(Dr. Fauci is honored by President Bush for his role in locking down SARS)

Since everything is political in these last three months before the election, it is interesting to look back at this remarkable year. It is equally interesting that simply remarking on this tumultuous six months is fraught with controversy. It is a pretty cool social evolution.

I suppose I need to insert the usual disclaimer before venturing further. I have been sheltering at home, for the most part, leaving Refuge Farm only to participate in medical visits and essential procurements. I avoid crowds, practice social distancing and wear a mask when around other humans, particularly inside.

I have adopted these common-sense practices to be polite to those with different views, and specifically as a matter of self-defense against viral contagion. Not because the Governor made it a matter of law for the citizens in this jurisdiction. It is a national hodgepodge. I saw one Governor specify that mask-wearing was required even in private residences.

When I had the opportunity to work with Dr. Fauci and his staff on the SARS epidemic back in 2003, some people were still calling him “Tony.” I just called him Doctor. I was not there as a medical expert, but was working the similarities between epidemiologist and all-source intelligence analyst to see how we could better support the response effort to things that might be coming. Remember Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome? It was interesting and more than a little scary. It was generally described as “an infectious disease with symptoms including fever and cough, and in some cases progressing to pneumonia and respiratory failure…caused by a coronavirus.”

There was a time in our current mess when SARS was appended to the long string of related symptoms attributed to COVID-19. That brought the current epidemic around to those endless days of finding the answers through science and endless staff meetings. Dr. Fauci was concerned then that the use of quarantine in response to SARs might be more dangerous to the population as a whole than allowing things to take their course with a common-sense approach.

In the meetings in which the “Q word” was discussed, it was recognized that there were multiple options. The judgement at the time was to avoid the Q in the interest of continuing mostly normal life.

The judgement this time was to impose it, and to make non-compliance a matter for legal sanctions in some areas.

As I said, I follow the commonsense approach anyway, but have the same reservations the experts had about SARs.

That is a public health matter. Except when it isn’t. I was reviewing a paper written by one of the medical experts over the weekend, and it brought it all back. The key to formulating effective public policy is, of course, accurate data on which to base it. What I have seen in this national debate is that the data streams appear to lack cohesion.

We have seen reporting from Florida, for example, that motorcycle fatalities have been attributed to COVID. The first such revelation was a bit surprising, though subsequent reporting suggested it was one death among many. We also have known for some time that people who have died from other medical causes- diabetes and heart ailments- may also have been positive for COVID exposure. These cases also were reported as COVID deaths, even if that was only a part of the problem.

I understand that the allocation of financial aid was determined by the perceived need. Accordingly, a factor not directly related to the virus impacted the data stream. It got worse for unambiguous data when people with antibodies to COVID- meaning they had been exposed to the disease- were reported in the same stream as patients with active cases.

So, I think it is fair to say that my confidence in policy is directly affected by the accuracy of the data. That would have been a major factor in the response to SARs. It certainly was a major factor in this one.

What does it matter? I don’t know with any certainty. I do know that the remarkable tool of placing citizens under a form of house-arrest raises all sorts of other possibilities. The election is in there, naturally, as are new and unproven means of conducting one in a hurry.

Like I say, I am following a commonsense approach to health safety. I am hoping it works. But I will always remember the caution that Dr. Fauci expressed to our working groups about the consequences of the Q Word.

I guess we are going to see, aren’t we?

Copyright 2020 Vic Socotra
http://www.vicsocotra.com