Post-Pandemic Reflections // Réflexions Post-Pandémiques: Lessons in critical thinking from the COVID-19 pandemic
Photo by Max Bender on Unsplash
Photo par Max Bender sur Unsplash
Michael Maalouf
(FR) En décembre 2019, l’Organisation mondiale de la santé a commencé son enquête sur une « pneumonie de cause inconnue » à Wuhan, en Chine (1). Huit mois plus tard, la pandémie COVID-19 a pris le monde d’assaut en infectant plus de douze millions de personnes et faisant plus d’un demi-million de morts (2). Tandis que le virus s’est propagé à travers le monde, il en a été de même pour un large éventail de nouvelles, d’informations et d’opinions. Avec la fin de la première vague de la pandémie, nous avons eu l’occasion de faire une pause et de réfléchir aux pensées et aux croyances qui ont émergé pendant la pandémie, d’où l’on peut tirer des leçons clés. Cet article montrera que la pandémie COVID-19 nous enseigne ce que signifie l’esprit critique. En particulier, la pandémie nous montre comment évaluer efficacement les informations disponibles, réviser nos conclusions précédentes, et reconnaître nos biais cognitifs.
“Critical thinking is a desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to consider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and hatred for every kind of imposture”
—Francis Bacon, philosopher
In December of 2019, the World Health Organization began its investigation of a “pneumonia of unknown cause” in Wuhan, China (1). Now, eight months later, the COVID-19 pandemic has taken the world by storm, with over twelve million people infected and more than half a million lives claimed (2). With the first wave of the pandemic coming to an end, we get the chance to pause and reflect on the thoughts and beliefs that have emerged during the pandemic, from which key lessons can be drawn. This article will reveal the ways in which the coronavirus pandemic has taught us what it means to think critically. In particular, this article will discuss how the pandemic has done so by showing us how to effectively assess information as it becomes available, how to revise previously held conclusions, and how to recognize our own cognitive biases.
Information about the pandemic seemed to spread faster than the virus itself, as did the formation of a wide range of opinions. However, the supposed evidence used to support many of these opinions calls into question the very methods we use to assess information and form opinions. For instance, various sources, including the U.S. President, suggested that the COVID-19 virus was man-made or released with a malicious intent (3). For many, this idea seemed attractive, in part, because it offered an easy explanation for the emergence of an unprecedented and fast-spreading virus. However, it is important to consider all of the information available to us regarding new viruses before forming opinions on their origin. First, let us consider genetically engineered viruses. Their genetic sequence would have traces of being manipulated in the form of “reverse genetic systems” or “cloning artifacts”, which are genetic engineering tools used to manipulate the virus, cutting, pasting, and producing new strands of DNA, and thereby forming new viruses (4,5). Thus far, multiple independent sources that have analyzed upwards of 28,000 samples of the COVID-19 virus have not shown these traces of genetic engineering (6). This is further consolidated by an international group of scientists who conducted a comparative analysis of the original COVID-19 virus sequence versus searching for genetic engineering traces, and concluded that “it is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus” (7). Unless scientists have found new ways of manipulating genes, this makes it unlikely that the COVID-19 virus was created in a lab. Alternatively, one of the most common and well-reported ways that viruses like the influenza virus evolve each year, is through a process known as “antigenic shift” (8). Simply put, this occurs when viruses mix their genetic information, often by infecting the same host, and create a new strain of virus (8). This appears to be the more likely case for the origins of COVID-19, since its genetic code shares aspects of the human-compatible 2002 SARS-CoV virus, as well as the bat-SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus (9). However, there are various natural means, aside from antigenic shift, by which viruses can evolve. Although the precise origins of the coronavirus remain unclear, this serves as a reminder to acknowledge the grey areas in our knowledge, while making our best attempt at weighing the evidence at hand. An assessment of the current information that is available makes it difficult to claim that the coronavirus was more likely to have been created in a lab than made by a common natural process, like antigenic shift. However, as new information emerges, the most likely origin of the virus will become increasingly clearer, and our critical thinking skills should continue to be sharpened in response.
In addition to teaching us to be diligent in our assessment of evidence, the COVID-19 pandemic has also warned us of how easy it is to become entrenched in a set of thoughts or beliefs, so much so, that we may begin to neglect the evolving nature of science. This pandemic offers a clear example of how new information helps us reassess our previously held beliefs and, therefore, the importance of being open to new evidence when thinking critically. Take, for instance, the contrast in public health guidance between the U.S. surgeon general Dr. Jerome Adams soon after the onset of the pandemic, versus the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention a few months later. On February 29th 2020, Dr. Jerome Adams tweeted “Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus” (10). However, in April 2020, the CDC recommended masks to be worn as a public health measure against the spread of the virus (10). This shift in health policy could be explained by the new information that became available in April, in particular, a study by Wei et al. published on April 1st, 2020 that demonstrated the alarming extent of pre-symptomatic transmission of COVID-19 through airborne droplets in China (11). In light of this new information, as well as the information derived from previous studies that displayed the effectiveness of facemasks in preventing transmission of respiratory droplets (12), it is clear that surgical masks have an important role in containing the COVID-19 virus. This drastic shift in public health opinion is an example of the importance of revising prior judgements and forming new and more effective decisions in light of new information. Overall, the question of whether facemasks are useful in containing the COVID-19 pandemic offers us a reminder of the true spirit of science: it is an inductive process, whose conclusions evolve alongside new observations.
Besides teaching us how to assess and reassess information, the COVID-19 pandemic has warned us to be wary of cognitive biases that can thwart our better judgement. Sometimes, these errors of reasoning are inconsequential but, other times, they can be fatal. There is one bias in particular that has had major consequences across the globe during the pandemic – the Outcome bias. This describes the error of judging a previously made decision based on its outcome, rather than on the intrinsic quality of the decision (13). A common saying that reflects the Outcome bias is that “if the ends justify the means” then the decision was good. For instance, a gambler may deem their decision to gamble to be good or bad based on whether or not they have won money by gambling, when in reality, the value of the decision should be based on the reasoning which led to the decision to gamble. In the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been multiple near misses of similar coronaviruses in the last two decades. For example, in 2003 the SARS-CoV virus killed nearly 800 people before it was contained, while the MERS-CoV outbreak killed nearly 900 people (14). Meanwhile, the COVID-19 pandemic has claimed more than half a million lives and has yet to be adequately controlled. The containment of the SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV viruses may have given policy makers across the globe a false sense of security, causing them to believe that whatever responses were taken then were sufficient for containment of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, it is easier to ask if the response to those viruses were sufficient, or if some of the containment could be explained by chance. The aphorism, "know thyself," cautions us to be aware of our biased views. In the case of this pandemic, knowing thyself involves remembering that the ends don’t always justify the means when it comes to assessing our previous global responses to viral outbreaks.
Overall, the COVID-19 pandemic prepared us to be careful, flexible, and proactive thinkers while navigating a global crisis. Going forward, we must remember to be anchored in rationality, and to always set our sails in the direction of truth and reason. Although we may sometimes stray from sound judgment, becoming subjects to fear, anxiety, or human error, it is important to acknowledge our fallibility, learn from our mistakes, and continue to grow as critical thinkers. Patience, self-reflection, and care will keep our civilizations afloat, even through the most turbulent tides.
(FR) Michael Maalouf est un étudiant en médecine à l’Université McGill à Montréal. Il a complété son baccalauréat en sciences avec une spécialisation en pharmacologie et en physiologie à l’Université de Toronto et a coécrit diverses publications de recherche dans des revues biomédicales. Ses domaines d’intérêt comprennent la défense des patients, la recherche translationnelle et les technologies médicales innovantes.
(EN) Michael Maalouf is a medical student at McGill University in Montreal. He completed his Bachelor of Science Honor’s degree majoring in Pharmacology and Physiology at the University of Toronto and has co-authored various research publications in biomedical journals. His areas of interest include patient advocacy, translational research, and innovative medical technologies.