Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

Trump is my president. Let’s talk

In a democracy, the democratically elected president is the president. Citizens who reject this, promote an agenda against democracy itself.

I am a U.S. citizen and therefore Trump is currently as of October 2025, my president. This is the reality whether I like it or not. Trump is the democratically elected president of the United States. He won an election unanimously that was relatively uncontested by observers, and for the first time ever he is a Republican candidate who would still have won even if all non-voters had voted.

A common slogan in recent anti-Trump protests is “Not my president“. The slogan “Not my president” is a symbolic rejection of democracy. The (mostly Democrat voting) protestors reject the results of a democratic process. The implications of this protest message, are that the protestors would suspend democracy to have a different outcome if they could. The reason that it is ‘OK’ in this case to suspend democracy would be because Trump is “wrong”, “evil” or  “unhinged“. These are the same protestors who bewail the decline of democracy BTW.

The mass January 6th protest against the 2020 election results, and insurrection by those who tried to or forcibly enter the Capitol, is basically the same. It was based on rejection by (the mostly Republican voting) protestors of the Democratic election result of Biden as president. It, like the “Not my president” slogan, was a rejection of the Democratic system itself. Because one group did not like the outcome. The implications are that we should throw out democracy to have a different outcome.

The two sides who are regularly protesting one another because they see democracy as under threat, engage in protest messages and actions that themselves threaten democracy. Protest is a foundational element of democracy – a human right in my opinion. But I a skeptical of these democratic protests that seem to hypocritically suggest we suspend democracy. 

We, the U.S., are in a state of historically unprecedented partisan division. Each side claims moral authority, and in doing so rules out the opinions and preferences of the other side as illegitimate and wrong.

This is not a formula for democracy nor a cohesive society. It eliminates the possibility of communication. And communication is one of two ways to resolve conflict – the other being domination (conflict, elimination of the opposing position).

A necessary condition for successful communication is that all opinions are valid. That each person has a legitimate right to have any opinion. That it is OK to disagree with each others’ opinions, but that it is not OK to claim moral authority that others’ opinions are wrong (nonsense, evil, unethical, stupid, insane, etc.). By ‘not OK’, I mean, not OK to be shared in a communicative setting, leading to communication breakdown and conflict (mobilization, domination, war, etc.).

If someone says that they think black people are dangerous, untrustworthy and criminals; or that women and men should fulfill certain roles in society and families as dictated by genes and chromosomes, or by God; or if they say that children should not be allowed to change gender, especially not take puberty-delaying drugs. I will only effectively communicate with them if recognize their opinions as valid and provide a safe space for them to share these opinions. To try and understand why they have them, and to seek a way forward that doesn’t require them to give up their opinion because I say so.

If someone says that black people have been systematically oppressed, that race is not an essential feature of human beings and is instead socially constructed; or that it is right for the government to promote equality; or that we should ignore gender in social life and treat men and women identically in all situations. I again will only make progress in communication when recognizing these opinions as valid and create a safe space for them to be shared.

If I am not willing to sit that my opinion has no ultimate truth to it, or that it is morally or intellectually superior to others’ opinions, I am not supporting democratic society, but instead my own vision of a society where I dictate opinion for others. That’s not democracy. So I question what we are doing with claiming when we claim that our position is right and others are wrong, and thinking that this is a democratic process.

Image AI credit

The ISA should not ban scientific associations for failing to take political stances.

On June 29th, 2025, just one week before its World Forum in Rabat, Morocco, the International Sociological Association (ISA) leadership banned the Israeli Sociological Society (ISS).

The reason is that the ISS did not take “a clear position condemning the dramatic situation in Gaza.” In other words, that they are not taking a position in direct opposition to and protest of their own government. Although there are reasons that some would want to take such a position, in particular the incredible humanitarian crisis in Gaza, it is not fair to punish a scientific organization for not taking this position. In other words, not fair to try and force a scientific organization to mix itself in with politics. I can think of three concrete reasons.

  1. Science itself should prioritize inquiry, not political action. We conduct research and develop theories, that is science. Sociology is the science of society and social interaction. Therefore, sociologists should (continue to) engage with the war and humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza. They should try to present facts to answer the questions: What is happening there? Who is affected? Are the actions of the Israeli military in violation of the Geneva Convention? Is this a genocide? To blackmail other scientists to force them to take political action or face consequences to their participation in science and scientific exchange, runs counter to prioritization of inquiry in science.
  2. Scientists taking political positions could be in danger. In particular in authoritarian, or martial law settings, scientists who stand up against their government put not only their scientific enterprise at risk, but also their lives and their families’ lives potentially at risk. The ISA is demanding that members of the ISS take actions that could lead to their Society facing funding cuts or being cancelled altogether. Even worse, the ISA is demanding that Israeli sociologists take a position counter to their government in the middle of one of a radically politically charged historical moments – it is asking them to potentially put their lives as risk.
  3. Where do we draw the lines of where to take political action? If a humanitarian crisis and what appears to some scholars as a genocide are conditions for taking political action on part of the ISA, where do we draw the line? Why does the ISA not ban all Myanmar sociologists from participating because of the situation of the Rohingya? Perhaps even more perplexing are the odd exceptions: The ISS is banned, but what if an Israeli sociologist is not a member, can they participate? Perhaps someone forgot to pay their membership dues this year but was a member before. Can they participate? What about the United States and Germany? These are the greatest allies of Israel, why are they not banned? What about Russia invading Ukraine? These questions are rhetorical, because this is a Pandora’s box that is infinite and quickly digresses into everyone getting banned.

In fairness, there is a humanitarian disaster going on in Gaza. It is tragic for all the innocent bystanders swept up in it. Those who have been kidnapped, killed, harmed by bombing. Its awful to watch. But I am not writing this in regards to any political movement or government. I am writing this to defend science, which I see as my responsibility.

Democracy needs harmony first. Other issues second.

We live in a time of intense division. At least most of us perceive this to be true. Media is smeared with divisive messages, warnings and threats suggesting imminent destruction of society. Why? Because those terrible other groups are destroying it we are told.

Disagreement, discussion and conflict are productive for collective decision-making up to a point. But when emotions and conflicts escalate too far, discussion ends and war begins. Once sides become entrenched, progress comes to a halt and society is at risk of breakdown. The scenario of an internal war breaking out in a rich democratic society might seem far fetched, but keep in mind that it almost happened on Jan. 6th in the United States.

Even if an armed civil war does not happen, there are social, cultural and political wars already raging, especially on social media where the enemy is not seen face-to-face but consumed in the form of media messages and then constructed in our minds. I remember the first time I was accused of being part of a cultural Marxist conspiracy, because I was “woke”. What a wake up call.

Social harmony and integration of different perspectives must be the ultimate


It would be ideal if we could heal racism, sexism and other -isms. We in the behavioral and social sciences know how. This would simply require people across all ages to repeatedly throughout the course of their life to take courses and personal time to reflect deeply on their biases, discuss these biases with others who have same and different biases, and actively listen to others’ struggles with oppressive and prejudiced treatments (including the stories of white people feeling mistreated).

Now as a reader I ask you to briefly set aside your ideas about being “woke” or not, what you think is the correct moral imperative for society, and what you know is true about social injustice in the world. I ask you to instead be “awake” with me for a moment. Do you think a scenario where we all just give up our personal priorities and go into some kind of collective harmonic oppression therapy on a regular basis, where we heal from all forms of trauma and overcome social biases? Its ridiculously unrealistic.

People like me who have pushed for social justice have taken this for granted. Just because this would be an effective method to heal racial and other intersectional prejudices and injustices, does not mean it is possible. The general agenda of movements pushing for diversity, equity and inclusion has proven to be too unrealistic for the society we live in.

Read the statement again:

This would simply require people across all ages to repeatedly throughout the course of their life to take courses and personal time to reflect deeply on their biases, discuss these biases with others who have same and different biases, and actively listen to others’ struggles with oppressive and prejudiced treatments (including the stories of white people feeling mistreated).

This is what it would really take to move past the historical oppressions and traumas that are embedded in modern democratic societies, which were mostly founded on certain land owning men having democratic rights and everyone else beholden to them, with some used for slave labor. In other words, these issues run deep, they are historical, they have collective trauma and they required violence to maintain.

No campaign, no curriculum, and no ideology will ever fully convince most people that they are (a) racist at times and (b) that they need to do something about it. And those that are openly racist, certainly will not be willing to take any actions or support spending public money on it. And if you force them, they are even less willing to learn or change. I’m sorry to say, but most people have other things on their agendas. I wish this were not the case, but that’s reality.

This is a critical juncture. The movements pushing for diversity, equity and inclusion wanted to reduce group-based prejudice and discrimination. Not a bad goal in my opinion. These movements took many steps in that direction that could have helped achieve this goal, but it upset many segments of society. They went too far. There was a backlash.

There are still many people in the U.S. who believe that white families should own black slaves. And although such people are rare, it is likely that a majority of people racialized as white believe that persons with dark skin are genetically inferior. That they are essentially a single race with features that they are born with that make them less reliable and potentially dangerous. White people who think this way – the average white person I would guess whether they admit it or not – are triggered by social justice movements, especially those targeting race or gender identity. Especially if they themselves are struggling to make ends meet, telling them they are “the problem” is certain to piss them off.

I wish these things were not true, but this is reality. Such people are triggered and fueled by media fear-mongering playing up the threat of social justice movements. One outcome of this fear was a monumental swing in votes so that the Presidency, House and Senate all went Republican in 2024; and not just Republican Party but a certain brand of politics that is radically opposed to social justice movements that push for diversity, equity and inclusion. The first order of business was then not surprisingly to remove two decades worth of policies to push for social justice.

I say “critical juncture” , because society should go on. We must live together somehow, despite this reality. I say “must” because any other option would require removing certain groups from society. Trying to remove racist white men from society is just as racist as trying to oppress those with dark skin. We cannot remove racism through voting or arguing. It is a feature of society that nobody controls, it just exists.

Most of what I read online and hear from people is how awful things are. Those opposed to the social justice movements for diversity and inclusion see them as awful, and those who support the movements see those opposed as awful. Hate, hate and more hate. I cannot tell you how many of my close colleagues and friends, many with PhDs, constantly state that anyone that voted for the current U.S. president is disgusting, morally vacuous, and fucked in the head. They claim absolute moral superiority without discussion.

This reaction is so strong, that it appears to me that there is a complete lack of respect for other people, or understanding of why others voted the way they did. There is an unwillingness to discuss politics with such people on equal ground in a manner that respects their right to opine and vote for whomever they want. The groups tend to see the other as sick and/or morally inferior. If this remains or deepens in intensity, I will not be surprised if armed conflicts ensue, or perhaps worse, that we democratically vote ourselves into a dictatorship. Some kind of dystopian Hitler 2.0.


Social harmony and integration of different perspectives must be the ultimate priority in a democracy, and especially right now. The key decision-rule when deciding how to proceed in any policymaking or political discussions has to be to first accept and embrace others’ right to think and say how they feel, and vote for what they want. Otherwise, the only other option is war until one side is defeated and removed.

If we are to co-exist, it has become logically obvious to me that some issues that people deeply care about like abortion, public education, public health care, racism, sexism, transgender issues and more – many with profound moral stakes – have to take a backseat to the stability of the system as a whole. Without a stable system, it no longer matters whether abortion is legal because the end of society and democracy means mob rule. Mob rule is the end of the rule of law, where anything goes and people will become slaves of the most powerful gangs. Governance and democracy is there to prevent mob rule in the first place.

To suggest that the intensity of fighting for certain issues needs to be toned down, or to suggest that they might need to be shifted down the priority list is painful to write for me. I have spent my life deeply concerned about race and social justice. I studied African-American Studies and Sociology in college and Sociology and Political Science in graduate school and my focus has been on social inequality. I had not until recently considered that my ideas for society and policies might be simply impossible. If so, it is absurd and potentially dangerous to push for them.

What to do. I need to work on accepting and integrating the fact that people are racist and I (we) cannot change that much into my plans for what would be ideal policies and behaviors in society.

That does not mean prejudice and discrimination are not important nor morally wrong in my opinion, nor that abortion and other issues should not be discussed in society. It means instead that if pushing these issues too hard reduces social stability and harmony so much that society collapses, then they need to be set aside or at least reduced in intensity in the name of harmony.

Above: remains of a once vast and impressive society, governed by an early form of Democracy. Long laid to waste due to a lack of harmony.


Democracy is not based on agreement. It is also not based on cleansing society of those with opposing viewpoints. It works because people accept that others have different viewpoints, and that it is okay to disagree. It is a system designed to contain conflict, not to eliminate it. That means it only survives when tolerance and harmony are treated as priorities above ideological battles, moral righteousness, and sometimes social justice. We need to admit we disagree but that we are still going to work together despite that.

I personally would prefer to prioritize social justice, but if the cost is the end of democracy, I need to admit that it sometimes is not an option.

Racism exists, religious hatred exists, ridiculous fighting across political parties exists. But no solution to these problems is possible in a society that has collapsed under the weight of its own infighting. There is no justice in war. No equality in tyranny.

Putting harmony first is not a way of ignoring injustice, but as a way of preserving the conditions in which justice, tolerance and knowledge can grow and spread.


While global governance and international cooperation matter, we don’t have global governance that has any real power. The nation-state remains the most powerful unit in our world. It is where laws are made, where rights are protected or denied, where armies are mobilized, and where media and education systems are anchored.

If a country falls into civil war or dictatorship, nothing else matters. That’s why harmony must be cultivated within each country first. Stable nations become better neighbors. They are more predictable, more cooperative, and less aggressive. So harmony within nations becomes a foundation for peace between them.

Here is another case of certain priorities taking a back seat. It would be ideal if humans acted as one species, one society. If there was a system to enforce equal rights across the globe. But this doesn’t exist. And fighting for it in the modern world system is ineffectual and may lead one to be branded a terrorist. Then it is stupid to push for that in the first place. Impossible policy goals are a waste of time and dangerous. This is a reminder that we need to play the hand we were dealt. This is how things are. What can I do today to support harmony and co-existence. Me asking myself that led to this essay. Call it a manifesto for harmony as a solution if you like. Call it anti-woke. Call it selling out. I accept your criticism openly and would like to talk discuss it with you. And would like to do this as equals interested in co-existence.

Amy Coney Barrett, Science and Democracy

Democracy is a system of governance that protects a society against tyranny. It prevents mob rule. It does so through rule of law. A democracy is only as strong as its legal enforcement mechanisms. Every democracy is imperfect, like the people living in it and governing it. But if laws hold firm, a democracy empowers its own citizens and guarantees their right to elect their own leaders, take part in politics and freely express their opinions.

US Constitution

The rule of law is not guaranteed. During times of war, democracies often experience marshal law, a suspension of some or all democratic rights. This also happens during emergencies like a massive economic collapse or domestic disturbance. As any AI or historian will tell you, rule of law is almost always removed due to actions from the executive branch of government. Executive orders that suspend democratic rule for some ‘valid’ reason, can lead to permanent suspension.

For example, economic depression hit Weimar Germany leading to executive orders suspending democratic rule, and an attempted coup in Turkey led to executive removal of many democratic institutions. The list is long. I recommend an AI prompt like “Give common reasons for the suspension of democratic rule either temporarily or permanently using as many historical examples as possible. Please categorize them by causes (e.g., war, economic shock, etc.)” for a quick history lesson.

The end of democracy is a new buzz concept in the United States. It became prominent in the media during the first Trump presidency. Media profit is driven by fear, and a potential end of democracy is freakishly scary. These fears ramped up dramatically after the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6th. The scariest part perhaps was that it was insinuated by President Trump, the leader of the executive branch. I have had conversations with many people, including extremely knowledgeable professors, that are riddled with these fears. On the other ‘side’ are radical media messages about a ‘cultural Marxist‘ takeover whose goal is ending democracy and replacing it with socialism, and this also promotes fear. Not only does fear sell media, it also motivates people to vote.

The direct attack on the U.S. capitol building could be seen many ways. Although attacking a U.S. government building is illegal, it had elements of protest and assembly that Americans understand as their Constitutional right. But even if we ‘excuse’ this event as a social movement, there are more recent efforts that could be seen as putting democracy at risk. The current executive orders to gut government is a move to consolidate power which is a key step in most previous successful ends of democratic rule. Trump also recently indicated he planned to declare protesting on college campuses illegal, a contradiction of the First Amendment right to free speech and assembly. So maybe these fears are founded. Maybe Trump wants to end democracy.

I see the question of whether Trump wants to end democracy as irrelevant in comparison to a more important question:

Although history teaches us that anything is possible, this seems unlikely. Consider that the judicial branch of government is responsible for the rule of law, and law is democracy. This makes the judiciary the primary protector of democracy. The top of this branch in the U.S. is the Supreme Court. Any action that ends democratic rule of law, would have to pass a Supreme Court ruling.

A judiciary is supposed to be a non-partisan branch, but there is a perception that this Court is increasingly partisan. A perception fueled by fear-mongering profit-hungry media cashing in on ideas that the U.S. is being taken over by ‘Nazis’ or ‘socialists’ or even ‘alien child molesters‘, and banking on the tiny share of people who seek chaos, to ‘burn everything down’ and ‘troll‘ social interactions online by tricking, heckling and shaming others.

Of course Justice’s have political ideologies and position themselves on certain sides of issues. They are citizens and humans. Their positions lead to interpretations of laws that tend to support their own ideologies. This was crystal clear in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), where the conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade, in line with their anti-abortion ideologies. People, including justices and scientists, have bias. The question is:

Enter Amy Coney Barrett, the newest Supreme Court appointee and the deciding vote in the Roe v. Wade decision ending a woman’s right to have an abortion (the winning 5-4 vote would have been 4-5 if Ginsberg with her very different ideology had instead voted). Barrett is a Justice Republicans rave about for her extreme conservative ideology.

The Office of the President of the United States

Some see Barrett as a plant. That she will do whatever Trump wants.

Let’s pause for a second and consider the following: Ending democracy would violate at least three aspects of the Constitution that Barrett and every Justice have sworn to uphold: 1) direct elections of legislators, 2) indirect election of the executive through the Electoral College, and 3) it would likely take away freedom of speech and assembly. The third is an educated guess. We never had a non-democratic form of governance in modern human history that allows free speech and assembly.

What would lead a Justice to end democracy? They could be offered enormous personal gains. But these would be so high that it would be impossible to transfer such power and capital to them without being noticed and prosecuted as unethical and illegal for someone in a judicial role. Also, if they were offered an enormous sum of money or power, there is no guarantee they can keep it one democracy ends. Justices are highly educated persons, they would be able to make this rational calculation.

The other way a Justice would end democracy is on accident. Perhaps they pass laws whose consequences and risks are not clearly understood. The case of Citizens United v. FEC (2010) for example, ruled that citizens, corporations or special interests can spend unlimited money on political campaigns. This was argued by the majority as protecting free speech, that free spending on politics is equivalent to freedom of speech and expression. This has consequences that were unforeseen. For example, if other countries, corporations or persons combine their efforts they can have a larger influence on U.S. politics than any American or American interest. For enemies of the U.S., this ruling is a legal pass to undermine American politics, business interests and power.

This is where the importance of science comes in. Science means “a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject” (Oxford Online Dictionary). Every judge, clerk and lawyer is a scientist by this definition. They systematically investigate and understand the laws of the United States. This requires usually 7 or more years of studying law and passing an exam to earn the right to practice law. Every Supreme Court Justice is a scientist of law. We often do not use the word “science” when talking about them, but that is what they do. They work with systematic, organized and historical knowledge of laws, events and how the two are related.

Amy Coney Barrett seems to have little experience practicing law. She was a Professor of Law at Notre Dame for over 15 years, but has only 3 years experience working at a law office and some clerking experience at the beginning of her career. But a lawyer and a professor of law do much the same things. Both have to know their subject deeply and then make arguments about it. The lawyer tries to win a case and the professor tries to publish scientific articles and books, they do so through logical argumentation based on their research.

To argue a case or decide on a case requires a scientific investigation of the law. In Roper v. Simmons (2005), it was necessary to understand the neuroscience of adolescent brain development. Because juveniles have less impulse control and decision-making capacity, executing them is cruel and unusual punishment. The better scientific research that justices do, the better the chance that the Constitution will be protected. If they are sloppy and do not do enough scientific research, that is when they risk unforeseen consequences like with Citizens United v. FEC (2010) which introduces a serious security risk to the government of the United States.

Although Justices may be of different opinions about how much political power is allowable to single individuals or corporations, they would all agree that if all of the power were in the hands of one individual that it would no longer be a democracy – a word that literally means decision making power in the hands of the people rather than just one of them.

This makes Amy Coney Barrett among the fittest defenders of democracy on the court. She and John Roberts are extremely experienced scientists of law. Roberts was the editor of the Harvard Law Review, an academic journal, one that is based on scientific research, analysis and interpretation of law. He has the most practical experience of any Justice and when he worked as a lawyer he won 25 of 39 cases argued before the Supreme Court. To do that, he had to do extensive research and construct logical (scientific) arguments based on this research.

Barrett on the other hand has less ‘practical’ experience. But look at her CV or read one of her science of law publications. She spent just as much time as Roberts (adjusted for her age) analyzing law, systematically developing a knowledge and logical interpretation of law. This is what every scientist does and what ideally every person in a judicial career does. The stronger their scientific work, the better the protection of the laws themselves, and the lower the risks a ruling will introduce a threat to democracy. For this reason, science is at the center of protecting democracy. Science has to be a priority if the U.S. is to remain a democracy.

Whether abortion is legal or not will not matter anymore if the United States becomes an autocracy like Russia. The right to argue and fight for our preferences regarding race, money in politics, intergenerational trauma resulting from several wars and a system of slavery, abortion, or whether felons have the right to vote are luxuries that we have because we are a democracy, and we will remain a democracy if we prioritize science. Amy Coney Barrett is a scientist, and when she follows her scientific practices, will not vote to end democracy. This puts her in a crucial role in case Trump does have such intentions.

Barrett already has upheld the sanctity of contracts in Trump’s attempt to refuse to pay government workers. Contracts are a crucial aspect of democracy which cannot function if any party is free to void a preexisting contract. For me, this is evidence of her scientific, legal mind.

It should prevail regardless of my lack of agreement with her conservative ideology.

Global inequalities in science are bigger than those in the economy

Original post by Witold Kieńć

[Note from Nate Breznau] This post originally appeared in DeGruyter’s blog. I had assigned it as a reading in my course, but when I followed the link recently it did not appear and resolved instead to the home page of the blog. I searched within the blog but it did not turn up. Did DeGruyter remove it? I also am unnable to find the author of the post as his website seems to no longer exist (according to what I think is his OSF page). [update] I Tweeted to them initially and they were quick to respond.

As their blog is discontinued original blog post as recovered from the Internet Archive.

Global inequalities in science are even bigger than those in the economy. Of course, to afford food is more important than to contribute to scientific discussion. Thus results of inequalities are less dramatic in case of scientific research, however, the case of Ebola might be worth to think over here. This pathogen was detected for the first time in 1976, quite a long time ago. Would the current therapy method for the disease that it causes be the same if it had been discovered in Alaska?

The lion’s share of all scientific articles published in established academic journals comes from a small number of countries, and some of these leading countries are really small and rich, when seen from a global perspective. According to World Bank Data, there were more than 21 thousand papers indexed by the Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index in 2013 that were published by Swiss researchers. This means that Switzerland was able to produce 2,603 top level papers for each one million of its inhabitants. Denmark, second in this ranking, achieved the result of 2,223 papers per million people, so 15% worse. The visualization of number of papers per million inhabitants on the global map shows the indubitable hegemony of rich, northern countries in science.

Reconstruction of original figure using the original figure thumbnail in a Google image search.

A country’s scientific publishing output per million people correlates very strongly with Gross Domestic Product per capita (Spearman 0.84!). In short, you have to be rich to have a significant input to science. This might be nothing new for you, but what is quite surprising for me, is that global inequalities in science are bigger than those in the economy.

I have calculated the Gini coefficient for 4 of the “development indicators” provided by the World Bank. First is the market capitalization of listed domestic companies, so commercial value of companies registered in a country, which I expected to be the most unequal on a global scale. The second one is Gross Domestic Product, that is a well established indicator of welfare and is known to be extremely unevenly distributed globally. I have also chosen electric power consumption, which is also a good indicator of general consumption level. The fourth indicator is the number of articles indexed by Thosmon Rueters services (this data is provided by the World Bank as well). All indicators were divided by the number of country’s inhabitants and then the Gini index was calculated.

In the result, I realized that the contribution to the scientific core is even more unequally distributed among countries than GDP and values of companies. And this is the most unevenly distributed factor that I have analysed. Countries are more equal in respect of their share in the global wealth than in their impact on global scientific discussion.

A lot of work has been done to inform citizens of Europe and North America about the dramatic scale of global inequalities. However, these inequalities are so big, that average people from wealthy countries still do not fully understand what it means “to live below the absolute poverty line”. So please, now try to imagine that inequalities in science are even bigger than that. Of course, to afford food is more important than to contribute to scientific discussion. Thus, the results of inequalities are less dramatic in the case of scientific research, however, the case of Ebola might be worth thinking about here. This pathogen was detected for the first time in 1976, so quite a long time ago. Would the current therapy method for disease that it causes be the same if it had been discovered on Alaska? The Ebola virus is the extreme and rare case, a lot of science has less to do with life or death issues.

However, my comparison to the drastically uneven world of global economy may let you imagine how different the chances of researchers from the Global South are from their colleagues in the Northern Countries. And factors that support hegemony of the North are not only economical ones. There are significant cultural and social barriers that enhance the unequal status quo (have a look here).

Public opinion, pandemic infection and policymaking: The COVID-19 story of liberty and death

This blog originally appeared in the COVID-19 Blog of the Collaborative Research Center “The Global Dynamics of Social Policy” at the University of Bremen.

The WHO declared a Global Pandemic on Jan 30th, 2020, based on overwhelming evidence that the highly infectious Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and the deadly COVID-19 disease that it causes threatened all of human kind. Despite this clear message, public and government responses varied dramatically by country, city and even neighborhood. Controlling the spread of any global pandemic requires large-scale, cohesive public responses. As there is no global governance, national governments were crucial institutional actors in the pandemic fight.

In Germany, the national government was quick to push German states to adopt cohesive measures in February, and to then ratchet these up in March as infections exploded in places like New York City and Italy and localized regions and events within Germany. In Figure 1, the dotted line are the deaths from COVID-19 and the solid green line is the degree of government lockdown measures. At least in the first wave, Germany was highly successful at curbing the spread of the virus. This contrasts sharply with Sweden, displayed in the middle panel of Figure 1.

Figure 1. Daily deaths per capita and government intervention

Known deaths from COVID-19 data from Johns Hopkins and Dong, Du and Gardner (2020) taken as the deaths per day divided by the population in one-hundred-thousands. Government intervention data from Oxford University Blavatnik School of Government measured as a scale of measures from none (-1) to all possible at the highest degree (+1) (e.g., travel restriction, banned public gatherings and stay-at-home orders).

In Sweden, the constitution prevented lockdown measures in non-war-times. Although the Swedish government encouraged its residents to follow pandemic safety guidelines, the lockdown measures were relatively lax and the infection rate and resulting deaths were among the worst in the world at the outbreak of the pandemic. The Swedish response and even relatively ‘good’ German response paled in comparison to the swift and effective lockdown in South Korea and most East Asian countries). In the lowest panel of Figure 1, the deaths per capita stays nearly at zero and remained there until the time of writing this.

Government response is not the only factor as made clear in the second wave of infection starting in October of 2020. Germany and Sweden had similar death rates in the second wave with a slightly stronger government intervention and slightly less deaths in Germany. However, in South Korea government lockdown was similar to Germany, but they had fraction of the infections and almost no deaths.

Government response is simply a method to control public behaviors. Ultimately the public are the arbiters of infection, and their behaviors explain different outcomes where governments take similar control measures. In Wuhan Province, China the public had little control over their behaviors as they were confined to their homes, subject to biosecurity protocols and ‘policed’ by both actual police and Communist Party-led neighborhood watches for at least 76 days. The lockdown halted the infection and death rates locally, but the virus had already hopped China’s borders leading to the pandemic. By contrast, once arrived in countries like Sweden or the United States, the residents were mostly free to behave as they pleased. The fate of the virus spread was essentially in the public’s hands because their behaviors – movements, contacts and (lack of) awareness – provide the only way the SARS-CoV-2 virus can spread or not.

This means that especially in liberal democratic systems where the governments cannot easily impose lockdown measures, studying human behavior is essential to understanding how to fight a pandemic. Social scientists regularly observe a correlation between sentiments and behaviors. The public forms attitudes toward ‘the virus’ and ‘a pandemic’ from the news and word-of-mouth. Therefore, the contents of media messages play a major role in shaping behaviors indirectly through the information contained in news and editorial articles.

Figure 2 shows how daily infections closely follow the sentiment in media messages. When sentiment is more positive (thick yellow line) it is likely that the public perceive less risk and then engage in less precautionary behavior leading to increases in infections (dashed purple line). At the same time, sentiment is more positive as government restrictions ease (thin green line), thus enabling less precautionary behavior like social gatherings and in-person work; in turn leading to more infections.

Figure 2. Media, government intervention and infection rates in Germany and the U.S.

Sentiment analysis of all available online media sources provided by RavenPack’s Coronavirus Media Monitor, standardized with a rolling average (thick yellow line); infection rate calculated as the 18-day lead deaths from Johns Hopkins data adjusted for the demographic composition of the population (dashed line); government intervention measured Oxford University Blavatnik School of Government.

What is also striking about Figure 2 is that infection rates in Germany show a weaker correlation with media sentiment than in the United States. This is most likely due to stronger government intervention in Germany, whereby individuals have less control over their decisions, or at least will face criminal punishment for not following government guidelines. The apparent association between media sentiment and infections should be caused by public behaviors, but cross-national behavioral data are scarce during the pandemic. However, during a brief window of opportunity from March 15th to April 7th, 2020, Thiemo Fetzer and colleagues fielded a survey asking about precautionary public behaviors in at least 80 countries. Figure 3 compares behaviors with average media sentiment in the last week across these countries and demonstrates a clear correlation between more positive sentiment in media contents and less precautionary behaviors.

Figure 3. Media and public precautionary behaviors in 80 countries, March 15th – April 7th

Media Sentiment provided by RavenPack’s Coronavirus Media Monitor and precautionary behaviors calculated as a scale from the Perceptions and Behaviors at the Onset of COVID-19 survey (Fetzer et al 2020).

National governments are in a tough position during pandemics. They cannot enforce lockdown measures beyond a certain ‘breaking’ point, or the public will simply rebel or ignore them in such large numbers that enforcement becomes impossible. It is therefore not unreasonable to conclude that at least in liberal democratic regimes, the most effective pandemic prevention measures, like those taken in Wuhan, are simply not possible. The old adage ‘give me liberty or give me death’ might therefore be reframed as ‘give me liberty and death’ in pandemic times.

Data and code available at GitHub/nbreznau/covid-liberty-death

Die ‚Novel Coronavirus‘ Pandemie und die Grenzen von Open Science

Deutsche Übersetzung von Novel coronavirus pandemic and the limits of open science (8. April 2020).

Am 30. Januar 2020 erklärte die WHO einen ‚Global Health Emergency‘ basierend auf Hinweisen auf ein Virus, das sich schnell verbreitet. Das Coronavirus aus der SARS-Familie (Sars-CoV-2, und die Krankheit Covid-19). Die Beweise, mit denen die WHO diesen Notfall erklärte, stammten fast ausschließlich aus chinesischen Daten.

Die chinesischen Daten zeigten im Januar eine alarmierende Ausbreitungsrate, wie in Abbildung 1 dargestellt. Ohne die chinesischen Daten hätte die WHO wenig Anlass zur Sorge gehabt, da in allen anderen Ländern zusammen kaum 90 Fälle bekannt waren und kein einziger Todesfall.

Abbildung 1. Die Verbreitung von Covid-19, die zur Notstandserklärung der WHO am 30. Januar führte. Johns Hopkins Daten.

Anfang Januar ergriff die chinesische Regierung Maßnahmen, um Nachrichten und Daten1 im Zusammenhang mit dem Virus zu blockieren. Trotzdem gelang es chinesischen Wissenschaftler*innen, offenen wissenschaftlichen Praktiken zu folgen, einschließlich des Teilens partiell-genetischer Sequenzdaten mit der Welt. Dies ermöglichte der WHO, geeignete Maßnahmen zu ergreifen, und befähigte  Wissenschaftler*innen in Deutschland, Tests zur Identifizierung des ,novel Coronavirus‘ zu entwickeln. Das deutsche Team veröffentlichte seine Methoden am 13. Januar auf der WHO-Website. Technologie und globale Kommunikation haben sich zu einem Punkt entwickelt, an dem Regierungen den freien Informationsfluss verlangsamen, aber nicht stoppen können.

Die gemeinsame Nutzung aller Daten und Erkenntnisse ist die beste Form der Wissenschaft, wird aber nicht immer praktiziert. Die Open Science Movement hat das Ziel, dies zu ändern. Wenn jeder auf der Welt gleichermaßen Zugang zu Theorie, Methoden, Daten und Ergebnissen aller anderen wissenschaftlichen Forschung hat, steigen Qualität und Effizienz exponentiell an. Dies zeigt sich in den offenen wissenschaftlichen Praktiken hinter dem globalen Kampf gegen Covid-19, die Leben retten und retten werden, möglicherweise Millionen von Leben.

Abbildung 2 ist eine Simulation, die vorhersagt, wie viele Menschen in einem bestimmten Land als Ergebnis des Zeitpunkts der staatlichen Intervention an dem Virus sterben würden. Intervention heißt wann die Regierungen die von der WHO empfohlenen Vorgehensweisen befolgen, wie z. B.: Anweisungen für den Aufenthalt zu Hause, Durchführung umfassender Tests und Quarantäne für diejenigen, die positiv auf das Virus getestet wurden und die, mit denen sie in Kontakt waren. “Tag 0” in Abbildung 2 ist der Moment, in dem mindestens 3 symptomatische Fälle pro Million Menschen auftreten, normalerweise etwa 2 Monate nach dem ersten Fall in einem Land, aber natürlich viel schneller, wenn mehrere Fälle gleichzeitig auftreten.

Abbildung 2. Die Auswirkungen staatlicher Interventionen auf die Reduzierung der Todesfälle durch Covid-19. Quelle: Gabriel Goh, und eigene Berechnungen des Autors (* vorhergesagte Todesfälle)

Der Leser sollte bedenken, dass Abbildung 2 eine vereinfachte Simulation ist. Die Realität ist äußerst komplex. Insbesondere gehen die Regierungen nicht an einem Tag vom normalen Betrieb zur vollständigen Stilllegung der Gesellschaft über, dies geschieht normalerweise schrittweise. Diese Simulation basiert jedoch auf den bekanntesten Modellen der prädiktiven Epidemiologie und zeigt, wie selbst ein Tag der Unentschlossenheit Tausende von Menschenleben kosten kann.

Als Reaktion auf diesen Ausbruch in China und das rasche Auftreten von Covid-19 weltweit folgte Südkorea den standardisierten „Emergency Operating Procedures“ der WHO. Das heißt: möglichst viele Personen testen, alle Fälle isolieren, Reisen und Versammlungen beschränken, nicht notwendige Geschäfte schließen. Das Virus war eingedämmt und nur 200 Menschen starben. Natürlich haben frühere Virusausbrüche in Südkorea die Bereitschaft verbessert. Ebenso war Deutschland gut vorbereitet, weil es schnell Tests entwickelt hatte  und weil es aus den Erfahrungen Italiens als Europas „Ground Zero“ gelernt hatte.

Grob gesagt hat Italien um den 15. Februar herum die Schwelle für „Tag 0“ in Abbildung 2 überschritten. Als Land war es am wenigsten vorbereitet, weil es das erste in Europa war und ein Ort ist, zu dem Menschen aus der ganzen Welt als Touristen, wenn nicht als Fußballfans, strömen. Somit ist der Fall Italiens keine Geschichte eines großen Versagens der Regierung, auch da es Gründe gab, dem chinesischen Fall misstrauisch gegenüberzustehen.

Die Schwelle für “Tag 0” lag in Deutschland um den 2. März herum, und “Tag 0” war um den 8. März herum in New York, zumindest auf dem Papier. New York begann jedoch erst am 1. März mit dem erfolgreichen Testen von Personen, da die Anfang Februar veröffentlichten CDC-eigenen Testkits fehlschlugen. ‘Tag 0’ in New York war wahrscheinlich Mitte Februar oder früher. Dennoch hätte New York aus „pandemischer Sicht“ noch viel Zeit gehabt, Maßnahmen zu ergreifen. Der Rest der Welt hatte seit Ende Januar, dank des offenen Datenaustauschs auf der WHO-Website, genaue Tests durchgeführt. Dies geschah jedoch weder in New York noch in den USA als Ganzes. So wurde New York völlig unvorbereitet getroffen, aber nicht, weil das Virus überraschend aufgetaucht  war.

In Kombination mit den Daten aus China, Südkorea und mehreren anderen Ländern erklärte die WHO am 12. März, dass der globale Notfall nun eine „Global Pandemic“ sei. New York hatte den Ausnahmezustand verhängt, aber erst ab dem 20. März Anordnungen für den Aufenthalt zu Hause erteilt. Erst eine Woche später wurden die meisten Schulen geschlossen und die Polizei autorisiert, diese Anweisungen durchzusetzen (der blaue Pfeil um „Tag 31“ in Abbildung 2). Trotz massiver offener wissenschaftlicher Bemühungen, die durch die WHO kanalisiert wurden, haben New York und ein Großteil der USA offensichtliche wissenschaftliche Beweise und Vorhersagen einfach nicht beachtet. Dies ist umso schockierender, als Seattle und nicht New York in den USA „Ground Zero“ war. Der gesamte Bundesstaat Washington hatte frühzeitig und erfolgreich Sofortmaßnahmen ergriffen.

Die Überprüfung des Versagens von Ländern, Staaten oder Städten, vor oder am 30. Januar (globaler Notfall) oder 12. März (Pandemie) sofort drastische Notfallmaßnahmen zu ergreifen, ist nicht Gegenstand dieses Blogposts. Dank Open Science Praktiken, der WHO und mehrerer Partnerorganisationen und Websites hatte die Welt Zugang zu denselben Daten und Kenntnissen darüber, wie man auf das Virus testet.

Die Botschaft, die ich vermitteln möchte, ist, dass Open Science nicht ausreicht. Ihre Grenzen liegen in den Regierungen. In vielen Ländern hat die Wissenschaft wenig Platz in der Entscheidungsfindung der Regierung. Dies ist vielleicht in einem dysfunktionalen autoritären Regime verständlich, in dem fast alle politischen Entscheidungen getroffen werden, um die Macht aufrechtzuerhalten und zu konzentrieren. Dies ist sicherlich ein Grund dafür, dass die schlimmsten Schrecken des Virus in Afrika südlich der Sahara und in Zentralasien noch bevorstehen. Aber es ist schockierend in Demokratien, in denen es eine Schar von Wissenschaftler*innen und Agenturen gibt, die die Regierung dabei beaufsichtigen und beraten sollen, was zu tun ist, um ihre Bevölkerung zu schützen.

Die Vereinigten Staaten hatten reichlich Informationen darüber, dass sich Covid-19 in den USA befand und sich schnell verbreitete, wie man wirksame Tests entwirft und was genau zu tun ist, um die Ausbreitung des Virus und die Zahl der Todesopfer zu verringern, Monate vor dem Ergreifen größerer Maßnahmen – dieselben Informationen, die der Staat Washington zur Eindämmung der Ausbreitung nutzte. Aber diese wissenschaftlichen Informationen, die in einem Umfang und einer Geschwindigkeit geteilt wurden, die in der Weltgeschichte noch nie zuvor gesehen wurden, reichten einfach nicht aus.

Die Open Science Movement hat ethische Grundsätze, die ihrem offenen Zugang, den offenen Daten, den offenen Methoden und Empfehlungen zum Austausch von zugrunde liegen. Es ist nicht nur so, dass offene wissenschaftliche Praktiken die Wissenschaft zuverlässiger und effektiver machen. Sie fördern soziale Gerechtigkeit oder wissenschaftliche Gerechtigkeit, wenn Sie so wollen. Wenn jede*r Wissenschaftler*in auf der Welt auf alle Informationen zugreifen kann, über die jede*r andere Wissenschaftler*in auf der Welt verfügt, besteht wissenschaftliche Gleichheit. Während reiche Universitäten Elsevier boykottieren, können sich ärmere Universitäten nicht einmal ein Abonnement leisten. Open Access würde also der Welt eine globale Nord-Süd und eine dotierte vs. nicht dotierte Universitätsgleichheit bringen. Aber es kann denjenigen, die potenzielle Virusopfer sind, keine Gerechtigkeit bringen.

Im Fall der Covid-19-Pandemie schien die offene Wissenschaft zunächst das Gezänke und die Tiraden der Regierungen zu untergraben, konnte aber nur an der Tür klingeln. Einige Regierungen weigerten sich einfach, die Tür zu öffnen und Maßnahmen zu ergreifen. Dies wirft die Frage auf, ob die Open Science Bewegung politische Handlungsprinzipien verabschieden muss, die über Maßnahmen zur Förderung von Transparenz und Reproduzierbarkeit hinausgehen. Muss die Open Science Bewegung die Regierungen dazu drängen, administrative, wenn nicht verfassungsrechtliche Verfahren einzuführen, die die Regierungen bei einer Naturkatastrophe oder einem Notfall wie einem Hurrikan oder einer Pandemie den Wissenschaftler*innen gegenüber rechenschaftspflichtig machen?

Ich sage ja aus ethischer Sicht. Aber es ist nicht so einfach. Sobald wir anfangen, Dinge wie Verfahrensreformen voranzutreiben, werden tiefsitzende Sonderinteressen einbezogen und es wird hässlich. Als Wissenschaftler*innen sind wir wahrscheinlich nicht für Schlammschlachten und politisches Manövrieren geeignet. Ganz zu schweigen davon, dass wir umso weniger Zeit für die Wissenschaft haben, je mehr Zeit wir für Lobbying aufwenden. Einige von uns haben die Fähigkeit, die Bewegung zu führen und Regierungen zu beeinflussen, aber die meisten von uns sind schlecht gerüstet, um die Mächte zu bekämpfen, die hinter der Politik stehen.

Das wirft die Frage nach dem Endspiel auf: Reicht es aus, den Regierungen die richtigen Antworten zu geben, auch wenn sie sie ignorieren? Haben wir unsere Pflicht als Wissenschaftler*innen erfüllt, wenn wir nur vor der Haustür auftauchen und Regierungsbeamte entscheiden lassen, ob wir eintreten dürfen?

1 Der ursprüngliche Nachrichtenartikel wurde von der Website der chinesischen Nachrichtenagenturen gelöscht, kann aber im Internet Archive gefunden werden.

2 Quelle: Goh, Gabriel. „COVID Epidemic Calculator“. Tag 0 ist mindestens 3 symptomatische Fälle pro Million Menschen, was bedeutet, dass aufgrund der Inkubationszeit möglicherweise Hunderte infiziert sind. Für Vorhersagen verwendete Parameter: 106 mio. Bevölkerung, ein einziger Erstfall, Ansteckungsgefahr pro Person von 2,2, Übertragungsrate 0,73, Inkubationszeit 5,2 Tage und Sterblichkeitsrate 2%.

Ein Hinweis von mir: Ich habe versucht, die empirischen Beweise und den historischen Zeitplan so genau wie möglich zu erfassen, aber alle Fehler in diesem Blog-Beitrag sind meine eigenen. Ich bin dankbar für die Kommentare von Lisa Heukamp.

Talking inequality to your politically mixed US American family

My family is a mixture of Democrats, Republicans and swing voters. This can make for interesting emails, calls or reunions. It seems clear to me that partisan discussions, especially involving blame, are a no go. In fact, family in-fighting is pretty much like public in-fighting. It distracts us from some of our common problems. Like the unbridled increase in income and wealth inequality in the United States since the late 1970s. Especially the top 1%. The question is how to find common ground when one or both sides are past their breaking points.

I suggest three things that would benefit almost any American, except for the ultra rich (top 1%) or relatively rich (top 10%). These are things that encroach on freedom without touching on more polarizing topics.

1. End the winner-take-all electoral system. Why should the winner take all, when the winner is rich people? Low and middle-class workers have not had a real wage increase since the 1970s on average, but wall street provided huge profits.

There is nothing wrong with profits, but shouldn’t everyone working at profiting companies profit? A similar story unfolds in politics. The upper classes control both parties. Republicans favor the ultra-rich, and Democrats favor the quite-rich in general. We do not have parties that represent all voters’ interests. If you are lower to lower-middle class, these parties are both against you, for the most part. If you support the Tea Party, Libertarian, Social Democrats, Green Party, or other parties, you have no chance to get representation in government at the national level. We need a representative democracy where parties get power that equals their vote share. If Republicans get 55% of the vote they should get 55% of the legislative and executive positions. That is real democracy, where the government reflects the preferences of the people. When parties get proportional vote shares, they are forced to work together to solve problems. More than half of those who identify as Republicans and Democrats favored having a third party in a recent Gallup poll.

The two party system is now so deeply divided that democracy itself is faltering. The abuse of power the Constitution hoped to prevent is now rampant with executive dominance, a Supreme Court of partisan judges, and deep segregation of voter districts due to gerrymandering. Adding more parties will instantly restore coalitions and cooperation.


2. End Super PACs. This is how both parties came to be dominated by rich-peoples’ interests.

Citizens United and Speechnow.org made it possible that parties and candidates can get unlimited secret funding. This raised the stakes so high that the only way to get elected is to have over 1 billion dollars, or to accept donations to equal 1 billion dollars (that is one thousand times one million dollars – a $hit ton! The only way to get such big donations is to promise things to the rich that benefit them. In more plain English, this is known as corruption, by definition. These are simply ‘legal’ bribes being paid to politicians, made legal because of Citizens United. 

“for the first time since at least the 1960s, the majority of Americans were not in the middle class”

– PEW Research Center

3. Overturn the 1987 repeal of the FCC Fairness Doctrine. Political conflict is an opportunity to create economic conflict.

Until 1987, news companies were legally bound to report news in a balanced manner, providing different sides of each story. Today they are allowed to say anything they want and claim it as ‘fact’ without any repercussion. All of our political and factual beliefs have been shaped by distortions of reality. For example, try this on for size at the next mixed-political gathering. Obama, what many political news agencies call the ‘socialist-Muslim’, was actually a relatively hawkish military president. He was the first president in history to have an American citizen assassinated without any trial. He also give a large pay and benefit raise to the military and made aggressive moves of the US to contain China militaristically and economically. These facts might perk the attention of even the most ‘libtard’-hating-family-members. But that is not my main point here. The media outlets are mostly owned by corporations with special interests in keeping you and I fighting over politics, so that corporations can keep paying low wages. The news in the US sows seeds of hate and misinformation so that working-class people end up in constant conflict. This conflict keeps the focus away from the ultra-wealthy making decisions that harm them, such as paying them miserable wages with low benefits. Why not end fake news?

In case you are not sure, what not to do. Abortion, gun control, racism, blame of any sort. Not gonna go over well in mixed political company. If you are not ultra wealthy, we are on the same side in the things that matter most – like getting fair wages for fair work.

Notes to the reader:

As news media companies tend to be on one side or the other, I tried to use neutral sources as much as possible in this post.

Full disclosure. I have never voted Republican. But I am no fan of the Democrats either. Having to choose the lesser of two evils is not an exciting political reality to face. Especially while watching the rich get richer, and the working-class continually get the shaft.

Novel coronavirus pandemic and the limits of open science

German version available.

On January 30th, 2020, the WHO declared a global health emergency based on scientific evidence of a rapidly spreading coronavirus from the SARS family (Sars-CoV-2, and the disease Covid-19). The evidence the WHO used to declare this emergency came almost entirely from Chinese data.

The Chinese data demonstrated an alarming spread rate in January, as shown in Figure 1. Without the Chinese data, there would have been little cause for alarm as all other countries combined had barely 90 known cases in that period, and not a single death.

Figure 1. The spread of Covid-19 leading to the WHO emergency declaration Janurary 30th. Johns Hopkins data.

In early January, the Chinese government took measures to block news and data1 related to the virus; however, Chinese scientists still managed to follow open science practices (updated news on this here) including sharing partial-gene sequence data with the world. This allowed the WHO to take appropriate measures and enabled scientists in Germany to develop tests to identify the novel coronavirus. The German team shared publicly their methods on the WHO website on January 13th. Technology and global communications have evolved to the point where governments can slow but not stop the free flow of information.

Sharing all data and findings is the best form of science, but not always practiced. The Open Science Movement has the goal of changing this. If everyone in the world has equal access to the theory, methods, data and results of all other scientific research, quality and efficiency increases exponentially. This is evidenced in the open science practices behind the global fight against Covid-19 that saved and will save lives, potentially millions of them.

Figure 2 is a simulation predicting how many people would die of the virus in any given country depending on when governments follow WHO recommended operating procedures, as in: issue stay-at-home orders, engage in widespread testing and quarantine both individuals with the virus and those they were in contact with. ‘Day 0’ in Figure 2 is the moment when there are at least 3 symptomatic cases per million people, usually about 2 months after the first case in a country but much faster if several cases arrive at once.

Figure 2. The impact of government intervention in reducing deaths from Covid-19. Source: Gabriel Goh & author’s calculations
(*indicates a predicted death toll)

The reader should keep in mind that Figure 2 is a simplified simulation. The reality of the situation is extremely complex. In particular, governments do not go from normal operations to full lockdown of society in one day, this usually proceeds in stages. Nonetheless, this simulation comes from the best known predictive epidemiology models and helps demonstrate how even one day of indecision can cost thousands of lives.

In response to this outbreak in China and rapid appearance of Covid-19 globally, South Korea followed the WHO’s standard emergency operating procedures. Meaning: Test everyone possible, isolate all cases, restrict travel and gatherings, close non-essential businesses. The virus was contained and only 200 people died. Of course, previous virus outbreaks heightened their preparedness level. Germany was also well prepared given its rapid development of tests, and because they learned from the experience of Italy as Europe’s ‘ground zero’.

Roughly speaking, Italy crossed the ‘Day 0’ threshold in Figure 2 around February 15th. It was the least prepared as a country because it was the first in Europe, and a place where people from around the globe flock as tourists if not football fans. Thus, Italy’s case is not a story of major government failure, also given that there were reasons to be suspicious of the Chinese case.

The ‘Day 0’ threshold came around March 2nd in Germany, and ‘Day 0’ was around March 8th in New York at least on paper. But New York only started testing people with success around March 1st because the CDC’s own test kits released in early February failed. This left plenty of time, in ‘pandemic terms’, to source the accurate tests being deployed in the rest of the world since January. This did not happen in New York or the US as a whole. Thus, New York was caught completely unprepared but not because the virus was a surprise arrival.

When combined with the data from China, South Korea and several other countries, the WHO upgraded the global emergency to a global pandemic on March 12th. New York had issued a state of emergency but only gave stay at home orders as of March 20th. It was not until a week later that most schools were closed and police authorized to enforce these orders (the blue arrow around ‘Day 31’ in Figure 2). Despite massive open science efforts channeled through the WHO, New York and much of the US simply failed to heed obvious scientific evidence and predictions. This is even more shocking because Seattle, not New York, was ‘ground zero’ in the US. Washington State as a whole implemented early and successful emergency measures.

Reviewing the failures of countries, states or cities to immediately take drastic emergency measures before or on January 30th (global emergency) or March 12th (pandemic) is not the subject of this blog post. The world had access to all the same data and knowledge of how to test for the virus thanks to open science practices, the WHO and several partner organizations and websites.

The message I want to convey is that open science is not enough. Its limits are found in governments. In many countries, science has little place in government decision making. This is perhaps understandable in a dysfunctional authoritarian regime where nearly all political decisions are made to maintain and concentrate power. This is certainly a reason that the worst horrors of the virus are yet to come in sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia. But it is shocking in democracies where there are throngs of scientists and agencies tasked with monitoring and advising the government on what to do to protect its people.

The United States had ample information that Covid-19 was in the US and spreading rapidly, how to design effective tests, and exactly what to do to reduce the spread of the virus and its death toll months before any major actions were taken – the same information Washington State used to stem the spread. But this scientific information, shared at a scale and speed not seen before in world history, was simply not enough.

The Open Science Movement has ethical principles underlying its open access, data, methods and sharing recommendations. It is not just that open science practices make science more reliable and effective; they promote social justice, or scientific justice if you will. When every scientist in the world can access all the information that every other scientist in the world has, there is scientific equality. While rich universities boycott Elsevier, poorer universities cannot even afford a subscription. Thus, open access would bring a global North-South and a endowed v. not-endowed university equality to the world. But it can’t bring justice to those who are potential virus victims.

In the case of the Covid-19 pandemic, open science looked to undermine the bickering and buffonery of governments at first, but it could only ring the doorbell. Some governments simply refused to open the door, to take action. This begs the question if the Open Science Movement needs to adopt principles of political action that extend beyond policies promoting transparency and reproducibility. Does the Open Science Movement need to push governments to adopt administrative, if not constitutional procedures that make governments accountable to scientists in a natural disaster or emergency like a hurricane or pandemic?

I say yes from an ethical stand point. But its not so simple. As soon as we start pushing things like procedural reform, deep-pocketed special interests get involved and it gets ugly. As scientists we are not likely suited to mudslinging and political maneuvering. Not to mention that the more time we spend on lobbying, the less time we have for science. There are some of us with the ability to lead the Movement and influence governments, but most of us are ill-equipped to combat the powers-that-be behind politics.

That brings up the end game question: Is it enough to give the right answers to governments even if they ignore them? Have we done our duty as scientists if we just ‘show up at the doorstep’ and let government officials decide if we get to come in?

1 The original news article was deleted from the Chinese News Agencies’ website but can be found in the Internet Archive.

2 Source: Goh, Gabriel. “COVID Epidemic Calculator“. Day 0 is at least 3 symptomatic cases per million people, meaning there are potentially hundreds infected given the incubation period. Parameters used for predictions: 106 mil. Population, a single initial case, contagiousness per person of 2.2, rate of transmission 0.73, incubation period 5.2 days and mortality rate 2%.

A note from me: I have sought to capture the empirical evidence and historical timeline as accurate as possible, but any errors in this blog post are my own.

.