has been the case for centuries–wars were started over nonsense and lies. The MIS-Information Age will not change that historical reality…indeed, tragically it may magnify it.
S: It doesn’t sound optimistic, but honestly, I didn’t expect the handbook how to solve this issue Thanks for your answers and opinions.