We Need to Talk About Forgiveness

We haven’t even begun to address the profound existential problems uncovered by the pandemic

Since November first, Substack and Twitter has been ablaze with controversy unleashed by an Atlantic magazine article arguing for Covid Forgiveness. Written by a Brown University economist, Professor Emily Oster. I am compelled to point out why it doesn’t do the subject matter—that we all made mistakes during the pandemic and need to ‘forgive’ each other in order to move on—any justice. And why that matters.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/covid-response-forgiveness/671879/

However, I give her credit for wading into a wicked problem. She is a not your typical Covid villain. Her website says EMILY OSTER IS AN ECONOMICS PROFESSOR AT BROWN UNIVERSITY, AND A WRITER OF BOOKS ON PREGNANCY AND PARENTING. HER GOAL: CREATING A WORLD OF MORE RELAXED PREGNANT WOMEN AND PARENTS.

Professor Emily Oster

That sounds like a worthy set of goals though I fail to understand why an economist would hand out advice to parents. Be that as it may, Professor Oster was also active in getting schools reopened during the pandemic. Which shows her as an engaged person, a strong member of society who takes action when needed. The problem begins when she starts telling society at large how to handle the sore subject of forgiveness.

Since this article was published, no less than three other substack colleagues whom I follow have weighed in, so I am rather late to the party. Here are the links, and I do recommend reading them.

Dissecting the Deceptive Plea for COVID-19 Amnesty

What types of people would want to declare a Pandemic Amnesty?

Must Read: The Atlantic Asks for COVID Amnesty – Emily Burns Says "No Thank You"

Let me be clear: I am not against forgiveness. I think it is an essential aspect of getting along in any society. And trying to figure out how to forgive the people responsible for the catastrophic way the pandemic was managed is a conundrum many of us are wrestling with. But I am also for being frank and honest and above all, critical, about the way that forgiveness is framed. And the way Professor Oster chooses to frame it is one sided, selective, and to be charitable, shallow and not always correct. And rather convenient for the class of people she represents: the managerial professional class.

Sorry, but this is a class issue. It wasn’t the people driving taxis, collecting garbage and manning the tills that decided how the pandemic was handled. It was the professional class, the politicians and above all, the Public Health Officials. And they have been remarkably slow to admit any culpability. As they see it, they tried hard to do ‘the right thing’ and therefore, whatever mistakes they might have made, well, we should forgive them. I think Oster is sincere and well-meaning in the way such people always are: they really do believe that they know better and are uniquely qualified to tell the rest of us how to live. After all, she has an advanced degree from Harvard and most of us don’t. So, who are we to question her? Who am I to dare throw doubt on her article? Who are we to question The Science™ ?

Oh, please allow me tell you!

The first thing to note is that Professor Oster keeps the theme focused on the personal, as if the rest of us cared that her family, who are no doubt highly intelligent, thought it right and proper to wear masks outdoors while hiking. Even us, the not Harvard crowd, knew by the middle of 2020 that the efficacy of wearing masks indoors was itself doubtful and downright crazy outdoors. We do have a huge information system called the Internet and it was rife with dissident opinions even back then. Somehow, Professor Oster didn’t notice the intellectual dissonance; she kept hiking with her family swathed in masks. To put it politely, that is simply weird.

And furthermore, it’s no way to frame a public health issue that to this day hasn’t been honestly discussed nor resolved. I still have to wear masks the minute I enter any kind of health setting, no matter how empty it might be. The intellectual confusion about efficacy is ongoing since the truth about how ineffective masks really are has never publicly been admitted by our so-called Public Health experts, scientists all. I have taken to viewing people who choose to wear masks even when they don’t have to as either very frightened or very stupid, or both. It’s not really their fault. And in the sense that they have been repeatedly lied to, I do ‘forgive’ them. Because what has happened is a massive failure of accountability by those very same Public Health experts.

To summarize, Oster just isn’t going to admit that most disagreements surrounding the pandemic are highly charged political issues that cry out for a political mea culpa. Forgiveness is only possible if there is genuine contrition. This is not happening, not here, not anywhere, except maybe in Florida where the governor, Ron de Santis, has decided that common sense rather than Harvard trained scientists are going to rule. Ironic, given the fact that he is a Harvard graduate himself. And in the Canadian province of Alberta, where the newly elected Premier, Danielle Smith, is waging a fierce battle against the Covid orthodoxy now called ‘the new normal’.

The second, more serious failure of this piece is that it simply ignores the pernicious, undemocratic and ongoing oppression re vaccine mandates and vaccine effectiveness. Somehow, that doesn’t enter into her discussion at all because she chooses to focus on why school closures were a bad idea. That is indeed the case; and maybe she only ever thinks about children and therefore we, the adults that were damaged by the ‘lawful’ imposition of vaccine mandates don’t count. She seems to believe that the most important aspect of the vaccine wars was deciding which kind of vaccine brand was better. Not a word about vaccine deaths, excess deaths, or any deaths except those resulting from mainlining Clorox, for that matter. Even the ultra conservative and super careful Dr Campbell calls the ominous silence on the continuing epidemic of excess deaths in the face of almost total vaccination ‘bizarre and inexplicable’.

Furthermore, Professor Oster hasn’t heard about the successful, utterly undemocratic imposition of permanent Covid vaccine mandates for children by the WHO, now adopted by the CDC. Several States have already said they will ignore this new regime, but nonetheless, shouldn’t she be discussing this in light of her concern for children’s safety? There is not a word here about why children do not need Covid vaccines, nor the terrible damage that some children suffer post vaccination. Some even die. Where is the good professor on this subject, I wonder. Again, this is a toxic issue that isn’t being honestly tackled by our Public Health officials. There is a deafening silence or meek submission to an unelected body of odious experts, as well as an ongoing suppression of ‘misinformation’, which is basically censorship. As the new boss of Twitter, I gather Elon Musk is taking that on but he’s not going to have an easy time. Laws that define ‘misinformation’ to favour the political class that decides what the ‘correct narrative’ is are already in the works.

Yes, we must forgive, Dr Oster. But not before there is a wide, deep, and above all, honest admission that just about everything that was done to Jo Public by Public Health officials was deeply flawed, often unnecessary and sometimes downright hostile. In Canada, the Truckers and their supporters are still those with ‘unacceptable views’, just ask Trudeau. He invoked a war on his own citizens and many of them were fine with it. That is ‘unacceptable’ to me. The trust that is essential to the functioning of society was wasted and trampled upon. And now we’re just supposed to wave our hands and ‘move on’?

Really???

The Oster article ends like this:

The standard saying is that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. But dwelling on the mistakes of history can lead to a repetitive doom loop as well. Let’s acknowledge that we made complicated choices in the face of deep uncertainty, and then try to work together to build back and move forward.

Deep uncertainty? No dear Professor, it was deep certainty about the rule of The Science™that is science as dogma, that is to blame. There was too much certainty in the places where power resides, notably among the modelers of reality called quants. The people our panicked politicians listened to instead of engaging in a sane discussion with people who had other ideas, like those who signed the Great Barrington Declaration. But no, the modellers won out though their predictions were always wrong. Oster knows them well, she is actually one of them because she believes unequivocally in data. Well, yes, data is indeed crucial to our understanding of the world. But what if those collecting it and drawing conclusions are driven by political bias and a flawed agenda? Because that is what has happened and continues to happen.

And that is where the more profound problems fester. We are actually going to have to decide what we believe in. What we stand for even when attacked. And also, whom we are going to trust. Is it Science and Big Data as a dogma or is it something we used to call Human Values? That include spiritual values? That are part of our unique, western system of justice, liberty and equality? Or are we now so far gone into the New Puritanism that we can’t even see it for what it is?

That is the much more urgent and complex discussion that is upon us and which this article doesn’t serve. Someone who is far better at articulating our deeper problems is, once again, Dr McGilchrist. And just in time, he has released a short YouTube post that addresses the issue I am aiming at with his usual grace and good humour:

Pace Professor Oster and her ilk. They do mean well. And I think we should forgive her for this flawed attempt at a treacherously complicated theme. But beware of scientists saving the world. They are intelligent people doing important work, but as mere scientists, they are uniquely ill equipped to do any world saving whatsoever. And that’s not their fault; it’s ours for elevating them to a position they should not and could not ever fulfill.

We need people with larger ideas, those who can roam freely across science as well as the humanities. We need a few Renaissance People who are unafraid to stray outside narrowly defined expertise. Who actually have never thought inside the box we find ourselves in.

This means nothing short of rethinking our most cherished beliefs, and questioning our most sacred cows. Science is just one of them. To truly forgive, we must understand what went wrong and why. That is the long task ahead of us. But in the short term, we have to hear a clear, resounding mea culpa, we did that and we won’t do that again, from the professional class, the politicians, and above all, the unelected, all powerful Public Health Officials. Because if we want to avoid a repeat of the horrors of the last two and a half years, we had better be very clear about what it actually was and who did what to whom.

Only then can we begin to travel on the winding road towards true forgiveness.