I am completely panicked that one of the multiple opinions referenced in this article differs from mine. There ought to be a law!
I think there's plenty of reason for concern about this. I don't know anything about Schmidt specifically, and he's certainly just one voice among thousands of other public health experts. But the more instances you see of "wokeness" or any kind of political sentiments pervading itself into the opinions of people whose responsibilities should be focused explicitly on science and facts is troubling. That his opinion was deemed significant enough to be published in the NYT raises red flags for me.
It's all part of the same trend. Just like when hundreds of public health professionals signed on to a declaration that essentially said "protesting for racial injustice supersedes pandemic protocols", this kind of overstep is grossly inappropriate. But my concern isn't that public health professionals, and the "science" community at large is going to be hi-jacked by wokeness or any other political operatives that drive decisions that would otherwise be reckless. My concern is that at a time when so much of the country needs to be able to defer to these professionals, they're doing a great of damaging their own credibility through their own actions. Separation of science and politics is something the left rightly advocates for. But dumping that mantra when it's politically convenient is a big fucking problem.
I'm no fan of "wokeness" and I think it's a pretty stupid statement too. That said, preferring essential workers to the elderly is a no brainer in my opinion, so I basically agree with his conclusion.
And of course "essential" workers includes pretty much all government workers.
Comments