Coronavirus news

[Dave Benke]

I have nothing to say about vaccinations but thought this was somewhat coronavirus related.

For the time we have been worshiping in person (June 2020) we have altered our worship services to minimize the amount of time the people were in one space. We still sang hymns, but only 3 instead of 4 or 5. And we cut down the verses. We spoke the ordinaries. It hasn't been bad.

But today while I was putting on my robes, going over sermon notes, looking through the bulletin, this struck me...in our three hymns today we sang all the verses of the hymns: The Lord's My Shepherd I'll Not Want, The King of Love My Shepherd Is, I Am Jesus' Little Lamb.

I don't know if that says anything about the future, about pur services, or anything at all, but it was nice to see.

Jeremy

One of the sad "benefits" of the new normal is the time of worship services.  It's gone way down for the reason you mention and more - the sharing of the peace has gone from 10 minutes down to 20 seconds; the time during the reception of the Eucharist is cut in half or less (less people and a different process); the number of hymns and songs is less; choir assembling and singing - non-existent; testimonies, less.  In a setting where people come to church expecting to be in the building for say three hours including fellowship, being there for around an hour feels like a drive-through.  But it's OK; it's the best we can do. 

Our parish zip codes remain in the top five in NYC for COVID positivity, and at the absolute bottom of the list for full vaccination percentage.  The inverse percentages are found - guess what? - in all the ultra-wealthy zips around town.  That's why we have weekly encouragement to stay safe, watch at home if you need to, and get vaccinated.  Or hit the lotto and move to the Upper East Side, but don't forget to tithe.

Dave Benke

[D. Engebretson]

I have nothing to say about vaccinations but thought this was somewhat coronavirus related.

For the time we have been worshiping in person (June 2020) we have altered our worship services to minimize the amount of time the people were in one space. We still sang hymns, but only 3 instead of 4 or 5. And we cut down the verses. We spoke the ordinaries. It hasn't been bad.

But today while I was putting on my robes, going over sermon notes, looking through the bulletin, this struck me...in our three hymns today we sang all the verses of the hymns: The Lord's My Shepherd I'll Not Want, The King of Love My Shepherd Is, I Am Jesus' Little Lamb.

I don't know if that says anything about the future, about pur services, or anything at all, but it was nice to see.

Jeremy

One of the sad "benefits" of the new normal is the time of worship services.  It's gone way down for the reason you mention and more - the sharing of the peace has gone from 10 minutes down to 20 seconds; the time during the reception of the Eucharist is cut in half or less (less people and a different process); the number of hymns and songs is less; choir assembling and singing - non-existent; testimonies, less.  In a setting where people come to church expecting to be in the building for say three hours including fellowship, being there for around an hour feels like a drive-through.  But it's OK; it's the best we can do. 

Our parish zip codes remain in the top five in NYC for COVID positivity, and at the absolute bottom of the list for full vaccination percentage.  The inverse percentages are found - guess what? - in all the ultra-wealthy zips around town.  That's why we have weekly encouragement to stay safe, watch at home if you need to, and get vaccinated.  Or hit the lotto and move to the Upper East Side, but don't forget to tithe.

Dave Benke

Since there does not seem to be a shortage of vaccines, is it a matter of access for the less affluent, or is it a matter of hesitancy?

[Coach-Rev]

In a sane world, we would trust the experts.

In a sane world, the experts would show much more consensus than they do regarding such things as mask wearing.
In a sane world, "trusting the science" would actually mean we could trust that which is trustable. 
In a sane world, science would not have - on many things - developed pet or "ruling" theories that ignore large swaths of data all for the sake of maintaining theories that would otherwise be disproven.  (such as the comparative size of either droplets or aerosolized forms of the virus vs what a paper or cloth mask can filter out effectively, which is not even close to what is needed by said paper or cloth masks)

But then again, the world is not, nor ever has been "sane."

[peter_speckhard]

I have nothing to say about vaccinations but thought this was somewhat coronavirus related.

For the time we have been worshiping in person (June 2020) we have altered our worship services to minimize the amount of time the people were in one space. We still sang hymns, but only 3 instead of 4 or 5. And we cut down the verses. We spoke the ordinaries. It hasn't been bad.

But today while I was putting on my robes, going over sermon notes, looking through the bulletin, this struck me...in our three hymns today we sang all the verses of the hymns: The Lord's My Shepherd I'll Not Want, The King of Love My Shepherd Is, I Am Jesus' Little Lamb.

I don't know if that says anything about the future, about pur services, or anything at all, but it was nice to see.

Jeremy

One of the sad "benefits" of the new normal is the time of worship services.  It's gone way down for the reason you mention and more - the sharing of the peace has gone from 10 minutes down to 20 seconds; the time during the reception of the Eucharist is cut in half or less (less people and a different process); the number of hymns and songs is less; choir assembling and singing - non-existent; testimonies, less.  In a setting where people come to church expecting to be in the building for say three hours including fellowship, being there for around an hour feels like a drive-through.  But it's OK; it's the best we can do. 

Our parish zip codes remain in the top five in NYC for COVID positivity, and at the absolute bottom of the list for full vaccination percentage.  The inverse percentages are found - guess what? - in all the ultra-wealthy zips around town.  That's why we have weekly encouragement to stay safe, watch at home if you need to, and get vaccinated.  Or hit the lotto and move to the Upper East Side, but don't forget to tithe.

Dave Benke

Since there does not seem to be a shortage of vaccines, is it a matter of access for the less affluent, or is it a matter of hesitancy?

Anyone who wants a vaccine can sign up for one now. Hesitancy is the only thing holding people back, regardless of the affluence of the zip code. In Indiana they set up vaccination sites in the inner cities and then late in the day sent out text/email alerts that nobody was in line and anyone could come get vaccinated, lest the doses go to waste. Some of my children's high school friends took off early from school (presumably with permission) and drove to get them rather than wait for an appointment closer to home. My wife and daughters were vaccinated in Gary because the wait was weeks less than in Munster. 

[Dave Benke]

I have nothing to say about vaccinations but thought this was somewhat coronavirus related.

For the time we have been worshiping in person (June 2020) we have altered our worship services to minimize the amount of time the people were in one space. We still sang hymns, but only 3 instead of 4 or 5. And we cut down the verses. We spoke the ordinaries. It hasn't been bad.

But today while I was putting on my robes, going over sermon notes, looking through the bulletin, this struck me...in our three hymns today we sang all the verses of the hymns: The Lord's My Shepherd I'll Not Want, The King of Love My Shepherd Is, I Am Jesus' Little Lamb.

I don't know if that says anything about the future, about pur services, or anything at all, but it was nice to see.

Jeremy

One of the sad "benefits" of the new normal is the time of worship services.  It's gone way down for the reason you mention and more - the sharing of the peace has gone from 10 minutes down to 20 seconds; the time during the reception of the Eucharist is cut in half or less (less people and a different process); the number of hymns and songs is less; choir assembling and singing - non-existent; testimonies, less.  In a setting where people come to church expecting to be in the building for say three hours including fellowship, being there for around an hour feels like a drive-through.  But it's OK; it's the best we can do. 

Our parish zip codes remain in the top five in NYC for COVID positivity, and at the absolute bottom of the list for full vaccination percentage.  The inverse percentages are found - guess what? - in all the ultra-wealthy zips around town.  That's why we have weekly encouragement to stay safe, watch at home if you need to, and get vaccinated.  Or hit the lotto and move to the Upper East Side, but don't forget to tithe.

Dave Benke

Since there does not seem to be a shortage of vaccines, is it a matter of access for the less affluent, or is it a matter of hesitancy?

Access is better than it has been.  Urban living in a city of this size is a different beast.  2/3 to 3/4 of people do not have vehicles, so depend on public transit.  And way more folks than you'd think live in a very small circle footprint, let's say in a mile square area of Woodhaven Queens.  Shopping, friends, family, etc. becomes self-contained.  In that sense it's more like, I guess, some folks in rural areas who only traverse certain roads and trails and gathering spots.  Public transit seems COVID-dangerous, whether it is in fact or not.  More reason not to leave your 'hood.  Now that we have local drugstores involved, that's a big positive.  Where I personally live, in a different zip, the Walgreen's was full of folks this morning signing up, and none of them speak English as a first language - again, local is good, trust is higher.  If you bring older mom and dad, you get a shot for yourself, so there are lots of extended family units.

Hesitancy is also a big thing.  To say that it there is no racial/ethnic dimension to it would be not to listen to those who are hesitant - a good degree of the hesitancy is perceived by the folks in our area as racial, and the conversations among their black and latino, Caribbean family and friends is all negative.  Which is why we spend as much church time as we can, online and off, encouraging toward the vaccine. 

Finally, I think the percentages in the communities with younger demographics will change as the vaccine is available to everyone.  That happens in NYC within the next three weeks, I believe - it's down to 30 and up now, but the pre-pandemic stat for these zips had the median age at around 20 (lots of kids).

Dave Benke

[peter_speckhard]

I have nothing to say about vaccinations but thought this was somewhat coronavirus related.

For the time we have been worshiping in person (June 2020) we have altered our worship services to minimize the amount of time the people were in one space. We still sang hymns, but only 3 instead of 4 or 5. And we cut down the verses. We spoke the ordinaries. It hasn't been bad.

But today while I was putting on my robes, going over sermon notes, looking through the bulletin, this struck me...in our three hymns today we sang all the verses of the hymns: The Lord's My Shepherd I'll Not Want, The King of Love My Shepherd Is, I Am Jesus' Little Lamb.

I don't know if that says anything about the future, about pur services, or anything at all, but it was nice to see.

Jeremy

One of the sad "benefits" of the new normal is the time of worship services.  It's gone way down for the reason you mention and more - the sharing of the peace has gone from 10 minutes down to 20 seconds; the time during the reception of the Eucharist is cut in half or less (less people and a different process); the number of hymns and songs is less; choir assembling and singing - non-existent; testimonies, less.  In a setting where people come to church expecting to be in the building for say three hours including fellowship, being there for around an hour feels like a drive-through.  But it's OK; it's the best we can do. 

Our parish zip codes remain in the top five in NYC for COVID positivity, and at the absolute bottom of the list for full vaccination percentage.  The inverse percentages are found - guess what? - in all the ultra-wealthy zips around town.  That's why we have weekly encouragement to stay safe, watch at home if you need to, and get vaccinated.  Or hit the lotto and move to the Upper East Side, but don't forget to tithe.

Dave Benke

Since there does not seem to be a shortage of vaccines, is it a matter of access for the less affluent, or is it a matter of hesitancy?

Access is better than it has been.  Urban living in a city of this size is a different beast.  2/3 to 3/4 of people do not have vehicles, so depend on public transit.  And way more folks than you'd think live in a very small circle footprint, let's say in a mile square area of Woodhaven Queens.  Shopping, friends, family, etc. becomes self-contained.  In that sense it's more like, I guess, some folks in rural areas who only traverse certain roads and trails and gathering spots.  Public transit seems COVID-dangerous, whether it is in fact or not.  More reason not to leave your 'hood.  Now that we have local drugstores involved, that's a big positive.  Where I personally live, in a different zip, the Walgreen's was full of folks this morning signing up, and none of them speak English as a first language - again, local is good, trust is higher.  If you bring older mom and dad, you get a shot for yourself, so there are lots of extended family units.

Hesitancy is also a big thing.  To say that it there is no racial/ethnic dimension to it would be not to listen to those who are hesitant - a good degree of the hesitancy is perceived by the folks in our area as racial, and the conversations among their black and latino, Caribbean family and friends is all negative.  Which is why we spend as much church time as we can, online and off, encouraging toward the vaccine. 

Finally, I think the percentages in the communities with younger demographics will change as the vaccine is available to everyone.  That happens in NYC within the next three weeks, I believe - it's down to 30 and up now, but the pre-pandemic stat for these zips had the median age at around 20 (lots of kids).

Dave Benke

I thought the states were bound by the federal timeline to be offering the vaccine to anyone over 16 by now. Many states have been doing that for a long time.

[J. Thomas Shelley]

I thought the states were bound by the federal timeline to be offering the vaccine to anyone over 16 by now. Many states have been doing that for a long time.

And some others, like Pennsylvania (which only opened vaccines to all adults one week ago), needed some Federal persuasion.

[Brian Stoffregen]

In a sane world, we would trust the experts.

In a sane world, the experts would show much more consensus than they do regarding such things as mask wearing.
In a sane world, "trusting the science" would actually mean we could trust that which is trustable. 
In a sane world, science would not have - on many things - developed pet or "ruling" theories that ignore large swaths of data all for the sake of maintaining theories that would otherwise be disproven.  (such as the comparative size of either droplets or aerosolized forms of the virus vs what a paper or cloth mask can filter out effectively, which is not even close to what is needed by said paper or cloth masks)

But then again, the world is not, nor ever has been "sane."

This morning I shared this post on Facebook. It seems to have been written by Stevie Berryman, whom I do not know.

One of the most dangerous ideas that has come about in the last three years is that all points of view are equally valid, and that Average Citizen (YOU) are just as equipped to judge which have merit as anyone else.

“Hear all sides, and judge for yourself!” No! I do not condone the death of Expertise, and neither should you.

I am an expert in very, very few things. But in those areas, my expertise is hard-earned through study, work, experience, and aptitude. None of it comes from attending Google University. But unless you are an expert in exactly the same areas, your opinion is not just as valid as mine. It’s not.

And my opinion is not as valid as experts in other fields. That is why THEY ARE THE EXPERTS. So, if our leading epidemiologists largely agree that “A” is correct, and a couple of discredited doctors make a video that says “B” is correct, our response should not be, “I’ll listen to both and decide which makes sense to me.” Confirmation bias exists, and only fools think they are free of it. To paraphrase Asimov, your ignorance is not the same as their experience. Genuinely smart people look for answers from people who are smarter than themselves. Only ignorant people believe their guess is as good as anyone else’s.


I'm pretty sure that most of us seminary trained theologians and Bible experts, are suspicious when untrained people start making statements about scriptures or of the Christian faith that we find less than accurate. E.g., one lady insisted that "God helps those who help themselves" is in the Bible. In another case, a group at a congregation created a survey to be used with other Lutherans, and asked, "How do you understand the word 'inerrancy' as used in the Lutheran Confessions?" (They also assumed that the "immaculate conception" was about Jesus' conception in their questionnaire.)


Or, from a meme on Facebook, the problems Wendy's had when they advertised that the 1/3 lb burger was bigger than McDonald's 1/4 lb burger. People argued that Wendy's was wrong because 4 is larger than 3.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Anyone who wants a vaccine can sign up for one now. Hesitancy is the only thing holding people back, regardless of the affluence of the zip code. In Indiana they set up vaccination sites in the inner cities and then late in the day sent out text/email alerts that nobody was in line and anyone could come get vaccinated, lest the doses go to waste. Some of my children's high school friends took off early from school (presumably with permission) and drove to get them rather than wait for an appointment closer to home. My wife and daughters were vaccinated in Gary because the wait was weeks less than in Munster.

Our son in Seattle is trying to sign up for the vaccine - and has tried since it became available to his age group. The online site, so far, have said that there are none available. He also has the issue that without a vehicle, he prefers a site within walking distance of his apartment. (He walks about a mile to get to work - which would be faster than trying to drive it or take mass transit.) Our other son, in Denver, has been able to get his two shots just recently, but it meant checking the website quite often. (He also does not have a car.) We are planning a family get-together in August and our boys didn't want to gather if they hadn't been vaccinated.

[D. Engebretson]

In a sane world, we would trust the experts.

In a sane world, the experts would show much more consensus than they do regarding such things as mask wearing.
In a sane world, "trusting the science" would actually mean we could trust that which is trustable. 
In a sane world, science would not have - on many things - developed pet or "ruling" theories that ignore large swaths of data all for the sake of maintaining theories that would otherwise be disproven.  (such as the comparative size of either droplets or aerosolized forms of the virus vs what a paper or cloth mask can filter out effectively, which is not even close to what is needed by said paper or cloth masks)

But then again, the world is not, nor ever has been "sane."

This morning I shared this post on Facebook. It seems to have been written by Stevie Berryman, whom I do not know.

One of the most dangerous ideas that has come about in the last three years is that all points of view are equally valid, and that Average Citizen (YOU) are just as equipped to judge which have merit as anyone else.

“Hear all sides, and judge for yourself!” No! I do not condone the death of Expertise, and neither should you.

I am an expert in very, very few things. But in those areas, my expertise is hard-earned through study, work, experience, and aptitude. None of it comes from attending Google University. But unless you are an expert in exactly the same areas, your opinion is not just as valid as mine. It’s not.

And my opinion is not as valid as experts in other fields. That is why THEY ARE THE EXPERTS. So, if our leading epidemiologists largely agree that “A” is correct, and a couple of discredited doctors make a video that says “B” is correct, our response should not be, “I’ll listen to both and decide which makes sense to me.” Confirmation bias exists, and only fools think they are free of it. To paraphrase Asimov, your ignorance is not the same as their experience. Genuinely smart people look for answers from people who are smarter than themselves. Only ignorant people believe their guess is as good as anyone else’s.


I'm pretty sure that most of us seminary trained theologians and Bible experts, are suspicious when untrained people start making statements about scriptures or of the Christian faith that we find less than accurate. E.g., one lady insisted that "God helps those who help themselves" is in the Bible. In another case, a group at a congregation created a survey to be used with other Lutherans, and asked, "How do you understand the word 'inerrancy' as used in the Lutheran Confessions?" (They also assumed that the "immaculate conception" was about Jesus' conception in their questionnaire.)


Or, from a meme on Facebook, the problems Wendy's had when they advertised that the 1/3 lb burger was bigger than McDonald's 1/4 lb burger. People argued that Wendy's was wrong because 4 is larger than 3.

I am certainly not against listening to those considered 'experts' in their field.  And as a rule I'm inclined to listen and follow their advice.  But I also do not think that I am unequipped to think critically for myself and I resist following any advice without actually reasoning it through.  And when one disagrees with an 'established expert' it does not automatically mean that those I am listening to are "discredited."  You use the example of pastors as "seminary trained theologians" and how we would be equally distrustful of "untrained people" coming to conclusions that differ.  Dr. C.F.W. Walther, first president of our St. Louis Seminary once said in a sermon:
Christ says in his sermon on the mount, where not only disciples, but also a great multitude were present, "Beware of false prophets … Ye shall know them by their fruits." This admonition by the Son of God shows us plainly how entirely false the principle is that the preachers should teach and the hearers only listen, that the shepherds should lead and the sheep only follow, that the clergy should resolve and the congregation only acquiesce. No, when Christ calls upon his hearers to beware of false prophets and to know the true and the false by their fruits, Christ thereby seats all hearers upon the seat of judgment, placed the balance scale of truth in their hands, and bids them confidently execute judgment on their teachers.

So, in keeping with Walther's advice, I sincerely hope those in the pew are listening closely and in a discerning fashion and will call me to account - the "expert" - if I deviate from the clear word of scripture.

Scientists are well trained and educated people.  We would not take their advice lightly.  But we all know that well-meaning scientists can disagree, men and women with equal credentials and expertise in the same field.  So faced with such a difference we would do well to weigh the advice and make an informed decision in favor of one or the other.  How many times have we been told with doctors to "get a second opinion"?  One competent doctor tells us that we have cancer and there is no cure.  Yet another tells us there is a therapy and medicines that can yet be tried.  It happens.

I think that intelligent and informed citizens have a duty to "get a second opinion" and weigh the evidence provided. 

[pearson]

This morning I shared this post on Facebook. It seems to have been written by Stevie Berryman, whom I do not know.

One of the most dangerous ideas that has come about in the last three years is that all points of view are equally valid, and that Average Citizen (YOU) are just as equipped to judge which have merit as anyone else.

“Hear all sides, and judge for yourself!” No! I do not condone the death of Expertise, and neither should you.

Thanks be to God for this wisdom.  Never again will I encourage my students "to think for themselves."  Unreflective obedience is much more responsible.

Tom Pearson

[peter_speckhard]

Experts disagree. Every member of the SCOTUS is a top expert in the legal field. Why aren't their rulings typically 9-0? In medicine, why would it be standard practice to seek a second opinion? Was the first diagnosis not made by an expert? Do we not trust experts? The point is, they sometimes bitterly disagree. What has happened in our discourse is that the experts preferred by one general viewpoint are called "the experts" while experts of alternative viewpoints are marginalized and not treated as experts. CNN admitted as much in the hidden mic interview in which they said they "found" experts to evaluate the candidates' health in order to form public opinion. You can find an expert to say anything. So you can't listen to "the experts" generally, you have to find experts you trust to be evaluating the situation with the same outlook and set of values that you use to evaluate things. 

What do the experts say about low carb dieting? About the benefits of long distance running? About investing in real estate right now? About who the Packers should/will take in the first round of the draft?

[peter_speckhard]

Every expert in the NFL, from coaches to scouts to owners to commentators, considered Tom Brady a marginal prospect at QB.

As Reagan said, "Trust but verify." Trust an expert consensus, but do not keep trusting it when it demonstrates untrustworthiness. Many of our experts have. They continue to trust models that demonstrably lack predictive power. Many experts have had their expertise marshalled in support of a specific cause, much like expert witnesses that contradict each other depending on whether the defense of prosecution hired them.

[Dan Fienen]

In a sane world, we would trust the experts.

In a sane world, the experts would show much more consensus than they do regarding such things as mask wearing.
In a sane world, "trusting the science" would actually mean we could trust that which is trustable. 
In a sane world, science would not have - on many things - developed pet or "ruling" theories that ignore large swaths of data all for the sake of maintaining theories that would otherwise be disproven.  (such as the comparative size of either droplets or aerosolized forms of the virus vs what a paper or cloth mask can filter out effectively, which is not even close to what is needed by said paper or cloth masks)

But then again, the world is not, nor ever has been "sane."

This morning I shared this post on Facebook. It seems to have been written by Stevie Berryman, whom I do not know.

One of the most dangerous ideas that has come about in the last three years is that all points of view are equally valid, and that Average Citizen (YOU) are just as equipped to judge which have merit as anyone else.

“Hear all sides, and judge for yourself!” No! I do not condone the death of Expertise, and neither should you.

I am an expert in very, very few things. But in those areas, my expertise is hard-earned through study, work, experience, and aptitude. None of it comes from attending Google University. But unless you are an expert in exactly the same areas, your opinion is not just as valid as mine. It’s not.

And my opinion is not as valid as experts in other fields. That is why THEY ARE THE EXPERTS. So, if our leading epidemiologists largely agree that “A” is correct, and a couple of discredited doctors make a video that says “B” is correct, our response should not be, “I’ll listen to both and decide which makes sense to me.” Confirmation bias exists, and only fools think they are free of it. To paraphrase Asimov, your ignorance is not the same as their experience. Genuinely smart people look for answers from people who are smarter than themselves. Only ignorant people believe their guess is as good as anyone else’s.


I'm pretty sure that most of us seminary trained theologians and Bible experts, are suspicious when untrained people start making statements about scriptures or of the Christian faith that we find less than accurate. E.g., one lady insisted that "God helps those who help themselves" is in the Bible. In another case, a group at a congregation created a survey to be used with other Lutherans, and asked, "How do you understand the word 'inerrancy' as used in the Lutheran Confessions?" (They also assumed that the "immaculate conception" was about Jesus' conception in their questionnaire.)


Or, from a meme on Facebook, the problems Wendy's had when they advertised that the 1/3 lb burger was bigger than McDonald's 1/4 lb burger. People argued that Wendy's was wrong because 4 is larger than 3.

I see the point here. And yet we have had one of our regular posters on this forum repeatedly reminding us that many of the Roman Catholics in the pews in the United States do not follow the approved RCC positions on things like birth control or abortion. That many or even most of the younger members of conservative churches like the RCC or LCMS disagree with those churches' stated positions on things like homosexuality, premarital sex, or living together before or without marriage. These churches are out of step with the members! Does this mean that the average member of the pew is to be taken as more expert than those who have spent years studying the Bible and church teachings? Should preachers be asking the members what they want to hear from the pulpit? Not just style or topic, but topic? Doctrine by survey of membership?

[Brian Stoffregen]

I see the point here. And yet we have had one of our regular posters on this forum repeatedly reminding us that many of the Roman Catholics in the pews in the United States do not follow the approved RCC positions on things like birth control or abortion. That many or even most of the younger members of conservative churches like the RCC or LCMS disagree with those churches' stated positions on things like homosexuality, premarital sex, or living together before or without marriage. These churches are out of step with the members! Does this mean that the average member of the pew is to be taken as more expert than those who have spent years studying the Bible and church teachings? Should preachers be asking the members what they want to hear from the pulpit? Not just style or topic, but topic? Doctrine by survey of membership?

Could it be that many Roman Catholic families do not consider unmarried, celibate priests to be "experts" on family life?


Someone (who often respectfully disagrees with me) responded to my post by asking if I had read In Defense of Elitism. When searching for it on Amazon, I found two books with that title.
 
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385479433?pf_rd_r=2AEVRFX0478970P7EZFQ&pf_rd_p=5ae2c7f8-e0c6-4f35-9071-dc3240e894a8&pd_rd_r=9c877cc7-0ccd-48f5-8036-cfdecc2270b9&pd_rd_w=YflPW&pd_rd_wg=hjqK2&ref_=pd_gw_unk

and

https://www.amazon.com/Defense-Elitism-Better-Someone-Didnt/dp/1455591459/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=in+defense+of+elitism&qid=1619473641&s=books&sr=1-1

Both look interesting. She was talking about the one written by William Henry.

Also in my searching, this title, on the same topic, came up, The Death of Expertise.

https://www.amazon.com/Death-Expertise-Campaign-Established-Knowledge/dp/0190865970/ref=pd_sbs_12?pd_rd_w=J7FJ9&pf_rd_p=98101395-b70f-4a52-af63-8fac2c513e02&pf_rd_r=MGCQWE6EBN57VZMRW34R&pd_rd_r=4c3c2402-8343-4cae-837b-92d30031dd72&pd_rd_wg=Ng0f3&pd_rd_i=0190865970&psc=1