Public Health: A Lesson for Future Crises

The COVID-19 pandemic marked a new epoch for public health policy and scientific discourse. Smear campaigns against those who questioned the virus’s origin, draconian lockdowns, a changing mask narrative and mandatory vaccines that weren’t actually vaccines – all based on dubious and shifting science – eroded the credibility of the public health bureaucracy. 

Public health hostage to propaganda

Among the voices challenging the prevailing narratives, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University and Dr. Marty Makary of Johns Hopkins University have been particularly prominent. Their critiques of lockdowns, concerns about scientific integrity, and opposition to censorship have resonated with many who value individual liberties and transparent governance.

Dr. Bhattacharya coauthored the Great Barrington Declaration in October 2020, questioning widespread lockdowns. The Declaration, signed by 6,300 medical professionals and scientists, argued that COVID-19 is an “age-stratified” disease, one thousand times more likely to kill the elderly than young, relatively healthy people.  Therefore, the better course was “focused protection” of vulnerable populations. The declaration argued that lockdowns cause more harm than good, particularly affecting children and the economically disadvantaged. Dr. Makary echoed similar sentiments, expressing skepticism about the efficacy of blanket lockdowns and emphasizing the need for targeted interventions.

Their critiques extended to other public health measures. Dr. Makary questioned the universal mask mandates, suggesting that while masks have a role, their effectiveness varies depending on the type and usage. Both doctors emphasized the importance of nuanced approaches tailored to specific populations and settings, rather than one-size-fits-all mandates.

Undermining scientific integrity

They also worried, essentially, that one-size fits all mandates were a product of one-size-fits-all thinking. A significant aspect of their critique centered on the suppression of dissenting scientific opinions (with or without “screaming and cursing”) The doctors warned of the dangers of censoring alternative viewpoints, arguing that such actions undermine scientific integrity. They contended that open debate is essential for scientific process and that the marginalization of dissenting voices leads to groupthink and policy errors.

Dr. Bhattacharya, in particular, experienced professional ostracization due to his views. “I was subjected to what I can only describe as a propaganda attack,” he told members of Congress. He reported being labeled as promoting misinformation, facing professional isolation, and receiving threats. Despite these challenges, he continued to advocate for open scientific discourse, warning that the suppression of debate sets a dangerous precedent for future public health crisis. “Government censorship,” he said, kept many “not particularly controversial” scientific ideas for fighting COVID “from gaining traction, and, as a result, many people suffered from destructive policies like school closures and vaccine passports.”

Vindication of the “misinformers”

Dr. Bhattacharya and Dr. Makary may not be saying “Told ya so,” but they have cause to as several of their positions have been proved correct. Studies began to show that prolonged lockdowns had significant economic, educational, and mental health repercussions, particularly among vulnerable populations. The initial consensus on school closures was re-evaluated, with emerging evidence suggesting that children were less susceptible to severe illnesses and that closures had detrimental effects on their development and well-being. Even the National Institutes of Health had to admit the academic harm inflicted on kids. Meanwhile, Sweden never closed schools for kids under fifteen and experienced not a single child death from COVID.

Furthermore, the discourse around natural immunity gained prominence. Dr. Makary was among those who highlighted that individuals who had recovered from COVID 19 possessed a degree of immunity, a perspective that was initially downplayed but later acknowledged in discussions about vaccination strategies. Moreover, the Great Barrington declaration discussed “herd immunity” – the concept that when enough people have had and recovered from a disease, it ceases to be a pandemic – which the government tried to ignore as it continued to push booster shots.

Public health requires integrity and open debate

The experience of these doctors underscores the importance of maintaining scientific integrity and open discourse during public health emergencies. Science is rarely “settled” for long. Censorship and the suppression of dissenting opinions not only undermine public trust but also hinder the development of effective and nuanced policies.

Dr. Bhattacharya and Dr. Makary’s critiques serve as a reminder that scientific consensus should be continually questioned and tested. The dynamic nature of scientific understanding requires that policies be adaptable and responsive to new evidence. Encouraging diverse perspectives and debates ensures that policies are robust, comprehensive, and considerate of various societal impacts. In public health and science, herd immunity beats herd mentality every time.

This article was originally published by RealClearHealth and made available via RealClearWire.