I found this conversation between Yascha Mounk and Vinay Prasad at Persuasion about the U. S. policy response to COVID-19 thought-provoking. Here’s a snippet:
I just want to be clear: My criticism is not a referendum on your involvement in all this, it’s not about your article, which I think was perfectly reasonable to have written at the time. And it’s really a criticism of the people who are in charge of the policy. I think Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci were aware that many scientists disagreed with their point of view. They held zero debates on the topic. They refused to entertain those opinions. We have emails from Francis Collins saying, when he read the Great Barrington Declaration, “We need a quick and devastating take-down” of this. He didn’t write an email saying, “Maybe we should have some public discussions and put these on YouTube and let people hear the pros and cons to this.”
I think there were plenty of people at the time who were opposed to these measures. Jeff Flier and I wrote some articles critical of this early in the pandemic saying that we need to listen to scientists from different points of view and we need to think about all the negative consequences of lockdown. We had data from China very early on that it essentially had no lethality in young people. There is a rate of death in people under the age of 18, but it is so fleetingly low it makes no sense to restrict their movements and restrict their school given the value of school. But the bigger point is that it seems like Monday morning quarterbacking because the people who set the policy squelched all attempts at any dissenting opinion and did not allow the public to hear the points of view of people who disagreed at the time.
I don’t entirely agree with their remarks. In some cases I think they’re being too lenient and in others too critical. Additionally, I think they ignore the “Politician’s Syllogism”. As an example of “too critical” IMO I believe they’re too critical of the shortcomings of facemasks as a strategy. As I said from the start, I suspect that there are differences between the use of masks in a healthcare setting and their use in, say, a grocery store not to mention on the street or on the beach.
As an example of “too lenient”, I have very strong opinions of appointed officials who lie knowingly to the American people. I think they should be punished very harshly.
I particularly found this assessment of the futility of our initial efforts interesting:
Could this disease ever have been contained? Maybe, but only if China had been cooperative early in December of 2019. I think by January and February, the horse was out of the barn. It’s a highly contagious virus. It had seeded the entire globe. By March, I think we had widespread transmission in every continent. And so I think containment was always not possible. There are some people who believed in Zero-COVID even in June and July in 2021. They thought we could stop all transmission. I think that was incredibly naive. COVID-19 has animal reservoirs; we had data that it infected the majority of white-tailed deer, for instance, in Michigan. It’s affected other animal species. Containment, I think, was not an option from the moment in which US policymakers took it seriously.
I understood that containment was futile the first time I saw a group of five or six Chicago police officers huddling together closely without facemasks of any kind or any attempt at “social distancing”. When the enforcers of public order aren’t maintaining that order among themselves, it’s all just kabuki, just for show. It’s abusive.
“I think Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci were aware that many scientists disagreed with their point of view. They held zero debates on the topic.”
No shit. When you know that you and Baric funded research into the topic and Wuhan through an intermediary – and were reduced, in Clintonesque fashion – to argue that you hadn’t funded it directly you are bald faced lying. This was known early on. But buried in media. Fauci should be tried, at a minimum, for perjury.
“Which is why I understood that containment was futile the first time I saw a group of five or six Chicago police officers huddling together closely without facemasks of any kind or any attempt at “social distancing.”
And which is why I, on this very blog pointed out over and over that arguments about the technicalities of masks or sneeze radii etc, such as steves, were foolish. Compliance and cost benefit were always the issues. Maybe (maybe) you could exert control in a setting such as a hospital. But not broadly. We ignored it, in large measure because of political considerations. A modern day hysteria. We look so foolish in hindsight.
One thing I did not shoehorn into this post: my predictions on school closings were 100% correct. There were three interest groups: parents, children, and teachers/staff. The interests of teachers/staff were going to prevail and damn the consequences.
1) On masks the first issue was whether or not they worked and then compliance. We had extensive lab research showing they worked (worked meaning that they reduced risk, they were not as PD noted a force field) and we had numbers from hospitals where compliance was both observed and enforced to show that they worked. What we found was that among the general population compliance was spotty, but people knew that if they were willing to be compliant they could reduce risk. Also, most spread was at home and there was no way people were going to wear masks at home.
The result was that places which used masks and other measures had lower covid death rates. I think the studies generally show a small improvement in economic outcome in trade for the higher death rates seen in states that had limited mask usage and shorter lockdowns. Of note, the educational outcomes as measured by NAEP scores didnt show much difference. Whether the trade offs were worthwhile is a subjective judgment.
2) The Barrington Declaration was written by a group of academics that was a combo of stuff we were already doing plus a wish list, largely magical. Protect the people at risk? Sounds good, but how? No one knew and they didnt offer. Note that in the states where the BD was gospel they didnt do a good job of protecting the people at risk.
3) People keep saying we knew stuff early that we did not know. First, people are always suspicious of data coming out of China. Second, it takes a while to collect data and analyze it. Next, ideologues focus solely on death rates to make political points. If you are going to talk about this as a medical issue you want to know short term, medium term and long term effects for a new virus. Next, the initial death rate was much higher than it was three months later. The ideologues always, always use the lower death rates from later in the pandemic to make claims about what we should have done early in the pandemic.
Steve
I think the biggest problem is that we seem to not care about incorporating any lessons learned or taking steps to prevent future pandemics.
For example, what steps are being take to:
– Pressure China to regulate wet markets to stop novel infections considering they’ve been the source of several at this point
– Reform research processes on dangerous viruses, particularly when working with China and foreign governments
– Ensure the US has sufficient stockpiles of critical materials, equipment, and other items for future pandemics
– Reform pandemic response procedures, coordination, and command authorities at the federal level in coordination with states and agencies and then practice and train.
That is pretty much the minimum and I don’t see any of it happening and I don’t the the press even asking if any of it is happening.