As the most disruptive and contested public health event of the twenty-first century, the COVID-19 pandemic transformed Americans’ relationship with the health care and medical communities. Nearly five years on, citizens and scientists alike continue to wrestle with polarizing questions about the long-term effects of public health measures such as masks and school closures, debating their justification, effectiveness and contribution to a growing trend of distrust in institutions.
To address these lingering questions, ±«Óătv Health partnered with the ±«Óătv chapter of the to host “COVID Conversations,” a conference bringing together a diverse group of experts for an open dialogue about what was done well, what was done poorly and what can be improved upon in the future.
The conference took the form of a , signature events meant to model civic discourse about difficult and disputed subjects, demonstrating how viewpoint diversity and constructive disagreement improve critical inquiry. These conversations are designed to shine a light on the intellectual process of discovery, analysis and reasoning that result in a conclusion, embracing a posture of charity and intellectual humility to foreground the shared pursuit of knowledge.
“With this event, we are trying to look back at COVID and understand its lessons in a new light – to reexamine our views outside of our usual silos,” said Charles J. Lockwood, MD, MHCM, executive vice president of ±«Óătv Health and dean of the ±«Óătv Health Morsani College of Medicine. “The purpose of the Heterodox Academy and this conference is to help us to seek truth – and to recognize that truth-seeking starts with examining diverse points of view rather than squelching them. We want to recognize that we can disagree constructively and conduct dialogue with civility in order to reach a better understanding.”
Speakers, who sometimes vehemently disagreed, tackled the most controversial issues head on: what were COVID’s true origins? Were mitigation measures such as masks and school closures warranted and for how long? Was there sufficient transparency during the decision-making process or willingness to listen to dissenting viewpoints? How can institutions start rebuilding trust moving forward?
Panelists came from across the nation and world, representing different professions, institutions and, most crucially, different points of view. These included well known international scholars, such as Martin Kulldorff, PhD, founding fellow at the Hillsdale College Academy for Science and Freedom; Tracy Beth Høeg, MD, PhD, epidemiologist with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and associate professor with the University of Southern Denmark; Eric Winsberg, PhD, professor with the ±«Óătv Department of Philosophy and British Academy Global Professor with the University of Cambridge; and Alina Chan, PhD, scientific advisor for the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard.
At each of the sessions, speakers were given an opportunity to make their case, before engaging their fellow panelists in a constructive dialogue and answering questions from the audience. The balanced and rigorous format was designed to encourage the kind of open-minded and productive discussion that represents the best of higher education and free speech – following the spirit of the
“This ±«Óătv forum had the advantage of courteous and respectful dialogue with persons of diverse viewpoints. With polarization in our political environment, it is vital to have scientists who disagree sit in the same room and present their evidence. Each may learn from the other and we find consensus where we can,” said Sten Vermund, MD, PhD, the Anna M.R. Lauder Professor of Public Health at Yale University, and incoming dean of the ±«Óătv College of Public Health.
Attendees and participants universally described the event as thought-provoking, praising the participatory format and respectful disagreement.
“The program brought civility back to open dialogue about COVID, one of the most controversial public topics of our time,” said Jay Wolfson, DrPH, JD, interim dean of the ±«Óătv College of Public Health and senior associate vice president of ±«Óătv Health. “This is an example of how trust, good science, good medicine and good law can be restored to the public forum, and is testimony to the honesty, integrity and collegiality that were comfortably embraced by persons holding divergent views.”
