One of the most poisonous effects of the recent lapse into populism is distrust in experts. Yet, as the coronavirus pandemic exposes politicians’ cluelessness, our future rests on their willingness to obey experts – in this case epidemiologists, virologists, mathematical biologists. These experts can sometimes be wrong, and there is a lot they don’t yet understand. But their use of scientific methods, peer review and professional ethics are our best defence against disaster.

The present crisis exposes the dangers of people everywhere regarding themselves as instant experts simply by browsing the internet. It is in this environment that anti-vaxxers, for example, have gained ground. Meanwhile, politicians’ contemptuous dismissal of expertise – notoriously Michael Gove’s during the Brexit campaign – has lent weight to those, such as climate change deniers, who see political advantage in questioning scientific consensus.

I find it less than reassuring that politicians in the anti-expert tradition now occupy key positions of power: Donald Trump in particular though also, as I am currently in Australia, prime minister and coal campaigner Scott Morrison. Trump’s early intervention in the coronavirus outbreak was to deliver his authoritative opinion that the virus was just a passing flu epidemic of no great consequence. Mr Morrison, meanwhile, demonstrated his commitment to his country’s ban on major sporting events, which starts today, by insisting on mingling with the crowds at a big event (though he now seems to have backed down).

Meanwhile, the evidence stacks up of a pandemic which is spreading faster and further than most governments are prepared for. It is far more widespread than the official numbers indicate, perhaps by a factor of over 10, because of time lags in the detection and speed of transmission. Growth is exponential without strong action to contain it.

The world is rapidly dividing into those countries where the disease is being brought under control – China, Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, Thailand and South Korea – and those where it isn’t (almost everywhere else). These Asian countries provide a template of how to respond: effective containment; tracing contacts; strict “social distancing” measures; and properly resourced health sectors. It is tempting to indulge in stereotypes about disciplined east Asians willing to forgo freedoms which westerners will not. But it is more likely that their governments absorbed the lessons of the Sars outbreak in 2003.

There is also powerful evidence that the way western societies respond to public health crises can make a crucial difference. It comes from studies of the 1918 flu epidemic. Epidemiological research in the USA shows that cities like St Louis which responded quickly with draconian measures had far lower death rates than those, like Philadelphia, which let the epidemic run its course, resulting in a rapid spike of cases overwhelming the health system.

The issue now is whether our political leaders can respond to the crisis, acting on the evidence in front of them. There are three big dangers: secrecy, complacency and under-resourcing.

Enormous damage was done by the communist authorities in Hubei which, out of fear or embarrassment, tried to cover up the epidemic until whistleblowers exposed it. The delay cost lives. The Chinese system may have encouraged this culture of secrecy, but it is now showing its strengths in the decisive steps taken to slow the spread of the virus, apparently successfully. But secrecy isn’t just a problem in China. It is reported that the Trump administration’s obsession with leaks has led to key officials being excluded from meetings, slowing the government’s response.

Complacency involves doing too little, too late, out of a belief that things are not that bad, or at the very least do not justify taking unpopular decisions. I was on the verge of writing an angry article about the Australian authorities and F1’s decision to go ahead this weekend with the Melbourne Grand Prix, where 350,000 people were about to rub shoulders, throng bars and use the portaloos, even after infection was discovered in one of the teams. Thankfully, Lewis Hamilton showed some leadership and, along with a number of other drivers, refused to participate – and the race was called off at the last minute, amid much grumbling. Now that Australia’s home affairs minister has tested positive for coronavirus, however, that grumbling has died down.

Loading....

More alarming is what is happening in the US. Trump has followed up his initial denial of the problem by slapping a blanket immigration ban on Europeans. But, while he is busy barricading the front door, he has left the back wide open. Based on death rate data, Washington state alone may have more cases than Italy and Iran combined, and there are now major outbreaks in the San Francisco Bay area and the northeast. It would appear that minimal testing is being done in the US, due to insufficient or defective testing equipment (by one estimate, 14,000 people have been tested in the US so far, while South Korea has tested more than 210,000 people and the UK 32,771).

The UK may also be leaning towards complacency by delaying school closures and other social distancing measures. I see that Jeremy Hunt is challenging the government’s judgement that “the timing isn’t right”, and his health select committee will doubtless want to question the government’s expert advisers closely as to why they appear to be going against the scientific consensus on the imperative of speed. They will also surely want to shine a light on the UK government’s conclusion that we no longer need to test for every case, against the WHO’s advice that we should.

Then there is the question of resourcing. Even in Australia, which is at an early stage in the pandemic, there are reports of doctors being unable to cope, as health staff stay away for fear of spreading infection, and anxious patients demand reassurance. But Australia, like the UK, has a generally strong health service. It has, however, also had to cope with financial pressures and has little spare capacity. The UK has the additional problem, to which little thought appears to have been given, of a threadbare social care system, which will struggle will cope with legions of elderly people emerging from intensive care.