Last month’s Free Market Watch commentary pointed out problems with Federal, Nevada and many other states’ policy responses to the COVID pandemic. The worst of it was their responses failed to observe the first principle of public policy. Namely, decisions and actions should serve the broad public interest, balancing all relevant factors and not considering only one or a limited set of concerns.
Further, they should consider a full range of scientific and other data and opinions rather than falling captive to a few individuals or ideological factions. This is especially true when those persons or factions may have vested of other special interests in the outcomes. Federal policy totally violated this principle, especially in giving two federal bureaucrats, Drs. Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci, effectively, full control of the purse strings and policy related to COVID. Nevada and many other states simply followed the Feds.
A third fault was to prematurely and unnecessarily put all the eggs in one basket, instead of reasonably diversifying efforts and risks by seeking to develop various policy and technical responses. This was foolish, especially because the responses embraced were experimental at best, unproven and carried unknown costs, risks and dis-benefits.
The Federal government, Nevada and many states mandated masks and multiple injections, social distancing and extensive lockdowns. They ruled out promising treatments and narrowly tailored jab, masking, distancing and curtailment options. Fauci, Collins, state and Federal bureaucrats and executives, including Nevada’s Governor Steve Sisolak, were very aggressive and vociferous that extreme versions of the chosen responses must be enforced, and alternatives must not be considered.
Over the last two years, we’ve learned there are many uncertainties and problems with some of these chosen policies. And, some options that were ruled out have been found, by scientists and medical doctors, to be quite promising.
Also, we’ve seen that loud politicization of these matters have backfired by creating skepticism, opposition and even aggressive pushback. An example of this is documented in the article “How Vaccine Fanatics Fueled Vaccine Skepticism” by medical experts Jayanta Bhattacharya of Stanford and Martin Kulldorff, recently of Harvard.
The article reads, “Vaccine fanatics have politicized the vaccine, using it to paint political opponents as science-denying troglodytes by falsely claiming that [tens of thousands of experts espousing caution] are against vaccines.”
First Trust Economics, which has compiled COVID data and analysis for some time, observes: “Covid-19 was not a hoax, but it was the world’s first Social Media pandemic, where fear has spread in a way we have never seen before.”
Reviewing the problems with the chosen responses and the promise of options prematurely ruled out should teach us one clear and compelling lesson: How little we knew from the start about the essential science and how greatly we overreached in our extreme choices. It seems our choices were imprudent and may have significant unforeseen and unintended future damage. One example is the possible underreporting of injection side-effects for which data is being compiled now.
In another example, Dr. Robert Malone, who developed the mRNA technology used in the injections, led 15,000 scientists and physicians in recommending strongly that children not get the jabs because they do them and others no good and can have very damaging long-term consequences. This view comports with the early advice of 80,000 medical doctors and scientists in the Great Barrington Declaration that policy should focus on the vulnerable population of seniors, especially those with co-morbidity factors.
As we make it to the other end of this worldwide pandemic, there are many lessons to be learned. Primary among them is that public policy should serve broad public interest, not special interest. Gathering data and facts should always precede pushing out mandates and requirements.
