What remains to be understood from the pandemic

Social distancing, the closing of schools, and stay-at-home orders became hot topics of contention amidst the COVID-19 crisis in 2020. How ought these guidelines to be perceived today?

The recent publication “In Covid’s Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us” by two professors from Princeton University reveals no proof that these “non-pharmaceutical interventions” effectively lowered mortality rates. Instead, the co-authors uncover that these actions inflicted considerable harm upon American society — with numerous conventional scientists, journalists, and academics hesitant to provide an honest evaluation.

“We maintain that, during the pandemic, disagreements were moralized prematurely, and dissent faced intolerance,” remarked co-author Stephen Macedo, the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Politics at the University Center for Human Values. “These failures reflect educated elites not upholding some of our fundamental values regarding openness to critique and differing perspectives.”

In a recent lecture organized by the Department of Government, Machado and co-author Frances Lee, a professor specializing in politics and public affairs, elaborated on the book’s premise while responding to challenging questions from the audience.

Macedo commenced with an overview of pandemic preparedness documents that existed before COVID-19. His interest was sparked by John M. Barry’s “The Great Influenza” (2004), which had captured the attention of former President George W. Bush. His administration developed a containment strategy influenced by mathematical modeling that suggested children would likely serve as primary carriers.

A National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza Implementation Plan published by the Centers for Disease Control in 2006 highlighted the potential benefits of school closures. “They forecasted that school closures alone could achieve a 50 percent reduction in peak death rates,” stated Macedo.

In the ensuing 13 years, numerous authorities warned against what the American Civil Liberties Union identified as “aggressive, coercive actions” in its 2008 pandemic preparedness report. The threats to disproportionately impact vulnerable populations, such as children from low-income backgrounds, were frequently highlighted.

“However, the policy shifted abruptly in March 2020,” Macedo remarked, referencing a February 2020 report from the World Health Organization-China out of Wuhan. “The findings in the joint mission report pointedly urged every nation globally to adopt what essentially amounted to a zero-COVID stance through the rigorous enforcement of lockdown measures.”

There was some resistance from infectious disease specialists during the initial stages of the pandemic. However, the authors argue, the free exchange of ideas faced its own lockdown by the October 2020 release of the Great Barrington Declaration, which urgently advocated for easing restrictions on individuals at minimal risk. Crafted by three epidemiologists with impressive credentials, the statement amassed thousands of endorsements. Nonetheless, it was swiftly condemned as “dangerous” and “fringe.”

“Part of the issue was that people adopted a wartime narrative,” Macedo noted, referring to the titles of two early pandemic memoirs — Deborah Birx’s “Silent Invasion” and Sanjay Gupta’s “World War C.”

Co-author Lee then continued by exploring pandemic results among 50 states. Initially, both blue and red states enacted akin measures, she recalled. However, by Labor Day, the policymaking seemed to split sharply along political lines.

“Throughout the South, the Plains, and the Mountain West, schools resumed in the fall of 2020,” Lee mentioned. “However, nearly half of public schools nationwide remained closed as of March 2021.”

By January 2023, states governed by Republicans had experienced mortality rates nearly 30…
“`

percent greater than their Democratic-led alternatives, based on the co-authors’ evaluation of CDC statistics. However, they detected no indication that blue states gained from extended school closures and stay-at-home regulations.

“When you review COVID mortality across the timeframe before vaccines became accessible,” Lee stated, “there is no statistically notable distinction.” This held true even after adjusting for the ratio of senior citizens, uninsured individuals, or overweight inhabitants. A distinct assessment, published in the Lancet in 2023, revealed comparable findings.

Nevertheless, these non-pharmaceutical interventions incurred a hefty price, with Lee promptly listing over a dozen instances — ranging from a surge in alcohol-related fatalities to vacant downtown commercial areas and educational setbacks for students.

The damage was also financial. Congress sanctioned over $5 trillion in COVID relief expenditures, primarily aimed at aiding Americans in maintaining financial stability during the lockdowns.

“In the initial quarter of 2020, the overall public debt soared from 80 percent of gross GDP to beyond 100 percent,” Lee clarified. “This elevated plateau continues after the pandemic — and that increased level of debt also incurs a higher cost for servicing, which limits our capacity to respond to future economic emergencies or tackle additional priorities.”

Are educated elites, predominantly aligned with the Democratic Party, finally prepared for a candid assessment of the groupthink during the COVID era? Macedo harbors skepticism. He highlighted an August 2023 JAMA Network Open piece detailing various forms of misinformation disseminated by physicians on social media, aimed at assisting governments and professional associations in censoring harmful participants.

These included the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis, worries about the detrimental effects of masking children, and claims that natural infection can aid in achieving herd immunity. “All of these issues, as of August 2023, were either accurate or at least debatable,” Macedo remarked.

In a rapid summary of the book’s insights, Macedo highlighted the necessity for open discussions and diverse perspectives in navigating future emergencies.

“We also require greater transparency from public officials — particularly in the realm of public health,” he concluded, acknowledging the subsequent damage to the sector’s credibility. “There’s an excessive tendency to withhold the complete truth, as they perceive their role partially as messaging and influencing public behavior. However, I believe we deserve transparency regarding the limits of their understanding.”

During the question-and-answer segment, one participant challenged the authors’ appeal for prioritizing honesty in a public health crisis. Given the pandemic’s catastrophic toll on life, parallels to wartime administrations safeguarding national security were drawn.

In response, Macedo referenced previous studies concerning the Vietnam War, including Barbara W. Tuchman’s “The March of Folly” (1984). “We believe this is yet another instance where individuals are indulging in wishful thinking — attempting to persuade the public to comply without being forthcoming about the repercussions of these actions and the probability of success,” he stated.