I'm reading the top-rated comment at the NYT article, "Hundreds of Epidemiologists Expected Mask-Wearing in Public for at Least a Year/The C.D.C. said Thursday that vaccinated Americans no longer needed masks in most places. Other disease experts recently had a different message: that masks were necessary in public."
The NYT seems to be stimulating fear in reaction to the CDC announcement. The survey the headline refers to was taken before the CDC took its new position, so these epidemiologists — 723 of them — were, I suspect, passing along the party line. Did they do their own studies? Even if they did, do they study the costs of the restrictions or simply, endlessly default toward caution?
Here's the full comment:
This is a horrible, horrifying decision. There’s no way to prove who’s vaccinated and who isn’t. People are going to lie about their status. We were out shopping today and my husband saw a woman wearing a mask that said “This mask is as useless as my Governor.” Does she seem trustworthy? Does she maybe seem like someone who’d doff her mask at the first chance, whether she’d been vaccinated or not, because she’s an imbecile and has no regard for the lives of others?
What difference does it make? If you know you're vaccinated and you believe vaccines work, you're fine without your mask, and only the unvaccinated are at risk. Why are you obsessing about the mind of a stranger?
That's a social/political relationship, and it's got nothing to do with the science of disease. Ironically, you're scoffing at her lack of adherence to science while you yourself veer away from science. I know social life and politics are more fun, but if you get your jollies from imposing physical restraints on other people, you need to look into your own heart.The comment continues:
I think that it’s moronic to lift the ban until enough of the population has been vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. I’m including the under-18s in that. I had Covid last August and it has ripped my life apart. I’m terrified of the prospect of getting it again. Terrified, and I do not scare easily. Fewer masks and fewer precautions means more chances for the virus to mutate. We don’t know if the vaccines will protect us from mutations. I do not know what having Covid again would do to me, but I’ll tell you up front that permanent damage to my sense of smell would be ample reason for me to give serious consideration as to whether I still want to live.
Oh, &*%$ hell. I haven't had Covid, but I've lived with a seemingly permanent loss of the sense of smell for years. I don't go around saying it makes life not worth living! What crazy hysteria! And from a person who claims not to be easily scared. I guess it's all relative. Maybe this person lives in a truly timorous community. In the land of the raving hysterics, the terrified man is equanimous.
I can’t let go of the fear of what could happen to my loved ones. I’m stunned that the CDC has acted so irresponsibly.
Why not just say you're stunned to hear the new announcement? What is the basis for judging it to be irresponsible? You seem to be substituting your emotion for science. I know, though. This commenter can say he's relying on the NYT survey of 723 epidemiologists. I wonder if there's a term for the pseudoscience of surveying large groups of experts.
Posts
9 comments:
Paul answers my question:
"You wrote "I wonder if there's a term for the pseudoscience of surveying large groups of experts." Yes, there is. "Meta-analysis." But my fear is that even "statistics" will do."
He links to the Wikipedia article "Meta-analysis". But is that the surveying of experts or the combination of studies:
"A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple scientific studies. Meta-analysis can be performed when there are multiple scientific studies addressing the same question, with each individual study reporting measurements that are expected to have some degree of error. The aim then is to use approaches from statistics to derive a pooled estimate closest to the unknown common truth based on how this error is perceived. Existing methods for meta-analysis yield a weighted average from the results of the individual studies, and what differs is the manner in which these weights are allocated and also the manner in which the uncertainty is computed around the point estimate thus generated. In addition to providing an estimate of the unknown common truth, meta-analysis has the capacity to contrast results from different studies and identify patterns among study results, sources of disagreement among those results, or other interesting relationships that may come to light in the context of multiple studies. A key benefit of this approach is the aggregation of information leading to a higher statistical power and more robust point estimate than is possible from the measure derived from any individual study. However, in performing a meta-analysis, an investigator must make choices which can affect the results, including deciding how to search for studies, selecting studies based on a set of objective criteria, dealing with incomplete data, analyzing the data, and accounting for or choosing not to account for publication bias."
Studying studies is different from making a long list of people who are experts and then just noting their opinion on something that they may never even have studied separately.
I've got another entry in the effort to answer my question:
"Two-eyed Jack writes: "You wonder: “I wonder if there's a term for the pseudoscience of surveying large groups of experts.“
"Scientism - Wikipedia
"a pejorative with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation.”"
He links to this:
"Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. While the term was originally defined to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist", some religious scholars (and subsequently many others) adopted it as a pejorative with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)" The term scientism is often used critically, implying an unwarranted application of science in situations considered not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards."
Again, this isn't naming the precise thing I'm talking about, which is the surveying of experts to get their opinion. Scientism is trusting the "methods" of science. I am saying that surveying experts is not a good enough method. I'm calling it a pseudoscience.
Here's an analogy. What if you purported to do constitutional law by surveying conlawprofs about what a particular provision of the Constitution means. For example, you want to know if the due process clause includes a right to have an abortion. So you just took a list of everyone who teaches constitutional law and asked them, then presented the answer as the meaning of the Constitution. Is that a legit method of constitutional interpretation? Well, why not survey all the conlawprofs and ask them if it is?
Russell writes:
RE: I'm Terrified
My wife and I have been vaccine 'sceptics' since our first child had all the vaccines, developed chronic seizures and autism (and the requisite learning and cognitive disabilities that prevent him from ever likely living on his own). We skipped most of the vaccine regimen for our 2nd and 3rd kids. Yet, we are also 3/5 on the COVID vaccine with the two under 18's scheduled for next week. We made the personal choices every step of the way.
So, it's fascinating hearing you make the point we make all the time when (pre-pandemic) we were shamed as crazy anti-vaxxers: why do you fear us if you've been vaccinated and believe they work??
As for the CDC policy change, anyone who thinks the CDC ONLY works on science and not with at least some political motivations is probably naïve beyond repair. That said, I think this policy change is at least partially due to the very real problem of the CDC talking down the benefits of vaccines for so long that people were simply not in a hurry to get it. Hey, cool you've been vaccinated! Guess what: nothing will change! Wear a mask. Social distance and lockdown when cases spike! That has been the party line until basically yesterday. Now at least the CDC is finally saying 'getting vaccinated will get life back to normal.' That is a big step in this battle and no wonder it is off-putting to the crowd that has so much invested in the panic mongering and the power that comes with it.
Lastly, 'a survey of scientists' being treated as scientifically meaningful is yet another reminder that science isn't done with polls. It's done with observable testing, validating, peer review and iterating. Oh and scepticism!
Sella Turcica writes:
Dear Ann: Recommendations from my professional organization are always accompanied by this statement:
Studies were reviewed and evaluated for quality according to the method outlined by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force:
· I Evidence obtained from at least one properly designed randomized controlled trial.
· II-1 Evidence obtained from well-designed controlled trials without randomization.
· II-2 Evidence obtained from well-designed cohort or case–control analytic studies, preferably from more than one center or research group.
· II-3 Evidence obtained from multiple time series with or without the intervention. Dramatic results in uncontrolled experiments also could be regarded as this type of evidence.
· III Opinions of respected authorities, based on clinical experience, descriptive studies, or reports of expert committees.
Based on the highest level of evidence found in the data, recommendations are provided and graded according to the following categories:
Level A—Recommendations are based on good and consistent scientific evidence.
Level B—Recommendations are based on limited or inconsistent scientific evidence.
Level C—Recommendations are based primarily on consensus and expert opinion.
As you can see, randomized controlled trials constitute the highest level of evidence and consensus of experts is the lowest.
Another reader writes (bringing up the same point as the comment just above this one):
"My initial thought was to propose either "appeal to ultra vires authority," or perhaps "the decree of the unclothed emperor," but those are probably more appropriate for an expert in one area who makes unfounded pronouncements in another (say, a trauma surgeon claiming expertise in gun control policy solely because he or she treats gunshot victims in the OR). In the "hierarchy of evidence" often used in the health fields (and certainly a frequent tool co-opted by scientists), polling experts is referred to as "Level C-EO" evidence: the "lowest quality" evidence that's considered in formulating guidelines."
Madtownguy writes:
"The NYT reports. “The science is clear: If you are fully vaccinated, you are protected, and you can start doing the things that you stopped doing because of the pandemic,” the C.D.C. said in a statement on Thursday."
They keep using that word 'science.' You know the rest.
I think what's clear is the motivation. It's a way to enforce vaccinations as a precondition to normality.
From CBS News:
"The science demonstrates that if you are fully vaccinated, you are protected," Walensky said. "It is the people who are not fully vaccinated in those settings, who might not be wearing a mask, who are not protected. And it is those people that we are encouraging to get vaccinated and to wear a mask and to physically distance. So if you are vaccinated in those settings, you certainly could wear a mask if you wanted to, but we are saying in those settings, based on the science, that it is safe."
Link: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cdc-guideline-mask-vaccinated-covid-19/
J writes:
"Here's an analogy. What if you purported to do constitutional law by
surveying conlawprofs about what a particular provision of the
Constitution means. For example, you want to know if the due process
clause includes a right to have an abortion. So you just took a list of
everyone who teaches constitutional law and asked them, then presented
the answer as the meaning of the Constitution. Is that a legit method of
constitutional interpretation? Well, why not survey all the conlawprofs
and ask them if it is?"
***************************
I believe the term for what you suggest is "consensual
validation"----"We agree, therefore we're correct".
That's not science.
James K writes:
“I wonder if there's a term for the pseudoscience of surveying large groups of experts. “
I suppose you’ve already considered and rejected “Appeal to authority,” but that’s what it is, albeit in the plural. It’s worse, though, since, fist, these “surveys” are not themselves conducted scientifically. No doubt the NYT has it’s go-to “authorities” that are unlikely to be representative. Second, science is of course not about consensus or majority vote. Otherwise Galileo would have been wrong. “Eppur si muove.”
MartyH writes:
Michael Chrichton discussed “consensus science” in 2003:
“…Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period…”
Here is a link to his Cal Tech lecture: https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf
Post a Comment