The worst part about all of this is that the confidence on 'we solved polio' is built on a catastrophe of poor decisions. We narrowed a multi-variate problem into a single cause, then claimed victory, while redefining the disease, and then took that hubris to the economy which is just as multi-variate.
Thanks for the comment and for sharing the link — I read the beginning and agree. Now to dive in to the whole thing.
I agree with the core of what you’re saying: the “we solved polio” narrative has been oversimplified, and there’s legitimate debate about how much of the victory was due to the vaccine versus changes in diagnostics, pesticides, sanitation, and how the disease was defined over time.
My piece isn’t primarily arguing the scientific merits of any specific intervention. It’s about how visible suffering + perceived expert victories create powerful cultural capital that gets converted into institutional power and deference — even when the underlying science is more nuanced than the public story.
The polio example became a foundational myth for the expert class: “We solved this terrifying, visible problem with science and government coordination. Therefore, trust us on the next one.” That halo effect then got extended to economic and social engineering, and later to lifestyle and public health mandates.
Your link highlights an important cautionary tale about hubris in narrowing complex, multi-variate problems to single-cause solutions. That kind of overconfidence is exactly what later contributed to the erosion of trust we’re seeing now.
Appreciate you bringing this angle forward — this is exactly the kind of layered discussion the series is meant to spark.
I totally agree with the core of your point. I was merely adding that, that panic obfuscated the incompetence and bad science of Polio itself. I could understand that truly 'winning' with Polio could provide over confidence, and engender trust....
But how bad is it that it provided over-confidence and engendered trust AND they DIDN'T solve polio?! That's where I was going with this. It's bad enough with your framing. It gets worse the deeper you go.
Polio and Spanish Flu then is like COVID now, but without the benefit of strong sources of information external to the experts .... in the era of 1950 communications, knowledge and information sources, a COVID pandemic might well seem to the general population as if the experts "beat it"
Yeah, Spanish flu was an interesting study, slightly different than Polio, but ironically, the protocols we took for COVID were the very circumstances that caused Spanish Flu to become more deadly. I'll have to dig up the article on that but, fundamentally it was 'lockdown and stress' in the WWI battle front that amplified it.
It's just crazy, as you strip back the layers, how much hubris there is.
The mitigations used in 1918-1919 pandemic may have been the same useless measures used in 2020-2023 but were not the same time frames. 1918-19 mitigations lasted a week or two. 2020-2023 lasted months and years. After the earlier pandemic, the head of the California Public Health Department wrote a paper on how useless the measures were. There are no intellectual honest public health officials in the 21st century to write such a paper.
Also, the 1918-1919 USA pandemic was over in three waves in 18 months with no antibiotics, no widespread usage of vaccines, no modern medical practices. With all three available in the 21st century we are still dealing with deaths and the consequences of public healths stupid choices 6 years after the start.
all fine and dandy, but really the least point here. The major point is using the visible suffering + perceived expertise + moral authority combination to establish permanent experts who regulate our lives ... .and the long term outcome of that
The worst part about all of this is that the confidence on 'we solved polio' is built on a catastrophe of poor decisions. We narrowed a multi-variate problem into a single cause, then claimed victory, while redefining the disease, and then took that hubris to the economy which is just as multi-variate.
More on the polio problem here: https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/polio-pesticides-and-polymaths
Thanks for the comment and for sharing the link — I read the beginning and agree. Now to dive in to the whole thing.
I agree with the core of what you’re saying: the “we solved polio” narrative has been oversimplified, and there’s legitimate debate about how much of the victory was due to the vaccine versus changes in diagnostics, pesticides, sanitation, and how the disease was defined over time.
My piece isn’t primarily arguing the scientific merits of any specific intervention. It’s about how visible suffering + perceived expert victories create powerful cultural capital that gets converted into institutional power and deference — even when the underlying science is more nuanced than the public story.
The polio example became a foundational myth for the expert class: “We solved this terrifying, visible problem with science and government coordination. Therefore, trust us on the next one.” That halo effect then got extended to economic and social engineering, and later to lifestyle and public health mandates.
Your link highlights an important cautionary tale about hubris in narrowing complex, multi-variate problems to single-cause solutions. That kind of overconfidence is exactly what later contributed to the erosion of trust we’re seeing now.
Appreciate you bringing this angle forward — this is exactly the kind of layered discussion the series is meant to spark.
I totally agree with the core of your point. I was merely adding that, that panic obfuscated the incompetence and bad science of Polio itself. I could understand that truly 'winning' with Polio could provide over confidence, and engender trust....
But how bad is it that it provided over-confidence and engendered trust AND they DIDN'T solve polio?! That's where I was going with this. It's bad enough with your framing. It gets worse the deeper you go.
Polio and Spanish Flu then is like COVID now, but without the benefit of strong sources of information external to the experts .... in the era of 1950 communications, knowledge and information sources, a COVID pandemic might well seem to the general population as if the experts "beat it"
In other words, we are in violent agreement sir
Yeah, Spanish flu was an interesting study, slightly different than Polio, but ironically, the protocols we took for COVID were the very circumstances that caused Spanish Flu to become more deadly. I'll have to dig up the article on that but, fundamentally it was 'lockdown and stress' in the WWI battle front that amplified it.
It's just crazy, as you strip back the layers, how much hubris there is.
There was a study on the over prescription of aspirin during the 1918-19 pandemic. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091002132346.htm
The mitigations used in 1918-1919 pandemic may have been the same useless measures used in 2020-2023 but were not the same time frames. 1918-19 mitigations lasted a week or two. 2020-2023 lasted months and years. After the earlier pandemic, the head of the California Public Health Department wrote a paper on how useless the measures were. There are no intellectual honest public health officials in the 21st century to write such a paper.
Also, the 1918-1919 USA pandemic was over in three waves in 18 months with no antibiotics, no widespread usage of vaccines, no modern medical practices. With all three available in the 21st century we are still dealing with deaths and the consequences of public healths stupid choices 6 years after the start.
all fine and dandy, but really the least point here. The major point is using the visible suffering + perceived expertise + moral authority combination to establish permanent experts who regulate our lives ... .and the long term outcome of that