Both, human nature and human custom,
has constraints and boundaries which keep reminding us of human imperfection
and of the fragility of real communities. Pessimism is the recognition that
these constraints and boundaries make impossible any planned, rational
transformation of society. However, history is replete with examples where
societies have been transformed through the belief that we can advance
collectively to our goals by adopting a common plan, and by working towards it.
Optimism is therefore the key to change and transformation while pessimism
guards the hierarchy and status quo. As they say, excess of everything is bad,
so is true for optimism and pessimism, which is why there is a concept of
realism.
On 26 September, the Free Press
Journal published a news article saying that “The renowned medical journal,
Lancet, has cautioned India on the danger of presenting the current pandemic situation
with too positive a spin. It not only clouds reality but also hampers vital
public health initiatives.” The link can be found at https://www.freepressjournal.in/india/india-is-creating-a-false-optimism-reputed-medical-journal-lancet-on-indias-handling-of-the-pandemic. Having carried out some forecasting for
COVID-19 cases in April and May 2020, purely for academic joy, this news report
intrigued me and motivated me to look up at the “THE LANCET” caution.
“The LANCET” which began as an independent,
international weekly general medical journal in 1823, claims to make science
widely available so that medicine can serve, and transform society, and
positively impact the lives of people.
People in general and decision makers
around the world have a great regard for “The Lancet” which has over time
evolved as a family of journals across various medical and health specialities.
“The LANCET” has captioned its
editorial to Vol. 396, September 26, 2020, on p. 867 as “COVID-19 in India: the
dangers of false optimism.”
First things first – this is an
editorial opinion and not a piece of research. An editorial opinion is
expressed with the purpose of influencing public opinion and public-policy and
may not be taken as non-purposive or unbiased. While this editorial makes some
palpable hits, it is hard to separate the wheat of philosophical wisdom from
the chaff of prejudice.
Next – it is a well accepted cardinal
principle that false optimism is fraught with peril. False pessimism is equally
fraught with peril. If the fallacies of optimism are human universals, what is
more corrupting is not the attempt to do the impossible, but the failure even
to attempt it. Progressive changes, however, rarely happen by chance. History
is a narrative of humans rationally and consciously transforming the world. To
give up on "goal-directed policies and politics" is to give up
possibilities of betterment.
The example of DG of ICMR envisaging
launching a coronavirus vaccine on Aug 15, quoted by The LANCET, is surely an
optimism of "unscrupulous" form, but questioning the lower
case-fatality-rate in India because it is lower than the reported rate in other
(western) countries is unscientific. In order to support such unscientific
opinion, The LANCET goes on to suspect the entire COVID-19 data from India and
suggests that this number is a political spin.
Case-fatality-rate is the ratio of
deaths to cases; and its lower value would mean lower deaths for same number of
cases. It could also be lower if the reported number of cases is higher for
same number of deaths. What is The LANCET alleging – is India under-reporting
deaths or over-reporting cases?
A scientific mind should question
previous results in face of new data rather than the reliability of the new
data unless one is sure that the previous data was more reliable than the new
data. Data is the message and data-reports are brought by messengers; new data
should lead to questioning of results, not the message.
Is this pessimism of some
“unscrupulous” kind clouding the mindset of LANCET which is unwilling to accept
that India might be making headway in war against COVID-19 leaving behind the
expected leaders of any such success?
How would The LANCET react if one
were to say that this editorial is a political spin against India’s success to
protect the world’s perception of traditional western supremacy?
Is The LANCET advocating that, rather
than seeking utopian solutions, radical alternatives or bold initiatives, India
should muddle through with “compromise and half measures” mindful that no
ultimate solutions are up for grabs?
Is The LANCET proposing for India to
be “a community without convictions” marked by irony and subservience?
The LANCET is posturing as if it is
exposing the blindness and the hypocrisies of the Indian politics, but its
editors seem to be notorious for never acknowledging that there might be some
too in the developed west. The LANCET’s editorial calling India’s COVID-19
numbers as ‘false optimism’ lacks logical or scientific reasoning and suffers
from survivorship bias of quantitative back-testing using past indices.
I am neither a leftist nor a
rightist. I hold no brief for India or its political class, but I do wish to
raise my voice as a citizen of India, which has held on to traditions of
conservative political philosophy but, which is unwilling to shut her eyes to
continued propagation of western supremacy, who have tried to make heaven on
earth, and ended up making it hell.
(First published 28 Sep 2020)
-----------------------------------------
“Likes”
"Follows" "Shares" and "Comments" welcome.
We hope the
conversations that take place will be energetic, constructive, and
thought-provoking. To ensure the quality of the discussion, comments may be
edited for clarity, length, and relevance. Comments that are overly
promotional, mean-spirited, or off-topic may be deleted.
Labels: coronavirus, COVID-19, General, Media Ethics, Networked Disinformation, Politics, Public Discourse, Social
