**The Politics of Evidence: How Changes in Standards Influence COVID-19 Narratives**
The COVID-19 pandemic has served as a testing ground for scientific research, public health strategies, and political strategies. This is particularly apparent in the new final report released by Congress’ Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. Compiled by a Republican majority, the report critiques responses to the pandemic, commends some policies from the Trump administration, and addresses divisive scientific issues. Notably, its most remarkable element is the selective use of evidence—a process that can be referred to as “shifting the evidentiary baseline.”
This method, wherein the criteria for evidence are modified to support a specific conclusion, is not unprecedented. It has been observed in arguments surrounding creationism and climate change. However, the frequency of its use in the subcommittee’s report gives rise to concerns regarding the interpretation and communication of scientific information within the political sphere. Let’s examine how this strategy is employed and its repercussions for public comprehension of scientific matters.
—
### **What Constitutes Evidence?**
The subcommittee’s report addresses a variety of pandemic-related subjects, including the effectiveness of masks, vaccine safety, and the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Unsurprisingly, its findings correspond with partisan perspectives: masks proved ineffective, vaccines were hastily developed, and restrictions were misguided. Concurrently, Trump-era initiatives such as Operation Warp Speed and international travel bans receive accolades.
However, arriving at these conclusions necessitated navigating a complicated landscape of scientific evidence. For instance, the report commends Trump’s travel restrictions, asserting they “saved lives.” Yet, the evidence provided—a single study relying on computer models of diseases not linked to COVID-19—is questionable at best. Conversely, the report disregards substantial evidence endorsing the effectiveness of masks, contending that those studies were “flawed” due to their lack of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This creates a twofold standard: computer models are sufficient for one argument, while RCTs are sought for another.
This selective use of evidence pervades other areas as well. The report critiques the six-foot social distancing guideline, referencing Anthony Fauci’s admission that it lacked RCT-based validation. Nonetheless, the same level of scrutiny is not applied to assertions regarding the benefits of travel restrictions or the effectiveness of off-label medications like ivermectin and chloroquine. These latter claims are upheld despite overwhelming evidence suggesting their ineffectiveness, relying more on anecdotal accounts than on scientific research.
—
### **The Lab Leak Hypothesis**
The report’s discussion regarding the origins of the pandemic illustrates another instance of changing evidentiary standards. It concludes that COVID-19 “most likely” emerged from a laboratory, a theory that some support but that lacks robust scientific backing. The evidence presented includes the proximity of a virology institute in Wuhan and anecdotal reports of flu-like symptoms among its personnel.
Conversely, the zoonotic origin theory—backed by extensive genetic evidence and consistent with the origins of prior coronaviruses such as SARS and MERS—is dismissed. The report asserts, “if there was evidence of a natural origin, it would have already surfaced,” disregarding numerous peer-reviewed studies linking the virus to wildlife trade at a market in Wuhan. Instead, the report dedicates significant space to hypothesizing a conspiracy among researchers to suppress the lab leak narrative, while favorably referencing a New York Times op-ed as support.
This selective rejection of scientific evidence in favor of anecdotal and editorial sources diminishes the report’s credibility. It also underscores the risks of equating scientific uncertainty with a lack of evidence.
—
### **The Repercussions of Altered Standards**
The subcommittee’s methodology carries wider implications for public dialogue and policy formulation. By selectively enforcing evidentiary standards, it crafts a narrative aligned with partisan objectives while diminishing trust in scientific inquiry. This strategy is particularly harmful as it takes advantage of the intricacies of scientific exploration, which frequently involves different degrees of certainty and developing evidence.
For example, the report’s critique of mask effectiveness centers on the absence of RCTs, often deemed the gold standard in clinical research. However, RCTs are not always practical or ethical within public health scenarios. Observational studies, which constitute the majority of evidence supporting mask usage, are dismissed despite being valid in real-world conditions. This fosters a misleading binary, where only RCTs are recognized as acceptable, sidelining other important types of evidence.
Likewise, the report’s endorsement of travel restrictions based on computer models sharply contrasts with its dismissal of similar modeling studies pertinent to other interventions. This inconsistency reveals a readiness to manipulate evidentiary standards to align with a pre-established narrative.
—
### **A Wider Trend**
The tactic of adjusting evidentiary baselines is not exclusive to the pandemic. It has been used in discussions surrounding evolution, climate change, and other contentious topics. In these situations, critics of scientific consensus often demand unattainable proof levels while accepting weak evidence to support their arguments.
What distinguishes the subcommittee’s report is its scale and public visibility. By incorporating this tactic within an official governmental document, it risks normalizing
