Were conservatives right to questionCovidlockdowns? Were the liberals who defended them less grounded in science than they believed? And did liberal dismissiveness of the other side come at a cost that Americans will continue to pay for many years?A new book by two political scientists argues yes to all three questions, making the casethat the aggressive policies that the US and other countries adopted to fight Covid – including school shutdowns, business closures, mask mandates and social distancing – were in some cases misguided and in many cases deserved more rigorous public debate.In their peer-reviewedbook, In Covid’s Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us, Stephen Macedo and Frances Lee argue that public health authorities, the mainstream media, and progressive elites often pushed pandemic measures without weighing their costs and benefits, and ostracized people who expressed good-faith disagreement.View image in fullscreenThe book cover of In Covid’s Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us.Photograph: Princeton University Press“Policy learning seemed to be short-circuited during the pandemic,” Lee said. “It became so moralized, like: ‘We’re not interested in looking at how other people are [responding to the pandemic], because only bad people would do it a different way from the way we’re doing’.”She and Macedo spoke to the Guardian by video call. ThePrinceton Universityprofessors both consider themselves left-leaning, and the book grew out of research Macedo was doing on the ways progressive discourse gets handicapped by a refusal to engage with conservative or outside arguments. “Covid is an amazing case study in groupthink and the effects of partisan bias,” he said.Many Covid stances presented as public health consensus were not as grounded in empirical evidence as many Americans may have believed, Macedo and Lee argue. At times, scientific and health authorities acted less like neutral experts andmore likeself-interested actors, engaging in PR efforts to downplay uncertainty, missteps or conflicts of interest.It’s a controversial argument. Covid-19 killed more than a million Americans,accordingto US government estimates. The early days of the pandemic left hospitals overwhelmed, morgues overflowing, and scientists scrambling to understand the new disease and how to contain it.Still, Macedo and Lee say, it is unclear why shutdowns and closures went on so long, particularly inDemocraticstates. The book argues that in the US the pandemic became more politically polarized over time, after, initially, “only modest policy differences betweenRepublican- and Democratic-leaning states”.After April 2020, however, red and blue America diverged.Donald Trumpcontributed to that polarization bydownplayingthe severity of the virus. Significant policy differences also emerged. Ron DeSantis, the Republican governor of Florida, moved to re-open physical schools quickly, which progressives characterized as irresponsible.Yet in the end there was “no meaningful difference” in Covid mortality rates between Democratic and Republican states in the pre-vaccine period, according to CDC data cited in the book, despite Republican states’ more lenient policies. Macedo and Lee also favorably compare Sweden, which controversially avoided mass lockdowns butultimatelyhad a lower mortality rate than many other European countries.Covid is an amazing case study in groupthink and the effects of partisan biasThe shutdowns had foreseeable and quantifiable costs, they say, many of which we are still paying.Learning lossandschool absenteeismsoared. Inflation went through the roof thanks in part to lockdown spending and stimulus payments. Small businesses defaulted; other medical treatments like cancer screenings andmental health caresuffered; and rates of loneliness andcrimeincreased. The economic strain on poor and minority Americans was particularly severe.Covid policies escalated into culture wars, amplifying tensions around other social issues. Teachers’ unions, which are often bastions of Democratic support, painted school re-openings as “rooted in sexism, racism, and misogyny” and “a recipe for … structural racism”, the book notes, despite the fact that minority and poor students were mostdisadvantagedby remote learning.These measures also had a literal price. “In inflation-adjusted terms,” Macedo and Lee write, “the United States spent more on pandemic aid in 2020 than it spent on the 2009 stimulus package and the New Deal combined” – or about what the US spent on war production in 1943.View image in fullscreenA student listens to her music teacher over laptop during a lockdown on 5 April 2020 in New York City.Photograph: Education Images/Universal Images Group/Getty ImagesYet of the $5tn that theUS Congressauthorized in 2020 and 2021 for Covid expenditure, only about 10% went to direct medical expenses such as hospitals or vaccine distribution, according to the book; most of the spending was oneconomic relief to people and businesses affected by shutdowns. Ten per cent of that relief wasstolenby fraud, according to the AP.The pandemic was an emergency with no modern precedent, of course, and hindsight is easy. But In Covid’s Wake tries to take into account what information was known at the time – including earlier pandemic preparedness studies. Reports byJohns Hopkins(2019), theWorld Health Organization(2019),the state of Illinois(2014) and theBritish government(2011) had all expressed ambivalence or caution about the kind of quarantine measures that were soon taken.“We take a look at the state of the evidence as it was in early 2020,” Lee said. “It was clear at the time that the evidence was quite unsettled around all of this, and if policymakers had been more honest with the public about these uncertainties, I think they would have maintained public trust better.”They wanted there to be an answer – that if we do X and Y, we can prevent this disaster. And so they’re kind of grasping at strawsThe Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security hosted a wargaming exercise in October 2019, shortly before the pandemic began, to simulate a deadlycoronaviruspandemic; thefindingsexplicitly urged that “[t]ravel and trade … be maintained even in the face of a pandemic”. Similarly, a WHO paper in 2019 said that some measures – such as border closures and contact tracing – were “not recommended in any circumstances”.“And yet we did all of that in short order,” Macedo said, “and without people referring back to these plans.”He and Lee also believe there was a strong element of class bias, with a left-leaning “laptop class” that could easily work from home touting anti-Covid measures that were much easier for some Americans to adopt than others. Many relatively affluent Americans became evenwealthierduring the pandemic, in part due to rising housing values.At the same time, the laptop class was only able to socially isolate at home in part because other people risked exposure to provide groceries. Stay-at-home measures were partly intended to protect “essential workers”, but policymakers living in crisis-stricken major metropolitan areas such as New York or Washington DC did not reckon with why social distancing and other measures might be less important in rural parts of the country where Covid rates were lower.Lockdowns were intended to slow Covid’s spread, yet previous pandemic recommendations had suggested they only be used very early in an outbreak and even then do not buy much time, Macedo said.View image in fullscreenStephen Macedo and Frances Lee.Photograph: Courtesy of Stephen MacedoPolicymakers and experts often embraced stringent measures for reasons that are more political than medical, Macedo and Lee argue; in a pandemic, authorities are keen to assure anxious publics that they are “in charge” and “doing something”.In strange contrast, policymakers and journalists in the US and elsewhere seemed to take China as a model, the book argues, despite the fact that China is an authoritarian state and had concealed the scale of the outbreak during the crucial early days of the pandemic. Its regime had obvious incentives to mislead foreign observers, and used draconian quarantine measures such as physically welding people into their homes.When the WHO organized a joint China field mission with the Chinese government, in February 2020, non-Chinese researchers found it difficult to converse with their Chinese counterparts away from government handlers. Yet the WHO’sreportwas “effusive in its praise” of China’s approach, the book notes.“My view is that there was just a great deal of wishful thinking on the part of technocrats of all kinds,” Lee said. “They wanted there to be an answer – that if we do X and Y, we can prevent this disaster. And so they’re kind of grasping at straws. The Chinese example gave them hope.” She noted that Covid policymakers might have been better served if there had been peopleassignedto act asdevil’s advocatesin internal deliberations.Lee and Macedo are not natural scientists or public health professionals, they emphasize, and their book is about failures in public deliberation over Covid-19, rather than a prescription formanaging pandemics.But they do wade into the debate about Covid-19’s origin, arguing that the “lab leak” hypothesis – that Covid-19 accidentally leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, rather than spontaneously leaping from animals to humans – was unfairly dismissed.The Wuhan Institute studied coronaviruses similar to the one responsible for Covid-19, had a documented history of safety breaches, was located near the outbreak, and is known to have experimented on viruses usingcontroversial“gain-of-function”methods funded by the US, which involve mutating pathogens to see what they might look like in a more advanced or dangerous form.If policymakers had been more honest with the public about these uncertainties, I think they would have maintained public trust betterPerhaps because Trump had fanned racial paranoia by calling Covid-19 the “China virus” andrightwing influencerswere spreading the notion that it had been deliberately engineered and unleashed on the world by China, many scientists, public health experts andjournalistsreacted byframingthe idea of a lab leak – even an accidental one – as an offensive conspiracy theory. Dr Anthony Fauci and other top public health figures were evasive or in some cases dishonest about the possibility of a lab leak, Macedo and Lee say, as well as the fact that a US non-profit funded by the National Institutes of Health allegedlyfundedgain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute.Since then, though, the CIA and other US intelligence agencies have cautiouslyendorsedthe lab leak theory, and the discourse around Covid has softened somewhat. The economist Emily Oster sparked immense backlash byarguingagainst school closures in 2020. Now publications such as New York Magazine and the New York Times haveacknowledgedthe plausibility of the lab leak hypothesis, for example, and there is growing consensus that school closures hurt many children.The reception to In Covid’s Wake has beenmorepositivethan Macedo and Lee expected – perhaps a sign that some of their arguments have penetrated the mainstream, if not that we’ve gotten better as a society at talking about difficult things. “The reception of the book has been much less controversial [and] contentious than we expected,” Macedo said.Disposable: what Covid-19 did to those who couldn’t afford to fight the virusRead moreYet the wounds fester and debates continue. Somereadersof the New York Times were furious when The Daily, the newspaper’s flagship podcast, recently interviewed them, with subscribers arguing that the episode was not sufficiently critical of their stance. And some coverage of the book hascriticizedit for underplaying the danger of the disease.Macedo and Lee said that a few of their colleagues have expressed concern that their critique could fuel political attacks on science – a worry that crossed their minds too. “Our response is that the best way to refute criticisms that science and universities have been politicized is to be open to criticism and willing to engage in self-criticism,” Macedo said.“We need to make sure these institutions are in the best possible working order to face the challenges ahead. And we think that’s by being honest, not by covering over mistakes or being unwilling to face up to hard questions.”
‘A case study in groupthink’: were liberals wrong about the pandemic?
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Political Scientists Critique Liberal Pandemic Policies in New Book"
The Guardian
6.1
TruthLens AI Summary
In their new book, "In Covid’s Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us," political scientists Stephen Macedo and Frances Lee critique the handling of pandemic policies, particularly by liberal elites and public health authorities. They argue that many of the aggressive measures adopted during the Covid-19 pandemic—such as lockdowns, school closures, and mask mandates—were implemented without sufficient consideration of their costs and benefits. The authors contend that the discourse around Covid was heavily influenced by groupthink and partisan bias, particularly among those on the left, who often dismissed dissenting views as morally inferior. They emphasize that this lack of open debate may have long-term consequences for American society. Macedo and Lee point out that despite claims of a public health consensus, many policies were not as scientifically grounded as believed, and the prolonged nature of lockdowns, especially in Democratic states, raises questions about their effectiveness. They cite data indicating that there were no significant differences in Covid mortality rates between states governed by Republicans and Democrats during the early phases of the pandemic, despite the latter's more stringent policies.
The authors also highlight the various socio-economic costs associated with the pandemic measures, arguing that the lockdowns disproportionately affected poorer and minority communities. They note that while the U.S. government authorized substantial pandemic relief, much of it was diverted to economic aid rather than direct medical expenses. Macedo and Lee suggest that a more cautious and evidence-based approach, one that acknowledged uncertainties and engaged with a broader array of perspectives, could have preserved public trust and mitigated some of the negative outcomes experienced. They further explore the controversial lab leak theory regarding the virus's origin, asserting that it was prematurely dismissed due to political sensitivities. The reception of their book has been surprisingly positive, indicating a potential shift in public willingness to engage with complex and difficult discussions surrounding the pandemic. However, the authors remain aware of the ongoing political ramifications of their critique and the necessity for science and public health institutions to embrace self-criticism and transparency to rebuild trust with the public.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article presents a critical perspective on the responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly focusing on the actions and attitudes of liberal policymakers and public health authorities. It raises important questions about whether the aggressive measures implemented, such as lockdowns and school closures, were scientifically justified and whether dissenting opinions were appropriately considered during the decision-making process.
Critique of Liberal Responses
The authors of the book under discussion argue that there was a significant lack of rigorous debate regarding pandemic policies. They suggest that many liberal responses were characterized by a form of groupthink, where alternative viewpoints were dismissed as morally inferior. This framing implies a critique of not only the policies themselves but also the broader liberal discourse that may have contributed to a failure to adapt to new information or alternative strategies.
Public Health and Partisan Bias
Macedo and Lee assert that public health authorities often acted in ways that were not entirely neutral, suggesting that their decisions may have been influenced by partisan biases rather than solely by empirical evidence. This raises concerns about the integrity of the information disseminated to the public and the decision-making processes that guided pandemic responses. The authors emphasize the importance of a balanced discourse that engages with differing perspectives, particularly those from conservative viewpoints.
Long-term Implications
The article hints at the potential long-lasting consequences of the pandemic response, suggesting that the dismissiveness of differing opinions may have broader societal costs. This notion could resonate with individuals who feel that the handling of the pandemic has had negative repercussions on personal freedoms, economic stability, and public trust in health officials.
Audience and Support Bases
The article likely targets readers who are skeptical of mainstream liberal narratives regarding the pandemic. By framing the discussion around groupthink and partisan bias, it may appeal to audiences who value critical examination of governmental policies and those who lean towards more conservative viewpoints.
Market and Economic Impact
While the article primarily addresses political and public health issues, the implications of such discussions can extend into the economic realm. Public sentiment surrounding government responses to COVID-19 can influence stock markets, particularly in sectors heavily impacted by lockdowns, such as travel, hospitality, and retail. Investors may react to new narratives about pandemic management and public health policies.
Global Context and Power Dynamics
The themes presented in this article intersect with ongoing debates about governance and public health across the globe. As nations evaluate their pandemic responses and prepare for future crises, the arguments put forth in the article could influence international perceptions of liberal democracies versus more authoritarian responses.
Potential AI Influence
It is conceivable that AI tools were employed in crafting the article, especially in terms of analyzing public sentiment or synthesizing existing research. However, without specific evidence, it remains speculative whether AI directly influenced the narrative or framing of the arguments presented. In conclusion, while the article raises valid points regarding the need for critical examination of pandemic policies and their implications, the overall reliability of the claims rests on the balance and depth of the evidence provided. Some readers may perceive the article as manipulative due to its strong framing against a specific political ideology, especially if it lacks comprehensive acknowledgment of counterarguments.