THE IMPORTANCE OF KNOWING WHAT WE DO NOT KNOW

Many of us are looking for a path forward in our political leadership, work lives and long-term health.  We are in the middle of a highly charged partisan presidential election year, which just happens to be occurring during the worst economic and medical disaster in over a hundred years.

Anyone in authority who admits to knowing what they do not know, about the economy, the presidential election or the pandemic has been a breath of honesty and fresh air.  Conversely, elected leaders, scientists and journalists who have insisted on knowing all the answers to unknowable solutions and results are guilty of malpractice against the American people. These individuals do not deserve our attention or support going forward. 

The one trait that will define the winners of 2020 will be those with the ability to know that a certain result was unable to be determined with any precision. Once each economist, investors, scientist and politician   stopped dealing with certainty and began concentrating on what they knew they did not know it was a manageable task to apply what they did know to the pandemic and to maximize the best outcome.

Those investors who knew what they did not know prudently diversified their portfolios before the bottom fell out of the economy and kept a cash reserve. No one was prescient enough to predict a pandemic. However, those who viewed the economy as a “shoots and ladders game”, with a long struggle up the ladder followed by an unpredictable sharp fall to the bottom, were more prepared for the economic collapse.

Presidential politics is an excellent topic to consider the importance of knowing what we do not know. The worst economic and medical crisis in our history will dominate the election.  Those who are confidently predicting the outcome are wasting our time.

 At this point, no one knows how the president will be judged for his handling of the crisis. No one knows the course of the virus, the economic results from a patchwork reopening of the economy, or whether adequate safeguards can be instituted to dampen a reoccurrence.  The manner in which these unknowns are resolved will determine who our next president becomes.

Finally, I would like to examine the pandemic itself and draw some observations about the benefits of those who admit to knowing what they do not know.  To make my point, I will follow the recent public records of a politician, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and of an immunologist, Dr. Anthony Fauci. These two dedicated Italian Americans approached the pandemic from opposite positions early in the pandemic before coming together on their management of the crisis. 

Elected officials, like Andrew Cuomo, understand their role in a public health emergency as seeking to dampen panic and to be positive about the future.  The goal is to keep all aspects of society running as normally as possible.  On the other hand, scientists like Anthony Fauci, see their initial role as ringing alarm bells and making statements that compel the population to change behaviors before a major breakout has occurred.  What is remarkable to me is that over the course of two months these two irreconcilable positions would merge into one voice, as each realized the extent of what they knew they did not know.

In early March, Governor Cuomo took the standard “all is well” position of a politician and fumbled the New York response to the pandemic.  The Governors of California and Washington State listened to the scientists and instituted statewide shutdowns before there were many reported infections. Cuomo did the opposite and let the residents of his state, including the most densely populated city in the world, operate as if nothing was amiss.

 During this same period, in early March, Dr. Fauci was Cuomo’s worst nightmare.  He was taking whatever action he felt necessary to save lives, which included presenting models of worst case scenarios to the White House and to the media. His predictions of two million deaths finally convinced President Trump to call for a national response.  These dire forecasts, which assumed taking no action at all, are now the basis for right wing attacks against his professional credentials and his motives.

A dramatic change took place in late March that would see both Cuomo and Fauci singing from the same sheet of music. The Governor was suddenly faced with the collapse of the New York medical system as it responded to the virus.  While it was too late to avoid large numbers of infections, a complete shutdown of all economic activity was called for to mitigate the spread. Cuomo shifted from an elected official calling for calm and restraint to one managing the largest crisis of his career.

Cuomo began holding daily media briefings during which nothing was sugar coated.  Each day the number of new cases, hospital admissions and deaths were reported along with extensive analysis of what his experts knew they did not know. The results were (and are) unknowable. As a plan of action, it was rational to beleive that social distancing and staying in place for many weeks would lower the number of infections.  New Yorkers (and a nation of shut-ins) appreciated the governor’s candor and followed his instructions.

During this same period, Dr Fauci became less of a fatalist and took the position that the results from all the models making predictions on the virus were actually not to be taken seriously.  He began explaining that there were so many variable inputs, depending on how well citizens followed his guidelines, that no result was knowable. Moreover, the virus began acting in unpredictable ways that were unknowable to medical experts.  The only real message was that each of us doing our part could flatten the curve.  We learned to apply what we do know to mitigate the unknowable.

Once the elected official became a manager and the alarmist scientist became focused on mitigation, their goals were aligned.  Neither can tell us how things will end.  Both can prescribe the same course of action.

We are now in the crucial months leading up to the presidential election. The pandemic will spawn a boatload of theories, counter theories, conspiracies and after- the- fact analysis.  Most of it will be self-serving and misleading.  Anyone who claims they know how the course of the virus or the presidential election will play out is either a fool or a manipulator.