Reading the latest round of discussion suggests to me that all sides are pretty well entrenched. Speaking personally, I know I am. I have read multiple studies by recognized actors in the scientific world and find the work compelling. Nothing, however, is certain. But to acknowledge that is sometimes fraught. Many who wish to dismiss the conclusions resulting from scientific enquiry will seize upon the uncertainty inherent in the process to challenge those conclusions and substitute pseudo-scientific silliness they find supportive of their biases.
Mask efficacy provides an example of this. Earlyish in the pandemic a number of studies were published, including one in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) extolling the virtues of mask wearing. Fairly quickly, a group of scholars called on PNAS to retract the article. They cited methodological concerns with the study and the credentials of some of the authors as reasons. They did not really contest the basic findings that masks were among the most effective means of limiting the spread of the virus.
In January of 2021 another article in PNAS presented a meta-analysis of the state of research on mask wearing – (
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118) again concluding that mask wearing is among, if not the, most effective means of preventing virus transmission. And yet, voices continue to frame the question of masking as a subject of debate. In August of 2021 that question seem quite well settled. But. these questioners cite the inherent fallibility of science as a justification for doing so.
While enlightened skepticism of all things is necessary – in these cases, ideology has overwhelmed enlightenment. It seems to me these people are simply looking to be seen as anti-intellectual or anti-elitist, or they are just plain argumentative. It is reminiscent of Groucho Marx’s definition of politics – “the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, incorrectly diagnosing it, and misapplying the wrong remedies.”
Other voices raise questions about the efficacy of addressing the pandemic at all. From some quarters we hear things like, “it we had done nothing at all. It would all be over now.” These claims are so loaded with unsubstantiated assumptions that they must collapse of their own weight. They are invariably made in the complete absence of evidence with no attempt to define either their terms or the assumptions that underlie them.
Many to most of these strike me similarly to many of the “questioners” on outlets such as faux news. They repeat questions that have been answered many times over – not because they have not been answered, but because the process of questioning has become an end in itself. They no longer care about the answers, unless those answers play into a particular narrative. So, they belabor the questioning, and eventually find someone, somewhere to provide they answer they preordained before they asked. They are asked, not with any eye toward an answer, which they already “know,” but with the goal of entertaining, arousing and confusing a particular audience.
It's working.