Examining the Political Fallout of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Conversation with Professor Frances Lee
The COVID-19 pandemic, a global crisis that touched every corner of the world, has spawned countless narratives. However, beneath the surface of each story, political undercurrents swirl, raising critical questions about decision-making processes, prioritization of needs, the distribution of suffering, and the underlying motivations behind various actions.
Frances Lee, a professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton University, along with her co-author Stephen Macedo, delve into these complex issues in their new book, "In Covid’s Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us." The book meticulously analyzes the pandemic response as a stress test for established political systems, focusing on how institutions responsible for truth-seeking – journalism, science, and universities – performed under immense pressure. Did these institutions uphold their commitment to truth and demonstrate openness to criticism? Did they adhere to the fundamental principles of liberalism and scientific rigor? Were societies capable of engaging in rational discourse about the unfolding events, and if not, what factors hindered such conversations?
Lee emphasizes that the book is not intended as a grading system for specific COVID-19 policies or a search for scapegoats. Instead, it seeks to assess the quality of debate and deliberation that surrounded these policies, recognizing that understanding the breakdowns in the response to the pandemic is crucial for preparing for future crises.
In a recent interview on "The Gray Area" podcast, Lee discussed her research and the most significant political lessons learned from the pandemic. She characterized the debate surrounding the COVID-19 response in the United States as truncated due to the rapidly evolving nature of the crisis. However, she found it surprising how early decisions deviated from established pandemic preparedness plans and recommendations developed during calmer periods.
Lee notes that many countries abandoned pre-existing pandemic plans, opting instead to follow the examples set in Wuhan and Italy, where nationwide lockdowns were implemented with limited scientific evidence to support their effectiveness. A 2019 World Health Organization report, published just months before the pandemic, evaluated various "non-pharmaceutical interventions" – measures like masking, social distancing, business closures, and school closures – and rated the evidence base for their effectiveness as poor. The report even recommended against using certain measures, such as border closures, quarantine of exposed individuals, and testing and contact tracing, in the context of a respiratory pandemic. Despite these recommendations, these very measures were widely adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic without adequate consideration of the rationale behind their initial rejection.
Lee’s critique centers on the decision-making processes that unfolded during the pandemic. She highlights a quote from a health official, Deborah Birx, who stated that she could not tolerate the notion of allowing even a small percentage of Americans to die a preventable death. While Lee acknowledges the understandable sentiment behind this statement, she argues that policymakers must recognize that lives are at stake on both sides of the equation when implementing measures to control the spread of a disease.
For instance, the shutdown of "nonessential" healthcare services, including cancer treatments, traded off future risks to life for the sake of preserving healthcare capacity in the present. Similarly, exacerbating inequalities and depriving people of education have long-term health consequences, representing a trade-off between the present and the future. Lee argues that cost-benefit analyses are essential for responsible policymaking, as it is impossible to focus solely on one threat to human well-being while ignoring others.
Furthermore, Lee contends that health officials displayed intolerance towards criticism and skepticism during the pandemic. While acknowledging the immense pressure faced by these individuals, she emphasizes that experts must be aware of their limitations and the potential for hubris. Policymakers should have acknowledged the possibility of failure and factored it into their decision-making processes. The question is not simply lives versus the economy but also the extent to which policies are effective and workable for society. Lee argues that widespread policy decisions cannot be made on a "wing and a prayer" without sufficient evidence.
Lee also highlights a disparity between the private and public statements made by health officials like Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx. She cites Birx’s memoir, in which she admits that the "two weeks to slow the spread" campaign was a pretext to gain President Trump’s support for initial closures and that efforts to extend these closures began immediately.
Lee criticizes the "noble lie" that was propagated in the spring and summer of 2021, claiming that vaccinated individuals could protect their loved ones from contracting the virus. She points out that vaccine trials did not test for transmission outcomes and that it was known that systemically administered vaccines do not prevent viral contraction and proliferation in the nasal cavity, which facilitates transmission. The claim that vaccination would prevent transmission was therefore misleading and ultimately undermined public trust when it became clear that vaccinated individuals could still contract and transmit the virus.
When asked about the ethical dilemma of potentially misleading the public with a "noble lie" to save lives, even at the risk of shattering trust in scientific institutions, Lee emphasizes the importance of accepting uncertainty and acknowledging the limits of knowledge. Scientists should be aware of what they don’t know and factor that into their decision-making processes. Trading future credibility for measures that may be suboptimal and ineffective is a greater failing than confronting the limits of knowledge.
Lee also criticizes the lack of critical inquiry from academics and journalists during the pandemic, arguing that this failure allowed government officials and public health officials to avoid accountability and justification for their actions. She believes that the pandemic shattered the delusion that science is value-free and that policy choices can be made solely based on scientific evidence.
Lee argues that the rhetoric of "following the science" was never responsible policymaking. Policymakers must acknowledge the reality of diverse values and interests and recognize that policy choices inevitably create winners and losers. While striving to maximize benefits and minimize harm, policymakers cannot ignore the effects of their choices by pretending that there was no alternative.
Lee emphasizes that "In Covid’s Wake" is not a muckraking book that accuses officials of nefarious motives or corruption. It is more a story of folly than villainy. The most important takeaway from the pandemic is the acknowledgement of uncertainty, the willingness to keep learning, and the resistance to moralized antagonism. People should resist the urge to dismiss opposing perspectives and instead listen and evaluate arguments on their merits.
Lee observes that the pandemic exacerbated societal divisions, with Democrats blaming Republicans and vice versa. She suggests that the root problem was the lack of technology to control or stop the crisis, leaving mitigation as the only viable option. Acknowledging human frailties is difficult, and it is easier to blame undesirable outcomes on disliked individuals or groups. However, such blame-shifting is unproductive and ultimately hinders effective crisis response.
