In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us by Stephen Macedo and Frances Lee
This is a liberal Democrat criticism of the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. It is a deeply disturbing of policies that focussed on the short-term good of the elites, while paying lip-service to the concerns of the marginalized. There was an established body of research regarding pandemic response. Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions had minimal effectiveness. School closures created much more harm than good. (I even recall reading from public school and health experts at the start of the pandemic that school closures should not be implemented - shortly before they were implemented.) Some limited control of the spread of the virus may be possible very early in an outbreak. However, by the time it is present in the population, it is probably too late.
Alas, early in the pandemic officials lost their mind. A paper in Britain painted worst-case scenarios an advocated lock downs. China showed how super stricts lock downs contained the spread of the virus. (Alas, China only provided a censored version of data on their lockdowns and its effectiveness. They also had a much more draconian approach to lockdowns than would be bearable in an open country like the US.) American officials advocated for these lockdowns. Personally, I thought it was a stupid idea. But, hey we were among the first to have schools closed and be required to work from home. It was a great time for a Hawaiian vacation. Then isolation was great for introverts - especially during the cold time of year. Even if it seemed horrible for society, it was something that I personally didn't mind. Perhaps this was what contributed to the stupidity. The elected officials would easily work remotely and liked it. If they wanted to have a social event, they would sneak out and do it (like when California leaders went dining in violation of their own lockdown.)
Even worse, critics were silenced and contrary opinions were attacked. "Facts" were controlled based on political expediency. Masks were said to be ineffective when there was a shortage. Then they were mandated for all, even in conditions were they did not provide benefit. Mention of a Chinese lab origin was not permitted. Criticism of lockdowns and social distancing measures was treated as "anti-science" and not open to debate. Trying to prevent immediate COVID-19 deaths was the prime motivator, with little consideration given to anything else. The public health experts were given full control without considering others. The result was actually more deaths and various significant negative outcomes throughout society. Those most disadvantaged ended up with the worst outcomes.
The teacher union advocacy was prime indicator of nonsense. Some unions would go to the extent of calling it racial genocide to force teachers to return the the classroom. This help contributed to longer school closures, especially in blue states where the union welded more power. This left children without any real education. Yet teachers could seemingly show up and zoom and get their paycheck. (Where were the demands for certifications for remote education.) The poor students were hit the worst. They did not have an environment at home where they could learn. Even worse, many of these parents were "essential workers". With no school and no day care options, grandparents would often care for children. This meant they could not isolate and would be more exposed to the virus. By forcing more "isolation" of populations less at risk, we forced less isolation of those at risk. This is the exact opposite of what should be done.
The short-term approach to the pandemic was witnessed in the criticism of Sweden. They actually followed the longstanding pandemic advice and did not impose large-scale closures and lockdowns. They did encourage voluntary measures, especially among vulnerable populations. In the short-term they did have a surge in deaths. However, over the long term, they had a lower excess mortality rate than other countries. They also had much more positive educational and psychological outcomes for the country.
A long term approach seems obviously simple. Isolate vulnerable populations. Let others continue their lives and build up herd immunity. Ensure other aspects of life are not severely impacted. Alas, the short term focus ended up dominating, to the detriment of the long term. The lack of adequate data exacerbated the problem. Stories would come out with 10-20% death rates, making this seem dire for the population. Alas, the denominator of this group was people with comorbidities who required intense hospitalization. Many others were asymptomatic or only had minor symptoms. With these in the group, the actual impact was closer to that of a bad flu season than the end of humanity.
Is there any hope for pandemic handling in a democracy? How much did the silencing of dissent make things worse? I wonder how much this lead to mistrust and vaccine hesitancy. What will happen the next time?