It is probably premature to be doing post-mortems on the pandemic, but President Biden’s recent comment is bound to set them off. See Noah Smith, for example.
I feel like I have a lot of scores to settle.
The vaccines were developed within days. That is terrific. I see Operation Warp Speed as ramping up production before they had been tested, which was a smart move. But I see not doing human challenge trials as a major mistake, which delayed the deployment of the vaccines by months.
I am appalled by the lack of scientific curiosity among those responsible for public health, at the CDC and elsewhere. Very early during the pandemic, they were saying to wipe down surfaces—remember the hand sanitizer shortage?—without once testing to see whether COVID could be spread through surface contact. There were no attempts made to understand why COVID super-spreader events all seemed to take place indoors or to draw inferences from that. I honestly think that I was offering better public health advice based on my observations than what the experts were telling us. As early as March 20 of 2020, I was calling for the public health bureaucrats to be fired.
I give President Trump a bad grade. He could have elevated Scott Atlas and sidelined Birx and Fauci, but he did the opposite.
The teachers’ unions were awful. I will grant that there were many parents who wanted their kids to learn at home or to have them masked in school, and those parents might have had their way in some districts. But the teachers should have been willing to come to work and not make kids wear masks.
Colleges also over-reacted. And they should not have charged full tuition for Zoom learning.
Affective polarization is out of control. Remember how in February and early March of 2020 Democrats were downplaying the virus as a show of solidarity with Chinese Americans and to demonstrate resistance to Mr. Trump? And remember how some on the left questioned the “Trump vaccine” before becoming scornful of anti-vaxxers when Mr. Biden took office? Meanwhile, Republicans’ hatred for Biden seemed to be the main driver of anti-vax sentiment.
It seems to me that Florida, with its highly vulnerable population, did a decent job of limiting deaths from the virus. New York did not. The mainstream press did not report it that way. They get a bad grade.
Politicians and public officials took advantage of the crisis to take more power and spend more money. Enacting “stimulus” was irresponsible. There was nothing for people to spend money on until after fear of the virus had subsided, at which point the pent-up savings unleashed inflation.
Early on, I would have been ok with a severe two-week lockdown, with food delivered by the National Guard. Knowing what I know now, I would not endorse that approach. But it would have been less harmful than the rolling partial lockdowns that ensued.
I do not give out bad grades to everyone. In addition to Scott Atlas, I would say that Zvi Mowshowitz and Robin Hanson contributed positively to COVID discussions. But they were even further from positions of influence.
Overall, I think that the public and the press have been much more forgiving of public officials than I would be. I think we need a serious conversation about when a public official can declare an emergency, how to end the emergency declaration, and limits on powers that can be exercised. As just one example, I believe that if a leader violates an emergency decree (think of Governor Newsom and the restaurant), that should cause the decree to be immediately and automatically revoked.
If it were up to me, there would be an honest and open-ended post-pandemic inquiry commission. My guess is that such a commission would lead to significant reforms and clipping of the wings of politicians and other public officials. Which is why we won’t see one.
Your suggestion of using challenge doses for vaccine testing was spot on. That would shorten the vaccine development time-line to about 30 days for approvals and allow mRNA vaccine technology to follow new strains of the virus as quickly as it could mutate.
You hit on the fact that we didn't know that surfaces were irrelevant for transmission and many other factors about this virus, but probably don't know why we didn't find out these facts for a long time: this virus was (and remains) classified as a BSL-3 organism, a classification intended for a very dangerous virus with pandemic potential. This was a correct classification initially, before the virus became endemic and everywhere. However, maintaining this restriction limits all research with viable virus to BSL-3 rated labs. These are fully bunny suit labs just a little bit short of the BSL-4 classification used for Ebola and the super nasty pathogens. The world wide supply of BSL-3 approved facilities is highly restricted, and doing experiments to show that virus on surfaces are inactive or active requires growing the virus and BSL-3 facilities. We could use DNA testing of the surfaces, which was done and showed the existence of viral RNA, but that doesn't tell us whether it is active virus or inactive virus (a big difference -- exposure to enough inactive virus works like a vaccine, as opposed to an active virus which can kill you) .
When the SARS-CoV-2 virus spread everywhere in the wild, it stopped making scientific sense to limit research to BSL-3 labs, when BSL-2 labs are everywhere, including minor universities and biological businesses. Once the organism went international, the risk of a lab release became irrelevant, and there was no rational reason to prevent researchers being able to determine viability under various conditions. Questions, such as "does viable virus go through a surgical type mask on a sneeze", like it does with flu virus, or will a "salt solution sprayed on a mask inactivate the virus", as it apparently does with a flu virus, could be answered in labs all around the world.
There’s nothing miraculous about the speed of development of the “vaccines”. It’s a red flag that it happened so fast and then the testing was brief and possibly involved fraud. Why was the control group vaccinated after the testing? Why were only healthy under 50 used as test subjects? Why was VAERS reporting ignored when the number of reports for the vaccines were higher than all other vaccines combined over the previous ten years?
Many papers were written about how to handle a pandemic prior to 2020. Masks and quarantining the healthy were NOT recommended or even dismissed.
Papers are coming out showing a higher rate of infection in the vaccinated. Cancer deaths are now above average.
Someone made a monkey’s paw wish.