The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it -Neil deGrasse Tyson

Using data collected by scientific methods helps us all in ways many of us can’t even fathom. There’s some obvious stuff like the way our phones work in general or how a tv broadcasts images via a wire connection. But there are jobs far behind the scenes in government whose sole function is to collect information and compile it so that if and when its needed it can be used to either help investigate a past event or predict models for future events.

In this quarantine, I’ve thought a lot about how many scientist and great thinkers alike (and film writers) have imagined multiple scenarios that play out similar paths we are on today. I’ve written before about some exciting predictions that came to fruition in the scientific community. This time is obviously less exciting.

Not every prediction made from data collection comes true. Obviously we hope dire predictions such as the natural effects of rising global temperatures will not be as devastating as models suggest. At times it feels best to ignore some of the most extreme predictions scientists make because it feels like they’re wrong more often than not, but this is a form of confirmation bias called subjective validation. This along with another bias called desirability bias we could end up ignoring valuable information that has the potential to save lives.

Subjective validation is a post hoc determination that something confirms what you already assume or believe to be true while ignoring any detail that goes against the same assumption or belief. It’s like getting caught at a familiar red light over and over again. You might think that you never catch it when it’s green when in reality you only remember the times it’s red while overlooking the times you’ve glided right through the green light. When it comes to scientific data, some will only remember the times the weather man said a tornado was on the way but never came. Although, if you’re not prepared for a tornado with a safe area it could end up costing your life or the lives of loved ones.

With this pandemic I assume most of you were like me at first and thought it won’t be too different than other times there’s been a new virus outbreak. I thought it was good to post pone major events where large crowds gather out of an abundance of caution, but also thought it was ridiculous to postpone movies. I certainly didn’t think we would have to enforce shut in orders. This was partially due to general ignorance on the virus, but it was also my desirability bias kicking in. I, like I hope all of you, never wanted this to happen at all. I have superficial and personal reasons to want the world to continue as normal. Then I also have a humane sense of empathy that wishes all painful diseases could be eradicated so I hate to see a new one emerge. It’s obviously desirable for this to not become the pandemic that it has clearly become.

Unfortunately, we can’t hope or wish our way into a disease free world. For that, there are many who have dedicated their lives to studying all forms of diseases and specialize in various methods of combating them. One way to do that is collecting data that can help us all be prepared when the unthinkable occurs. While we in the general population will never need this data, we vote for (or should vote for) leaders that will need it. Thankfully, most of us will never even have to lead a population in a drill emergency situation, much less lead a government in an actual global crisis. Because of this, I personally have a hard time being critical of the choices leaders make in times of crisis; unless that choice is to sit idly by and ignore data and predictive models.

Leaders across this country spent two valuable months claiming that this was not a big deal. These particular leaders in various positions allowed their desirability bias to guide their subjective validations to the point that they avoided certain precautionary measures that we now know has and will continue to cost lives. It would be one thing to downplay a serious problem for the sake of avoiding panic, but it’s an entirely different thing to ignore serious alarms because you don’t want to deal with a problem.

Regardless of political leanings, right or left, we as voters should hold our leaders accountable. We should all want our leaders to hold themselves to a higher standard. We should all want leaders who are prepared for multiple scenarios. In the next election cycle we should remember which of our leaders were prepared and which ones ignored hard data, hoping to just wish away the pandemic, until it was too late.