Focused Protection
In stark contrast to widely accepted understandings of what constitutes science, “the Science” that emerged during the Covid era eschewed unbiased observation, systematic experimentation and debate, replacing those careful, deliberative processes with rushes to judgment and stifling of opposing viewpoints.[1] By the time Covid-19 reached epidemic proportions in the United States, public health authorities had concluded that draconian lockdowns that required closures of schools, businesses, and houses of worship were necessary. While initially governments justified imposition of these harsh measures on the ground that they would be employed on an emergency basis and last a mere 15 days to “flatten the curve,” it quickly became evident that no end was in sight. Cases continued to rise and so, politicians and public health authorities lamented, society could not be reopened. Days turned into weeks turned into months, and as 2020 neared its end, Americans in blue jurisdictions faced a year or more of total life disruption.
Meanwhile, dissenting doctors, scientists, and others who argued that the deleterious consequences of prolonged shutdowns far exceeded any possible benefit were smeared and shunned as cold-hearted individuals who cared about the economy rather than human lives—as though those concepts are not inextricably intertwined.[2]
The societal muzzling of debate about lockdowns was illustrated most clearly when esteemed epidemiologists Jayanta Bhattacharya of Stanford, Martin Kulldorff of Harvard, and Sunetra Gupta of Oxford wrote a short treatise memorializing their reasoned opposition to continued lockdowns on October 4, 2020, dubbed “the Great Barrington Declaration” because it was signed in the city of Great Barrington, MA. The declaration rapidly garnered over 60,000 signatures from other doctors and scientists around the world. But instead of spurring a long-overdue public debate, tech companies censored it. The declaration received publicity in the New York Times and similar publications only as the target of a smear campaign. Government actors, including (most notoriously) Drs. Anthony Fauci of National Institute of Allergy and infectious Diseases (NIAID) and Francis Collins of National Institutes of Health (NIH), condemned the Declaration as the work of “fringe epidemiologists” and appear to have been involved in an orchestrated government effort to suppress it on social media—prompting Drs. Bhattacharya and Kulldorff to bring a legal case, Missouri v. Biden, alleging violations of their First Amendment rights. (NCLA represents them).
More than four years on, the noxious effects of lockdowns are starkly evident: they “had little to no effect on Covid-19 mortality” while they “imposed enormous economic and social costs,” including learning loss among children, soaring mental health and substance abuse problems, and sharply rising inflation as a result of shutting down normal economic activity.[3]
Most Americans remain unaware that the media worked in tandem with government to shut down discussion about the wisdom of lockdowns. Had the question been vigorously debated in the public square, Americans might well have demanded an end to government-mandated closures much sooner, averting the catastrophic effects that followed.
[1] Encyclopedia Britannica, “Science” (2025), available at https://www.britannica.com/science/science (Feb. 22, 2025).
[2] See, e.g., Sarah Knapton, “How scientific ‘groupthink’ silenced those who disagreed with Covid lockdowns,” The Telegraph (Feb. 26, 2022), available at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/26/scientific-groupthink-silenced-disagreed-covid-lockdowns/ (last viewed Feb. 27, 2025).
[3] Jonas Herby, et al, “A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on Covid-19 Mortality,” Studies in Applied Economics (Jan. 2022), available at https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf (last viewed Feb. 27, 2025).
March 26, 2025