Healing the societal wounds left by COVID response
As the dust starts to settle on the severe responses to COVID, the time has come for even the most loyal supporters of the counter-COVID measures to do some soul-searching in light of the damaging and failed policies they supported. By soul-searching I mean a self-assessment of responsibility in supporting and often enforcing these policies on friends, family and fellow citizens.
What are some of their responses once faced with the evidence, and how do they fall short?
Readers who still believe that although the regulations were strict they were effective are probably the ones who still believe the mainstream media and public health officials and therefore are least exposed to evidence that shows the opposite.
Some of the most intrusive policies, such as mask mandates, lockdowns, and vaccine mandates, have been extensively studied. By now it should be clear that these policies did not meet the minimum standard to demonstrate effectiveness.
I have selected a few studies that show these policies did not effectively control the spread of COVID — the purported goal of the policies.
Masks
Many believed that compelling others to cover their nose and mouth was a reasonable and effective way of controlling the spread of COVID. Those who questioned this orthodoxy were censored and ridiculed as spreaders of misinformation. People all over the world began enforcing mask mandates, in supermarkets, schools, and any indoor spaces empowered by their belief that they were stopping the spread of COVID.
Studies show that masks' effectiveness was always poor, while numerous other studies show that masks were ineffective, and others even show that wearing face masks is harmful. If I'd have to pick one study that did a comprehensive investigation of the effectiveness of masks, to give a once and for all verdict, it would be the one just published by Cochrane. This paper looked at 78 studies from around the world and concluded that “wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu‐like illness/COVID‐like illness.”
Moreover, studies have shown that masks can make it more difficult to breathe, cause headaches, and make it difficult to communicate, not to mention, they are just downright uncomfortable.
Lockdowns
The costs to the economy, civil rights and health are still being documented. Inflation and higher interest rates caused by massive government spending are now being felt. The legal precedents of governments imposing near-totalitarian control over their populations will only be truly tested the next time they attempt similar actions.
There are those who believe that despite the massive destruction caused by the lockdowns, they were necessary to reduce the spread of COVID. If you haven't seen them already, here is a comprehensive list of numerous studies that show the ineffectiveness of lockdowns. No doubt there are some studies that show some degree of effectiveness, so we turn to meta-studies that look at the available research and conclude the degree of effectiveness of lockdowns and if they were worth the costs. One meta-analysis looked at 100 studies to assess the cost/benefit of lockdowns and concluded, “[I]t is possible that lockdown will go down as one of the greatest peacetime policy failures in modern history.”
Vaccine Mandate
The crown jewel of the COVID control policies was the vaccine mandates that were the supposed panacea that would end the other regulations and restore normality in dealing with COVID. This one is easy since it is now conventional wisdom — though it took many months for the establishment to concede that the vaccines do not prevent infection beyond a few weeks after injection. Despite this, many government restrictions remain on the unvaccinated, including entry into the US for non-citizens.
While the medical establishment has conceded the vaccines' failure to prevent infection they have yet to acknowledge the well-documented phenomenon that vaccination is associated with increased cases of COVID.
Further, they argue that the vaccines' purpose is to prevent hospitalizations and deaths not just infection. Here are two key studies that contradict that claim. The first, published in the BMJ, examined the original vaccine trial data and found that severe adverse events were found in more than 1 in 800 patients. An event is considered “rare” if it occurs in 1 in 1000, so serious adverse events are not rare. The study found that the risk of serious adverse events was greater compared to the reduction in hospitalization due to COVID.
As for preventing deaths, a comprehensive study that analyzed data from several RCTs showed that mRNA vaccines are associated with increased all-cause mortality. This means that while they may prevent death from COVID, they may increase death from other causes (primarily cardiac). More studies showing severe injury and death related to the vaccines can be found here.
Regarding the mandates themselves, this study deals directly with the issue of booster mandates for college students. It notes five ethical reasons against mandates but also reveals a stunning cost/benefit analysis showing that for every COVID hospitalization saved, more than 18 students will experience serious adverse events.
Even the high priest of COVID control Dr. Anthony Fauci published a paper this past January saying, “Attempting to control mucosal respiratory viruses with systemically administered non-replicating vaccines has thus far been largely unsuccessful.”
Individuals, businesses, politicians and other organizations took up the cause to coerce and harass others into getting injected. Many refused to include family members at family gatherings, places of worship prevented community members from participating, and institutions of higher education refused to enroll the unvaccinated. Many of these people who were shunned and discriminated against eventually took the shots and suffered severe side-effects. Where are all those righteous people who forced the shots on others now? Are they contemplating their role?
What's the response to all this?
That's really the point here. Most of the above information has been known for months or years. Where are all the people, the store clerks, administrators, and everyday bullies who took it upon themselves to violate their fellows' humanity by insisting they cover their faces — in a sense the very expression of their humanity. Insisting that healthy people stay home en masse in direct contradiction to all previous pandemic plans, depriving children of an education, preventing independent businesses from making a living, and breaching citizens' rights to freely assemble.
What are they thinking now? Do they have any remorse?
If asked, their response would usually be from one of five categories of justification.
· Denial
· It was only temporary
· Just following orders
· We had to do something
· Remorse
Denial
Denial is probably the most widespread of the responses, which is why I included a short sampling of the evidence above. But once faced with the evidence the denier will ignore its obvious implications and instead respond by claiming that there is other evidence that shows the opposite, or that you can make studies that show anything. While both claims may be true to an extent, there are degrees of quality in research. Meta-studies and randomized controlled trials for example are typically better than simple observational studies. The better ones took more time to conduct and confirmed the initial skepticism, but by then the conventional wisdom was already set and censorship of contrary evidence was already in place.
In addition, the denier misses an important element when suggesting that there may be other, often poorly researched, evidence that supports the draconian response — that the burden of proof is on the one asserting the policy's effectiveness not the other way around. The burden is on the government to show that, for example, lockdowns are effective and worth the cost. If the balance of the evidence is not conclusive mandates should never be imposed. To do otherwise is to turn science, public policy and logic on their head.
It was only temporary
Another excuse used to avoid responsibility is that "it was only temporary" as if to say that it's okay to injure, abuse and bully others so long as you don't do it forever. How many of us would accept that excuse from our children if they were caught bullying others?
While the policies were indeed temporary they still lasted for months, way after the science was clear that they were ineffective.
Furthermore, while the assaults were temporary, the damage often remained. Small businesses permanently closed, college students were refused admission for being unvaccinated, and family and social relationships have permanent scars, not to mention those who still suffer from adverse effects from the vaccine – for these people it wasn't just temporary.
Just following orders
Probably the most common excuse is some form of, "I was just following orders" implying that they can't be held responsible for their actions since they were just following the guidelines issued by the government.
This is perhaps the most frightening of the excuses since it was the same excuse famously used by Nazis during the Nuremberg trials after WWII. Lower-level Nazis claimed they shouldn't be held responsible for crimes against humanity because they were merely following orders. Most of us in the free world thought that “never again" included our refusal to hide behind immoral government orders. Especially since most of the people were not even employed by the government, let alone the army, but rather took up enforcement of their own accord.
In addition, many of the rude, discriminatory, and insensitive actions were well beyond merely complying with the law — those who demanded others wear masks at outdoor gatherings, split families and communities based on vaccination status, and called the police on neighbors who gathered or who refused to accept mask or vaccine exemptions. None of these actions were required by law. People who did these things went went over and above the law in a zealous campaign to impose their ideology at the expense of the health and liberties of their fellow citizens. These even went beyond the inexcusable excuse of 'just following orders'.
Don't just stand there - do something
The excuse that comes closest to recognition of regret is that “we had to do something.” Essentially there was a panic and we needed to act — doing nothing would have been intolerable. This excuse ignores or pretends to ignore, that there were many reasonable ways to deal with the pandemic that did not include the widespread violation of human rights, economic and social damage, or bodily injury.
There are no published pandemic protocols prior to COVID that included lockdowns. In fact, they were considered and rejected just like mask mandates. Instead, as advocated from early on, a policy of focused protection notably advocated in the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) would be doing something with minimal injury, consistent with previous pandemic planning, and effective.
Perhaps the best “do something” that was ignored, ridiculed, and censored was early treatments. Hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin and even Vitamin D are relatively safe medications that have been on the market for years and were at first thought great candidates to treat and prevent COVID. It would have been very reasonable that the “do something” included recommending and supplying people with these and other medications as was done in communities that rejected the mainstream COVID response. This could have been done without legislation, emergency powers or coercions. Initial studies — that later were proven to be correct — showed that simply following the historical record would have been reasonable, safe and effective.
We had to do something is just a copout for making the wrong choice. It was argued at the time that focused protection and early treatments were scientifically valid ways to do something. People just chose to do something else that was scientifically dubious and later found to be ineffective and injurious.
Remorse
Admission and remorse are the final stages — after all the excuses, reality sinks in. Once we realize that previous responses were just excuses for treating our fellow human beings unjustly for no good reason most normal people will start to have feelings of remorse.
This is a very important stage. Immediately after having realized the significance of what happened and what they were a part of, the newly awakened should find those whom they wronged and ask for forgiveness to cement their regret with action.
This is not reserved for just public health officials, politicians, and others who led the charge though those are welcome, too. I am referring to simple everyday people who harassed others into wearing a mask, prevented others from attending larger-than-permitted gatherings or pushed injections on people who didn't want them. Whether you are a school principal, store clerk, or doctor this is your time to shine. Find those you wronged and apologize.
In looking back at what happened over the last few years, asking for forgiveness is the first big step and can make a big difference.
However, the real test for all of us is what will we do the next time the establishment experts declare a pandemic emergency and drive us into a frenzy? How will we respond then? Will we have the courage next time to say no and reject the aforementioned excuses?
Now is the time to commit ourselves to saying "No!" to draconian policies that lead us to not only lose our humanity but to also take it away from others.
Warning this article contains information about COVID-19. To better protect yourself from government misinformation please visit Frontline's Pedia
