John Donvan

Hey, everybody. I’m John Donvan, and welcome to Intelligence Squared. So here are three words I am sure you have been hearing, done with COVID. Done with COVID, it’s a hashtag. It’s a… also a signal sent by Democratic governors who have ended mask mandates this winter, and it’s a sentiment that is i- increasingly shared a- and voiced aloud that, as a society, we just can’t stay in a defensive crouch indefinitely with mask mandates and vaccine requirements and metaphorical flashing emergency lights. We failed to defeat COVID, and it is not done with us. So we’ll just have to learn to live with it. Well, if that is a sound choice now, a- and of course, that is very debatable, could we have made that same choice a year ago, or what about two years ago w- when we barely understood COVID? And when the next serious pandemic wave hits us, with COVID or something else, will that put us right back into an emergency state requiring, once again, lockdowns and mandates and those metaphorical flashing lights?

Well, those are questions we are gonna debate right now. Our debaters are John Tierney, who has grappled with these questions as a science journalist and a writer for City Journal, and Enbal Shacham, a scientist and researcher in behavioral science at Saint Louis University, whose research in the last couple of years has focused very much on the effectiveness of some of the mitigation efforts. This conversation was wide-ranging and touched on a lot of controversies. What follows is an extended excerpt of what we found most compelling, where we discuss Sweden’s no lockdown strategy at the very start of this pandemic and what society can take from that approach going forward. First up, John Tierney.

John Tierney

Sweden, for instan- … And one of the best studies on this was in Sweden, where they closed, um, their high schools briefly, you know, during the spring of 2020. They left, y- y- you know, the lower schools open, no masks, no social distancing, very l- l- … fairly loose quarantine policies. If you had been exposed to someone, you could still go to school unless you had symptoms. And they analyzed the records of the entire student population, you know, and they compared y- … uh, you know, I think it was 7th graders versus 8th graders. The 8th graders stayed home, the 7th graders didn’t. And they found, you know, no difference in rates among the s- … the students, but they also looked at the parents. And they found there was no difference in the, y- you know… between the parents whose kids went to school without masks and the kids whose… who… and the parents whose, whose children stayed home in the rate of being… of going to the hospital or dying from COVID. I mean, so the… that was a huge n- nationwide ex- … n- natural experiment.

Enbal Shacham

So Sweden’s a great example of what could have been done, right? Um, Sweden has a system of care that… A, they have a national healthcare system. B, they have a employment system where people, uh… the adults were able to work from home. They prioritized the children to s- … go to school, and, and the adults were asked to stay home. And as a behavioral scientist, I can tell you two things. We’re terrible at reporting our data, but we’re more, um, terrible at, um… when we’re left to our own devices. We’re… We are terrible actors, and so just like having an extra dessert or, (laughs) or having an extra drink, we’re not good at being healthy for our- ourselves. So when we know that we need to have said that social desirability of whether I wear I wear a mask or not, I will tell you that I wore a mask, but the truth is I didn’t if it’s not mandated.

The challenge, also, is that that comparison of which states did better, we… I- I mean, we did a study here in Missouri. I was able to identify that these… the counties that had mask mandates were, uh… had a 44% increase of… over the same timeframe of infections, and our re- … our counties that did not ha- … or did have a mandate had a, a much more reduced, um, mandate… uh, infection rate. But think, ultimately, what we’re looking at is that we had a higher rate because we had more population. S- … Total population, population density really drove much of the pandemic and, and where the infections rate occurred, so better understanding of where and when to wear masks is also about how populated an, an… of an environment are you in.

John Tierney

Either… There’s a new book out now called Unmasked by, by Ian Miller, who’s been doing a lot of this COVID graphing, and he shows for these counties, Saint Louis, Saint Charles, and Jefferson County, he shows the graph over the whole pandemic. And what you see is, indeed, you know, there is, u- uh, you know… during that summer when, you know, it was kind of a small surge, u- uh, you see a little difference in those counties, but then you see this enormous winter surge happens. And there’s really no difference in the curves between the counties with the mandates and the ones without, and, you know, the curves are just virtually identical over the next year. And that’s what you see over and over again on this pandemic. And I mean, I just looked the, y- you know… two of those counties, Saint Louis County and Franklin County, which, which didn’t have the mandate, and they have, you know, identical rates of COVID over the course of the pandemic, and there are actually more deaths in Saint Louis County than in the other one.

So I just don’t think we have the evidence that mask mandates work. So before we talk about who to target them, I think we, you know… that… I mean, that’s a big issue, and I think, really, that the burden of proof-

John Donvan

Wait, wait, wait. Le- le- let En- … Let Enbal respond-

John Tierney

Um…

John Donvan

… to that, please.

John Tierney

Okay.

Enbal Shacham

So f- for the record, we also looked through January of 2021. We looked at the infection rates to see how the mask mandates were s- … persisting. We, we found… Contrary to the n- … to the book that’s published, um, we also found that our, our mask mandates h- … w- … held strong, um, at, at 35% reduction. So we started at 44% reduction, then when, uh… it was still 35%. Now, understandably, you can say that that’s not enough reduction, but I would argue that, um, especially among those vulnerable populations and those who are unable to get vaccinated and don’t want to test and see, uh, what happens if they get COVID, I would say that, uh, that, that there’s a reason to reduce your risk and, uh, and that th- the mandates worked. Uh, and my studies [inaudible

] one of many. I mean, think C- CDC had a great combination, uh, or collection of other studies that were done, uh, at different sta- … at different states and different times.

So I can understand… Uh, I- I don’t know. I can’t understand why we can’t wear a mask. I actually can’t understand that.

John Tierney

Uh, uh, uh, because I, I think masks i- … uh, masks are massively inconvenient, and, and there are definite harms associated with masks. And I mean, I don’t wanna g- … keep going back and forth on this, but I’m looking at this chart, and, you know, in January of that, y- you know… Saint Louis County was higher than Saint Charles County. And no-

John Donvan

Wait, wait, wait. John, I- I… you’ve covered-

John Tierney

Yeah.

John Donvan

… that ground. I want you to-

John Tierney

Yeah, okay.

John Donvan

… follow up on what you just-

John Tierney

Right.

John Donvan

… said, masks are enormously inconvenient. Did you say tremendously inconvenient?

John Tierney

Yes. I mean, and, and ability to-

John Donvan

I- I- I th- … Go, go with me on tremendously a- and-

John Tierney

Okay, [inaudible

].

John Donvan

… and the ha- …. and the harms.

John Tierney

Oh, I mean, masks are tremendously inconvenient, and they case lots of harms. Uh, you know, there’s, um, i- … U- uh, there’s a paper published that reviewed 65 scientific papers on this, and they concluded that there was statistically significant evidence for what they termed mask-induced exhaustion syndrome. It includes various physiological changes in subjective compliance and decrease in blood oxygen, increase in carbon monoxide, um, increase in heart and respiratory rates, difficulty breathing, dizziness, headache, drowsiness, decreased ability to concentrate and think. And the obvious social harms of masks, we cant’ see people’s faces. We’re social animals, and I think this was just devastating to children to have, you know, years of their childhood not being able to see their teachers. They’re trying to learn how to… how to speak and get along with others. They can’t see people’s faces, and this was a huge harm to all of us. And unless…

I really think that this was a harmful intervention, and, y- you know, a- and the law in medicine should be, first, do no harm. There has to be overwhelming proof that this actually accomplished something before you can order it, and I don’t think have that proof. And I think it did cause harms. I mean, the stories I hear about, you know, kids who i- i- i- … uh, um, are so afraid that they wear a mask to bed. You know, adults are supposed to be, um, i- … reassuring-

John Donvan

All right.

John Tierney

… children. All right.

John Donvan

Uh, okay. Ok- okay, and you made… You’ve made i- … Uh, John, you’ve made your point on that. I’m interrupting just, ju- … in the f-

John Tierney

Yeah, go ahead.

John Donvan

Sa-

John Tierney

That’s fine.

John Donvan

… a m- matter of fairness of time. I, uh-

John Tierney

Yeah.

John Donvan

Enbal, I’m guessing you’re thoroughly unpersuaded by what John’s… John just said.

Enbal Shacham

Yeah, I do.

John Donvan

Possibly with the exception of the issue in education settings, maybe.

Enbal Shacham

No. I think, uh, you know, again, we have to evaluate our risks, and, um, in John’s perspective, it seems like he doesn’t think that a school environment was… would be risky. And I would say that if we didn’t have adults that got… had to go work and go through all these other public spaces, we’re able to identify where they go and when they go and how much time they’re spending there, so putting, um, their children at risk of infection is important. Uh, what, what I would say is… about masks and, um, the impa- … the tremendous negative impact it has, I don’t think it does, period. I think we can show years of evidence of healthcare workers using masks as prevention of infection.

I can understand the exhaustion of, uh, the pandemic. I wouldn’t say that it’s exhaustion related to wearing a mask. I think that people are exhausted, and I think one of the most important pieces is that we are s- … two years in, and we’re still not ahead of this at… in any stretch. And we thought we were gonna win, right? (laughs) So, um, we think we turn around and, and say masks are one important tool, and it’s a good transition to vaccines.

John Donvan

Well, I don’t wanna trevent… I do wanna get to vaccines, but I wanna do a different transition from the point you just made, w- which is that-

Enbal Shacham

[inaudible

] market.

John Donvan

… we’re, we’re w- … we are weary… we are weary of the pandemic. And I wonder if we have gone through something of a philosophical transition. When, you know, John said at the beginning that there were predictions of, of really, really terrible consequences that did not come true, and yet, you know, as winter wound up her and spring began, we were approaching a million deaths in the United States. This winter, we had a daily death rate sometimes above 2,000, which was the highest that we had experienced in a year. You’d have to go back to last spring to have numbers that high. Last spring, we were treating 2,000 deaths a day as an emergency, as terrible, as un- … you know, just inco- … y- y- y- y- … It’s, it’s not something that could be tolerated. Now, we’re talking about 2,000 deaths a day in a period of time when people say, “I’m done with COVID.” I’m just wondering, have we reoriented our expectations of what’s terrible in terms of deaths from a virus? John, I’d like you to go first with that.

John Tierney

Um, well, I think people are getting a little more realistic, you know, that, I mean, u- uh… And a- a- although they still i- i- … You know, polls show that people vastly overestimate their risks from COVID. Well, I mean, I’m in my 60s, and, and I was at some risk. But it… Still, you know, the odds o- of surviving, it, it, it simply isn’t as big a risk for people who don’t have these comorbidities and, and who aren’t elderly, and I think people are maybe getting a little more realistic about that, that, um, you know… And once you’re vaccinated, the odds are, u- um, are just, um, uh, are minuscule, and I could talk about that if you want. But I mean, the odds are so low. It’s so much lower than other risks in life that I don’t think there’s any reason to, um, to be going on with this scaremongering.

John Donvan

So, so you would disagree with if I characterize it as though we’ve become desensitized to these deaths. You would say more we’ve become realistic about what, what’s, uh, what, what’s possible.

John Tierney

Yes.

John Donvan

What about you, Enbal?

Enbal Shacham

I think that we are exhausted, and we can’t even consider what 2,000 deaths, um… what 2,000 deaths a day or, or 3,000 deaths a day translate into. I think that we n- … we can’t even imagine it, but we know… we’re doing studies that we know that, uh, you know, most people have, uh… many people have experienced someone dying i- in their family or their friend circle. We know that that loss is significant. Whether it’s older adults or not, uh, that… the willingness to, um, decide that older adults are the ones who are going to die and it’s fine i- is un- uncomfortable, I think. Um, but more importantly, we had the highest vaccine rates for older adults. 80… 85% of our US population have, um… of older adults have been vaccinated and, and are in the pro- … still in the process of being boosted, so I, I don’t see that that death rate is decidedly p- parallel to only older adults are dying. It’s not, um… A- and it shouldn’t be an acceptable rate of, of death.

John Donvan

So goi- going forward, if this were to happen again, another resurgence of another variant of COVID or some new, uh, thing comes along, what do we do next time in terms of declaring an emergency or not? And when I say declare an emergency right now, the federal government declared emergencies, a- a- all 50 states declared emergencies. Not all of them have been lifted. The federal government’s, uh, remained in place at least through the winter, um, so people on airplanes, federal employees were still wearing masks, etc. What… Next time around, we have these tools that we used this time around, mandatory vaccination in a lot of settings, mandatory mask wearing in a lot of settings, lockdown of businesses in many places. Do we do it again? Did we learn g- … that, that these things worked m- … did m- … Uh, uh, I think both of you can see that there’s a balance of, of benefits and h- … and harms from all of these things. The question is on balance, do these measure m- … uh, do more harm than good, or vice versa?

So Enbal, let me ask you to go to this first. If it happens again, would you wanna return to mask mandates? Would you wanna return to, uh, some form of lockdown or social distancing? Would you want to insist… continue to insist and then spread the requirements for vaccinations?

Enbal Shacham

So I would consider each one of those separately. So mask mandates, a- as, as I’ve already outlined, I, I don’t think that they are harmful, so yes, I think they’re the least invasive. Secondly, I would prioritize vaccine mandates for those who… for individuals in populations who are moving around communities i- … with higher community mobility, so that geo-mobility, we can identify how, um, different patterns and… of where people live, work, and play. We can understand where they move, how they move, and, and then we should be able to say, “You need to prioritize your vaccine, uh… vaccinating y- … those, those individuals who are moving around communities and going into areas where people are more vulnerable.” So l- like the, um, earlier mentioned, um, nursing home staff, healthcare support staff, uh, all healthcare workers, uh, I think those are prioritized.

I think the other thing is lockdowns. Um, you know, I, I was thinking about how we hadn’t put… placed… put in place a lockdown. If we had put in place a lockdown for Omicron when we were experiencing the surges all over the country, we would’ve stopped it for three weeks. We would’ve seen the drop of infections. We didn’t use our data to inform how to best imp- implement COVID mitigation strategies, and I think we need to come up with a plan. What is the, the acceptable level of infection, and what’s too much? Uh, what we saw were that hospitals and healthcare workers were stretched to th- their cap- … beyond their capacity, but we continued. We didn’t stop and slow down, and so… because it’s not the politically appropriate thing to do, um, a- and nobody wanted to do it. So if we were able to say, “This is what we’re doing for now or only a short period of time,” people might be able to support that more, um… with more s- … with more sh- … seriousness a- and willingness in, in many ways.

John Donvan

John?

John Tierney

Um, well, the first thing I would do before the next pandemic is to have a really systematic review of the evidence we… uh, for this one. Do… We really need some kind of COVID commission to look over what worked and what didn’t, and I think it will show that the lockdowns and mask mandates did not work. A- again, all the experience in places that did just as well or better without them. Um, u- uh, i- … The other thing I think that we should really do is not trust public policy to scientists with a very narrow perspective, and in this case, they focused so narrowly on one disease instead of looking at the overall impact of it. That would be the main thing. You really gotta have people who take in the big picture, who look at the overall public health, not just the rate of infection of one disease.

Enbal Shacham

So I would just highlight that, um, our public health leaders should, should really be allowed to lead, so I, I a- agree, we could have a wor- … a task force that has far more, um, experts in a… And, and as a reminder, you know, much of our lockdown approach was based on what China was doing, so we, we did a lighter version. But we saw that China was reacting in this way, and we wanted to minimize the, the cost of morbidity and mortality in 2022. And then, um, I think as 2021 came and, uh, we were problem… and, you know, we, we had a, a great success with vaccine, a- although we don’t have great, u- um, uptake in lots of communities. And so thinking through, um, the opportunities that we can learn from i- is the right thing, and then saying, “What are the different str- strategies an- and expertise that we need at the table from the beginning,” is, is important.

John Donvan

John, you ha- … you’ve said you admired the effort to develop the vaccines. Um, w- … But where are you on mandating vaccines?

John Tierney

Um, I don’t think, um… I- I can see a case for mandating vaccines for, you know, certainly, you know, a, a nursing home staff, and there’s been extensive evidence that people who’ve been infected with COVID acquire immunity that is stronger and longer lasting than vaccine immunity. I mean, another, by the way, was the lockdowns. Nurses, you know, their kids were home, so they couldn’t go to work. Um, so I- I d- … Uh, you know, we should certainly have recognized natural immunity, and that was so unscientific. It was, y- you know… I… It was just baffling, um, u- u- uh, you know, while we didn’t recognize natural immunity. Um, and I think the other problem with the vaccine mandates is that I, I, uh… that i- it basically forcing people to do it, it offends many people’s sense of liberty, that the, the government does not have the right to do this.

And I think that I… it did it… probably in the long run, it actually hurts the… i- it, it hurts the cause because when you start people you have to do this, their natural reaction, for many people, is, “If it’s so great, why are you making me do it? Um, if it’s so great for me, why won’t you let me decide for myself?” So I don’t think it… I, I think it’s good for more people… for more older people to be vaccinated, f- for nursing staff, but I don’t think that, that mandating it, um, for the general population, you know, helps the cause in any way. And it… Basically, it takes away, you know… And it really needlessly divides the country. I mean, you want public health. You want everyone to pull together against, um, a common threat, and instead, this was just… it became such a political issue, that we’re gonna make the other side follow our orders. And it needlessly polarized the country.

John Donvan

Enbal, do you agree with any of that?

Enbal Shacham

Um, I, I agree that it was polarizing, um, (laughs) but I would say that-

John Donvan

(laughs)

Enbal Shacham

… a- as, as mask mandates, the same data, we’re, we’re to argue, um, that if given our freedoms, we would not m- … uh, vaccinate against m- many things ’cause why should we? We don’t think our… Our potential risk is very low. Um, that’s what we per- perceive. Um, you know, I, I… while, while John cites some studies, there are plenty of other studies that say two things. Um, we’re really bad at assessing our risk, and, uh, the poor assessment of risk translates into very low risk usually. And so we don’t think we’re going to get COVID. We also don’t think we’re going to get lots of other infectious diseases, and so, um, how do we mandate them? I think that we mandate them by remind people that certain employer, uh… To me, I don’t understand why employers aren’t requiring mandates because they’re paying for healthcare, um, and that health insurance is, is more likely going to be more among people who are unvaccinated. So I, I think, if anything, that the market should figure that part out too.

John Tierney

I mean, I agree that, uh, the people do underestimate their risk for some things, but with COVID, it’s the reverse. The surveys show people vastly overestimate their risk, and the most bizarre thing is that young people are more afraid of COVID than older people, even though their risk is so small. So I don’t think people underestimated the risk of COVID.

Enbal Shacham

I think yet, um… when we ha- … Uh, the older adults that were vaccinated, since, uh, most… the vast majority of them have been vaccinated, they shouldn’t be at con- … as concerned as their risk of getting COVID. I, I, you know, I think one of the important things, also, when we’re talking about how do we assess risk, we’re not really informative. We, um… I- in helping people understand that very well, we a- assumed when we were developing these vaccines… When they went out and said, “We’re gonna develop these vaccines in warp speed,” that was amazing, right? What an amazing, um, feat of scien- … (laughs) scientific feat. We expected maybe 50% effective, um, vaccines, and what we ended up with was 90%. And now, mind you, you know, viruses are smart, and they adapt to certain situations. And so they’ll, they’ll manipulate in ways that we can’t predict always, and so I think that, that success has not been, um, one of those moments, you know.

[NEW_PARAGRAPH]To, to en- encourage people to get vaccinated has very challenging and difficult, um, and so that translation of this risk is low if you get vaccine is important. I think if we translate the risk is high (laughs) if you don’t get a vaccine, um, that, that didn’t translate well, and, and most of-

John Donvan

So, so loo- … I, I, I wo- …

Enbal Shacham

… those places did not require a mandate even.

John Donvan

I wanna… I w-

Enbal Shacham

Yeah.

John Donvan

I wanna move on from that point that you’ve made to, to something else because you’ve just made the case, John has made the case, you’ve both made the case that, um, uh, translating science to the public has been problematic and that some of that has to do with who we are as, uh, (laughs) as people and our education system. Some of it has to do with the messages that were coming from, uh, the policymakers, um, a- apparent inconsistency and the perception sometimes that the, uh, messaging was politically motivated. And I wanna bring up the fact that the CDC, um, revised really its benchmark for when, when Omicron is at dangerous levels, and, and they, they set the figure of 200,000 cases per 100,000 people in the population as now kind of a low. Below that is okay, but that’s sort of… before, 200 was really, really problematic.

So they kind of, by fiat, announced, “Well, we’re out of the emergency,” and I, I would like you each to respond to that fact, that there’s a perception that the science, to the degree that it works, to the degree that we know it, to the degree that people are doing their best, uh, comes second s- … often to the politics and the messaging and that that undermines people’s belief in what the scientists are actually saying. And Enbal, can you take that on first?

Enbal Shacham

Sure. I think that’s, um, accurate. So this shift in policy needed to happen from CDC from a political standpoint a- and also r- reacting to being able to live with the, the COVID infection. So we know that we need to live with the COVID infections in our communities. We need to understand how to best do that, so being able to give u- us location specific risk is good. If we’re able to identify, um, where we’re going and saying, “Oh, look. There’s a higher infection rate here, and then there’s a lower infection rate in my home community. So I should h- … wear a mask there,” for example, or, “I should make sure that I’m not going in crowded places that are indoors.” That… Those are those risk assessments that we can make for ourselves.

Now, truly, we have seen the politicization of public health, of healthcare in general, in this pandemic. We’ve seen how if we really reduce the number of, um, tests, (laughs) we aren’t gonna test, we don’t see the number of, um… Our coroners and our medical examiners are, um, appointed and elected, and so… throughout our country, so our death certificates are not consistent. Um, the… And we’re finding there is relationship in political, uh, affiliation of the county in which the coroners and the medical examiners are related to whether they’ve report higher COVID deaths or lower COVID de- deaths in relation to the COVID infection rates. So those pieces are pretty important. Um, you know, the government funds public health. CDC is funded by the government. It’s a federal agency, and every state and local public health agency is funded as a government entity. So it’s always going to have science and, and the care for public, the public good, a- and balancing it out on how we can deliver those messages, and that gets really complicated, I think.

John Donvan

John?

John Tierney

Um, I agree that i- … uh, you know, there’s been a, a, a huge decline in trust by the public, um, of the… o- of scientists and the CDC, and with good reason. I mean, the guidance is changed so arbitrarily. So many things have been said that were not based on good scientific evidence, this assurance that lockdowns work. And I mean, Enbal and I can argue forever, but I, you know… I, I, I don’t think the, the evidence is there for mask mandates either for masks. And they kept insisting this stuff would happen, that it… w- we’d stop COVID, that it would do it, um, and, and the risks were so unrealistic. Uh, uh, y- … There was so much fear mongering by the CDC. The people simply stopped trusting them altogether. And the guidance changed so much, and, and the rationales for doing things changed so much that… And it b- … It became politicized so that you’ve had a real, y- you know, decline in trust, and that’s why I think we need to have a COVID commission to evaluate everything and to restore that trust.

The, uh, y- you know… The media was, y- you know, was terrible on… Is… It was always promoting panic porn, and you would hope that the responsible public health officials would be trying to put the risks in perspective, you know, that, I mean, if-

John Donvan

Okay. (laughs)

John Tierney

(laughs)

John Donvan

I, I just wanna point out that th- … I’m hearing the two of you agree on this point, and, and-

John Tierney

Yeah.

John Donvan

… and that’s a kind of wonderful place to be wrapping up the conversation. But I wanna add one more question that kind of looks down to the future before we do that. I’ll put it to you first, John. W- when would… When will… I- in the future, if there is another pandemic, at what point would you agree that it is an emergency and that extraordinary measures broadly across society are required?

John Tierney

Um, uh, it’s, um… I’m not sure what number you have. I mean, d- … uh, uh, i- … Uh, I think th- the most important thing I would do for the next pandemic is you should be carefully monitoring these things. You should prepare for… One thing we could do is have more-

John Donvan

No. That… You’re telling me what you would do. I’m asking you how-

John Tierney

Yeah.

John Donvan

… you would define it.

John Tierney

We- well, I’m trying to th- … I mean, I don’t know what, uh, you know… what level of, u- um… I mean, to come up with a number right now for what the, uh, uh, uh… of the level of excess death, I mean, I would do… I- I mean, I would, um… I would’ve done what Sweden did, you know. They looked and saw who was dying, and they i- i- … um, uh, they suggested people to s- … i- … uh, to work from home, to do the least invasive, uh, uh, measures first. Uh, you look, you try to protect the population at risk. You see… I mean, you, you try to find out immediately how lethal is this virus and, y- you know, and who is at risk from it, and you need to find that out right away and, and, and, and act accordingly.

And I think one of the biggest mistakes we made and what I would do next time is, the idea that people can’t be trusted. One of the things we saw w- … in places like Sweden, they trusted their citizens. If we give you the information, we tell you there’s a threat here, we tell you there’s a virus circulate, people did respond without being ordered to, without y- … Um, a- and, and it worked. I mean, Sweden is… h- h- had… h- has some of the lowest excess mortality in Europe throughout this pandemic, and they ha- … and they had the least restrictions. They trusted their citizens to get a proper information and act accordingly, and we don’t… we d-

John Donvan

But you… But you’re… But you’re… Y- you’re not… You’re kind of not, u- uh, rising to the occasion of telling me when it’s an emergency. I’m not necessarily looking for a specific number, but more sort of qualitative sense. You know, we… I, I would describe back in 2020 that, suddenly, um, the world was caught up in this thing. The numbers were growing quickly. We didn’t know what to do about it. We didn’t have responses to it, and we felt that we were in an emergency. We went into a defensive crouch. Do you see that scenario repeating? Is there a point at which you would say, “Yeah, this is all, all sirens flashing and all lights flashing. This is an emergency,” or do you think we’ll never come to that point again?

John Tierney

Um, I- I- I, um, I don’t know when we’ll come to this point again or if we will. Um, I would say that if a new virus appears that appears to be very infectious and more lethal than normal, w- … sh- … we should monitor carefully, tell the public what’s going on. One might, a- as a precaution early on, try to ban large gatherings of people, but other than that, I would not lock down society. I would not close schools. Um, as I say, the CDC plan, even if the Spanish flu pandemic, w- we shouldn’t do that. We shouldn’t be ordering these things. We should tell people the information and let people respond as best as they can ’cause I think people… well, people will make better decisions than y- … uh, u- uh, than, uh, uh, than two officials in Washington ordering everyone what to do.

John Donvan

Thanks, John. And Enbal, same question to you. I- if there’s a s- … resurgence or a new g- … uh, uh, variant or a new virus starts to threaten pandemic proportions, at what point do we know it’s an emergency?

Enbal Shacham

I think we know when i- it’s emergency when, when we’re able to say, “Oh, there are a lot of sick people,” basically, right? So if we aren’t measuring if there are ill peo- … uh, sickness in communities, then we won’t know. And when we’re transitioning into COVID rates, um, and infections rates, we’re, we’re transitioning to monitoring them weekly, and that’s going to give us, uh, uh, less sensitivity. But what we can ultimately say is that we need systems of care that are, um, really these early sensing systems that are predicting and preventing, um, outbreaks within this current pandemic, but f- … in future, we’ll be able to identify, “Hey, there’s a new virus. Something n- new is happening. We’re gonna do the science, and we’re going to study, uh, what we can and identify what are… what are the, uh… what is this virus. Can we identify the virus? Can we identify who’s being affected?” much like what we already did for COVID.

And I think that is hard to remember, that that was a tremendous feat, um, in and of itself, and so we are a global community and figuring out how do we care for one another in that space by sharing data and sharing insights on how and what we know about different viruses. And how they’re acting and causing morbidity and mortality in different communities is really r- … ultimately important.

John Donvan

John and Enbal, y- you d- … you, you disagree on a lot, but interestingly, you agree in some fundamental ways on the need for better education, smarter policy, more information, um, m- m- more science. You’re both on the same page about that, so I, I wanna leave this on the notion that the two of you can shake hands because you’ve-

Enbal Shacham

(laughs)

John Donvan

… conducted this conversation (laughs) in a way that-

John Tierney

(laughs)

John Donvan

… really shows mutual respect, which is what we aim for on Intelligence Squared. You heard each other out, at least to the degree that you were actually responding to one another’s points. I wanna thank both of you, uh, John Tierney and Enbal Shacham, for taking part in this conversation with Intelligence Squared. Thank you so much.

John Tierney

Thank you. I enjoyed it.

Enbal Shacham

Thanks so much. Take care.

John Donvan

And I- I’m John Donvan. I wanna remind those of you who are listening that we, uh, are d- doing these debates all the time and that we rely on your support to help us do that. We would love it if you could help support us by going to our website, IQ2US.org, where you can make a donation. Also, you can become a member and have access to some exclusive events that we put together for members only. Uh, we’re keeping going. We’re doing this, um, pandemic or not. Emergency or not, we’re going forward, and we’re gonna continue putting together wonderful, interesting, informative, light-shedding debates for you. I’m John Donvan. ‘Til next time, this is Intelligence Squared.

I wanna thank you in our audience for tuning into this episode of Intelligence Squared. I hope that you have enjoyed it just as much as we did. Intelligence Squared is generously funded by listeners like you, member of Intelligence Squared, academic institutions and other partners, and by the Rosenkranz Foundation. Clea Conner is our CEO. David Ariosto is our head of editorial. Amy Kraft is chief of staff and head of production. Shea O’Meara and Marlette Sandoval are our producers. Kim Strempel is our production coordinator. Damon Whitmore is our audio producer. Robert Rosenkranz is our chairman, and I’m your host, John Donvan. We’ll see you next time.