Where Are The Experts During A Crisis?

Recently, the UK government was being widely criticised for attempting to proceed with a plan for ‘herd immunisation’, in which their approach for dealing with the Coronavirus involved allowing more than half of their population to get infected. While I could see the criticisms being levelled against such a risky strategy, I couldn’t help but admire the way they took the stance. The government’s experts had done their own calculations and were willing to stake their reputations on a highly controversial plan that went against popular opinion. They knew the strategies other countries were adopting but were confident in their own abilities to go ahead with them.

Then the plan was abandoned. Experts in the field weighed in on the government’s strategy with their studies and managed to make the case that it was not the right way to go. Now, I found myself envying the UK system even more. A plan based on a scientific theory had been presented. It had been evaluated by experts in the field. After some debate, it was found to not be feasible, and the government changed tact - a potential disaster was possibly averted.

Pakistan is faced by a similar dilemma, but possibly with much higher stakes. I don’t envy our government’s position right now. A poor country struggling to pull itself out of an economic crisis can ill-afford something of this scale. For a significant proportion of the country’s poor, a complete lockdown could well be a fate worse than infection. On the other hand – exponential growth! It definitely is a tough tightrope to walk with little margin for error. Input is needed from people who understand both the theoretical framework, on-ground realities, and the government’s capacity to deal the situation.

Unfortunately, unlike the United Kingdom, the most vociferous arguments we are getting aren’t from experts. I had initially sat to write about how the government isn’t doing a good job of communicating its plans. But then I went through the recent press conferences by the various ministers and the prime minister’s addresses. While I would have liked more details on their plans, they do explain what they are trying to do, and why they are going about it in a certain way.

They could potentially have been pushed into providing more rigor, if there were any serious challenges coming up against their plans. Instead, the majority of opinions are coming from TV anchors, ‘social commentators’, activists, political players, and on the other end, some misguided clerics. All these challenges come in the form of emotional ‘common sense’ appeals. Where are the epidemiologists? Where are the doctors? Where are the economists? And most importantly, where are their arguments, their data, models, results, simulations? Anything to make a case, one way or another? Instead, we’re seeing shrill emotional speeches about “bold moves” and “decisive action”.

I’m looking through Twitter, where there are several hot takes on the ‘lockdown’. Not one person has shared a study, data, or even an argument. Though, to their credit, there is no dearth of wit, sarcasm and condescension.

I came across this spectacular blog today (https://medium.com/@noahhaber/flatten-the-curve-of-armchair-epidemiology-9aa8cf92d652 ). I found it to be hilarious because, essentially, it targets people like me. Amateur enthusiasts who know a bit of maths and have read an article or two about modelling infections and can’t wait to test out what they’ve learnt. Yes, I too am guilty of tinkering with theoretical models since my unofficial ‘work from home’ began (alas, they are the only types of models I can get anywhere near). It does show how easy it is to get caught up in the illusion that one is an expert in everything!

Of course, it is a great thing that we all get to express our opinions, but technical, and complex problems require deep understanding and solid arguments to make the case. And make no mistake, this is a very technical issue. Once the government has given a strategy and explained the rationale, it was up to critics to challenge the government’s facts and assumptions in the hope of evolving a better plan. The government is claiming that the outcome with a complete lockdown will be much worse for a large number of people than it would be without it. Are there any numbers to challenge this claim? (Just saying Exponential Growth is not really an answer – I’m sure our health experts know what that is!).

Are we just going to follow the ‘Chinese model’ on everything? Even among the countries that have dealt successfully with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, different approaches were taken. Even now, among other countries, different strategies are being devised and deployed to deal with the threat. Countries develop their own plans, learning from other’s experiences and taking their own unique circumstances into account. We can’t keep looking around for other people to do out thinking for us. We need a solid process of intellectual debate that leads to better decision-making.

The government could be doing a better job sharing the details of their models and their strategies (among, I’m sure, a whole host of other things it could be doing better). If nothing else, such disclosures prove that they are doing their homework and builds confidence among the public (and potentially provide insights for the toy models I’m playing with). But, as it stands, with no serious, well-reasoned critique of their decisions, it seems they have little incentive to do any such thing.