Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

COVID-19

COVID-19, Hygiene Theatre, Masks, and Lockdowns “Solid Science” or Science Veneer?

Published

23 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Nearly two and a half years since COVID-19 overturned much of the world, vigorous debate
still exists over whether or not governments “got COVID-19 right.” That is, despite more
than two years for analysis and retrospective studies, it is unclear if governments—any governments—implemented the best policies (or even 2nd best policies) as the COVID pandemic exploded in 2020, and as it unfolded through 2021 and 2022.

This situation is troubling, as the world will undoubtedly face similar, and perhaps more severe pandemic challenges again in the future. Society needs to know what worked and what did not work, not only with regard to vaccines, but with regard to the many other interventions government deployed to fight the COVID epidemic.

One key dispute regarding what went right or what went wrong with regard to COVID policies revolves around whether or not the public policies promulgated by governments and public health authorities were science- or evidence-based. Governments, regulatory bodies, and public health institutions around the world were not only unified, but strident in their proclamations that policies were “following the science.” Skeptics of such pronouncements were given little attention at the time, and were more often than not simply attacked as being peddlers of misinformation, or dis-information, and were squelched in public discourse. This did not, however, settle the dispute.

In fact, the battle lines over this question—whether governments were actually following the science or evidence available at the time, or were merely asserting that they were doing so—have only hardened since the pandemic struck in 2020. Even as this essay is being written, for example, a war is raging across Twitter (now “X”) between a prominent COVID vaccine researcher (Peter Hotez), and people who question whether his representation of his work is honest. The questioners seek a public debate, but the scientist involved (backed by many other prominent colleagues) have declared the very idea of societal debate to be anathema to the idea of science itself. The “Twitter war” over this dispute has drawn in one of the world’s richest men (Elon Musk), one of the world’s loudest populist broadcasters (Joe Rogan), and a host of high-level scientists and heads of scientific agencies (Mikhail, 2023).

This dynamic, of public accusations of obstruction, and demonizing of those making the accusations, bodes poorly for the prospects of improving future policy by learning from experience. It also bodes poorly for future confidence in governmental policy responses to threatening situations. It seems self-evident that the public will be less likely to follow governmental recommendations or guidance in future if the consensus develops that they cannot be trusted when they claim to be telling the truth, or following the evidence, or, as such truth-telling was cast in this case, “following the science.”

So what is the answer? Were governments following the science or the evidence extant at the time of COVID’s emergence and progression through the population, or were they following the science selectively, creating more of a veneer of science than a solid policy foundation of science?

Let’s examine this question by examining the two highly controversial, major non-pharmaceutical interventions, or NPIs, imposed during the COVID pandemic. NPIs implemented throughout the COVID-19 outbreak were policies intended to slow or limit the spread of the virus, and to reduce risk of infection via measures of physical separation including: enhanced hygiene, social distancing (keeping separate from others at a distance of 2 meters), erecting physical air/particle barricades, wearing gloves, donning masks, accepting voluntary and involuntary isolation, and a variety of restrictions on assemblage, including closures of parks, businesses, schools, and houses of worship, etc.

Gathering restrictions/closures (bars, businesses, churches, schools)

Several articles have looked into the question of “what the science said” about gathering restrictions imposed in response to COVID-19: closures of businesses, schools, public gatherings, etc., as that science already existed in 2020, and before.

The Cochrane Library, a respected clearinghouse of scientific and medical information,
published one such retrospective look at “the science” conducted in mid-2020, and entitled Quarantine Alone or in Combination with Other Public Health Measures to Control COVID-19: A Rapid Review (Nussbaumer-Streit, 2020; for simplicity, Nussbaumer).

Nussbaumer searched for studies related to quarantine efficacy on the PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, WHO Global Index Medicus, Embase, and CINAHL databases on June 23, 2020, only about six months into the pandemic. Nussbaumer specifically searched for “Cohort studies, case-control studies, time series, interrupted time series, case series, and mathematical modelling studies that assessed the effect of any type of quarantine to control COVID-19.” The authors even included studies on SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) and MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome) for indirect evidence that might apply to COVID-19. The net was cast widely. Nussbaumer identified 51 studies that met their criteria for inclusion in their analysis. Ten were modeling studies on COVID19; 15 were modelling studies of SARS and MERS; and the team found four observational studies
on SARS and MERS.

Nussbaumer found that while modeling studies were uniform in predicting that quarantine, in a variety of forms, would effectively reduce transmission of SARS, MERS, or COVID-19, the quality of evidence from these modeling studies was characterized as having low certainty or very low certainty, and the studies were, primarily, as the authors themselves noted, “modeling studies that make parameter assumptions based on the current, fragmented knowledge.”1

1 The four observational studies identified suggested quarantine was effective as a control strategy for SARS and MERS. However, Nussbaumer deemed them unlikely to be reflective of COVID-19 controls.

School closures

As discussed in a separate essay on the issue of school closures and educational performance (McPherson and Green, 2023), the question of whether school closures reduced either children’s risk directly, or society’s risk of COVID-contagion vie exposure to children, remains an important and particularly contentious area of debate. We are still trying to assess the damage done to children’s educational attainment in the nearly three years of intermittent school closures in Canada, and it will be some time before the extent of that damage is well understood. Longer term impacts on children’s mental health and social development will likely take many years to ascertain.

When COVID-19 struck in 2020, understanding how school closures related to the spread of a virus through school populations were based mostly on studies of Influenza pandemics that preceded COVID.

In another Cochrane Library review of studies on school closures published as of December 2020, the team of Krishnaratne et al. surveyed research on the issue of school closures published in “the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and the Educational Resources Information Center, as well as COVID-19-specific databases, including the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease” (2022). They found 38 unique studies in their analysis, 33 of which were modeling studies, three of which were observational studies, one study that was described as “quasi-experimental,” and one “experimental study with modelling components.”

Krishnaratne et al. concluded that

  • a broad range of measures implemented in the school setting can have positive impacts
    on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, and on healthcare utilisation outcomes related
    to COVID-19. The certainty of the evidence for most intervention-outcome combinations is very low, and the true effects of these measures are likely to be substantially
    different from those reported here. Measures implemented in the school setting may
    limit the number or proportion of cases and deaths, and may delay the progression
    of the pandemic. However, they may also lead to negative unintended consequences,
    such as fewer days spent in school (beyond those intended by the intervention).
    (Krishnaratne et al., 2022)

This aligns with by another review of the literature published in the British Medical Journal in 2023. In that paper, Hume et al. characterized the findings of 26 systemic reviews pertinent to the school-transmission question. They conclude, “We found evidence that both school closures and in-school mitigations may have had a beneficial impact on reducing COVID-19 transmission in the community. However, the GRADE [a measure of research quality] certainty was very low in both outcomes. We also found that school closures may have had negative impacts on children, including reduced learning, increased anxiety and increased rates of obesity. However, GRADE certainties were low or very low in these outcomes. Overall, confidence in the included SRs was generally low or critically low” (Hume, et al., 2023).

Other studies pre-dating COVID-19 also raised questions about the potential utility of school closures. One of the more interesting studies on the question from much farther back—a decade back, in fact—came out of University College London, by a research
team that included Neil M. Ferguson, the same researcher whose initial modeling of COVID-19 shaped the world’s response to the pandemic. That study concluded regarding school closures for Influenza, “Although some health benefits can be expected, there is
still substantial debate about if, when, and how school closure policy should be used. There is no consensus on the scale of the benefits to be expected, and recent reviews highlighted the lack of evidence for social distancing measures such as school closure. Even if benefits are substantial, they must be weighed against the potential high economic and social costs of proactively closing schools, which also can have negative effects on key workers since, for example, many doctors and nurses are also parents” (Cauchemez et al, 2009).

  • “School closures may have had negative impacts on children, including reduced learning, increased anxiety and increased rates of obesity.”

Enhanced Hygiene: Hand-washing, mask-wearing, and social distancing

The Cochrane Library has again been a world leader in performing retrospective reviews of the effectiveness (and state of knowledge) regarding interventions intended to manage the COVID-19 pandemic.

In 2020, the research team of Jefferson et al. searched the extant scientific literature and
published its findings in the Cochrane Library’s Physical Interventions to Interrupt or Reduce the Spread of Respiratory Viruses. Searching an array of medical and scientific literature indices and databases, the Jefferson team amassed a total of 67 studies which met the criteria for inclusion in their retrospective analysis of the evidence regarding enhanced hygiene (hand-washing and mask-wearing). All of these studies pre-dated the COVID-19 pandemic and focused on previous disease outbreaks of influenza, including the highly virulent H1:N1 variant that wrought worldwide havoc in 2009.

As there is unusually contentious debate over Cochrane’s research on this topic (a fairly vicious battle between the “masks don’t work” and “masks do work” tribes), it is best to read the team’s conclusions in the authors’ own words:

  • The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low compliance with the interventions during the studies hamper drawing firm conclusions and generalising the findings to the current COVID-19 pandemic. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low-moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of randomized trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. (Jefferson et al., 2020: 2–3).

Team Jefferson would update this research in 2023, amassing an expanded set of 78 randomized clinical trials involving physical interventions that had been conducted prior to the time of search (Jefferson et al., 2023). Most of those studies were also conducted prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, and studied the effectiveness of physical interventions against various types of influenza. However, six of the studies included in the 2023 review were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

I’ll also reproduce this latest summary of findings from Jefferson et al. in the authors’ own
words:

  • There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty
    of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true
    effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results
    of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of
    medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/
    surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in
    routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly
    reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present
    when ILI [Influenza-Like Illness] and laboratory-confirmed influenza were analysed
    separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes.
    Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. (Jefferson et
    al., 2023: 3).

Discussion

Governments and government policies were deeply involved in the development, definition, and deployment of both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions throughout the COVID pandemic, far more directly than was routinely seen in past public health crises or in contagious disease outbreaks. Whereas in the past one might have consulted with one’s doctor to get an idea about what to do to protect one’s health, there was no need for that in 2020: government pronouncements at the highest levels of health care bureaucracy were loud, clear, and insistent from the earliest days of the COVID pandemic.

At the time, governments, regulatory agencies, and a vast panoply of public health authorities asserted that they were, in all cases, diligently “following the science” in the policy guidances and prescriptions they wrote for society. “Following the science” became a constant refrain in explaining everything government did. It was also a bludgeon when used in the negative: “not following the science” was applied to anyone critical of what government did. And despite the fact that science is generally a relatively slow process of theory, experimentation, and publication of findings, somehow, as of January 2020, “the science” took to changing on a daily, even hourly basis.

Despite government assertions that they were following the science, reviews of the literature on the subject extant at the time suggest that governments were selectively interpreting the studies that already existed.

In fact, studies regarding the effectiveness of the measures governments adopted to fight COVID were relatively few in number, were mostly in the past tense as of 2020, were largely characterized as having mixed results, were highly uncertain, and were primarily driven by computer models.

The “consensus” of reviews of the literature extant at the time, conducted both during 2020 and afterward, come to basically the same conclusions. Specifically, they find with regard to the non-pharmaceutical interventions of enhanced hygiene, mask-wearing, and restrictions on gathering that while these NPIs might have helped, they might also have harmed, but that there was no strong evidence one way or the other.

Thus, it’s safe to say that while governments did not actively lie about “following the science,” they most certainly misrepresented “the science” in that they exaggerated certainty (a constant problem of government), they chose to believe models over observational studies, they only acknowledged half the science (about slowing transmission, not about causing harm to people economically and socially), and they spoke in tones of absolute certainty that denied the essence of science. That essence understands that knowledge is provisional, that this was a novel virus, and that there was, in fact, no
solid reason to find prior research outcomes dispositive in terms of giving guidance about what to do.

In acting with such certainty, governments not only did harm to their own future credibility, but they did harm to the credibility of public health institutions, biomedical institutions, pharmaceutical institutions, and others that governments chose to use as fig-leaves to obscure what were, in very large measure, arbitrary choices that governments made based on fragmentary, cherry-picked, model-dominated studies that mostly pre-existed the COVID pandemic. At the same time, governments also suppressed dissent among and elevated the authoritarian voices and managers of those institutions.

In an ideal world, there would be some process by which our public health agencies, at least, could come to recognize and admit how badly they managed to “follow the science” on COVID-19, and how vast was the gulf between their expressions of absolute certainty and what the scientific literature showed at the time was, in fact, a sea of uncertainty. Until such a “truth and reconciliation” process takes place, it is hard to see how public trust in public health institutions might be restored.

About the author

Kenneth P. Green is a Fraser Institute senior fellow and author of over 800 essays and articles on public policy, published by think tanks, major newspapers, and technical and trade journals in North America. Mr. Green holds a doctoral degree in environmental science and engineering from UCLA, a master’s degree in molecular genetics from San Diego State University, and a bachelors degree in general biology from UCLA.

Before Post

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

COVID-19

Judge allows B.C. government workers’ lawsuit against COVID mandates to proceed

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

‘Our legal campaigns are a critical, precedent-setting fight to ensure the preservation of all workers’ employment and Charter rights in British Columbia and Canada for generations to come,’ celebrated the British Columbia Public Servants Employees for Freedom.

A court has ruled that a class action lawsuit launched against the provincial government of British Columbia on behalf of “all unionized” public servant workers in the province who faced persecution resulting from COVID mandates can proceed.  

The court case will be heard in April of 2025, noted the British Columbia Public Servants Employees for Freedom (BCPSEF), a non-profit organization that assists public service workers in the province.  

“Since October 2021, BCPS Employees for Freedom (BCPSEF) has led a campaign in defense of medical privacy and bodily autonomy on behalf of all public servants and our fellow British Columbians. This has involved raising awareness about the provincial government’s harmful proof of COVID-19 vaccination policy and undertaking a series of legal actions,” said the group in a press release.  

“Our legal campaigns are a critical, precedent-setting fight to ensure the preservation of all workers’ employment and Charter rights in British Columbia and Canada for generations to come.”  

The class action was initially brought forth by Plaintiff Jason Baldwin’s, with the BCPSEF explaining that now the “Baldwin class action has been merged together with a separate class action claim by unionized B.C. healthcare workers that is being supported by @UHCWBC.”  

“Certification of both claims will be argued at 5 days of hearings scheduled in B.C. Supreme Court in Victoria beginning on April 7, 2025,” said the group.  

Both class actions made the arguments that workers who refused the COVID shots and were discriminated against had their rights violated “under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for imposing new terms and conditions of employment on existing and freely negotiated employment agreements absent collective bargaining, consideration, or consent.” 

“The actions also claim breach of employees’ common law and statutory privacy rights, as well as misfeasance in public office by B.C.’s Provincial Health Officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry,” said the group.  

The class action was initially filed in October of 2023. According to the BCPS, some 38,000 public servants were directly impacted by the B.C. provincial government’s “coercive and unjustifiable proof of COVID-19 vaccination mandate” which it noted caused “untold suffering and harm.” 

The NDP (New Democratic Party) government of British Columbia, which was just re-elected, had in place a COVID jab mandate for healthcare workers years after most provinces dropped theirs. It was not until July of this year that its chief health officer Bonnie Henry formally announced an end to the COVID jab mandate policy for those working in health care. 

Many healthcare workers were fired or placed on leave for refusing to get the COVID shots.  

Despite removing the mandates, the provincial government announced that it was creating “a vaccine registry,” forcing all healthcare workers to disclose vaccination status to their employer. 

The class action by British Columbian public servants is just the latest in a string of lawsuits against provincial governments for enacting draconian COVID mandates which resulted in thousands of businesses going under as well as many people fired for not getting the shots.  

As reported by LifeSiteNews, a recent class-action lawsuit on behalf of dozens of Canadian business owners in Alberta who faced massive losses or permanent closures due to COVID mandates has been given permission to proceed by a judge. 

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Federal Covid Inquiry Finds Public Trust Plummeted

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute

By  Rebekah Barnett

There is nothing like aggressively wresting human and civil rights away from a population to forcibly impose rules that fly in the face of available evidence, whilst censoring those who try to point this out, and refusing to reveal information on which your rules are based, to bottom out trust in the population at large.

In a report handed down Tuesday, Australia’s federal Covid Inquiry found that extreme public health restrictions, coupled with a lack of transparency about the evidence informing these decisions, has led to a major slide in public trust.

Apparently we need experts and a federal inquiry to tell us the bleeding obvious.

This, by the way, is not a Covid inquiry “like a royal commission,” as was promised by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese prior to his election, but is the toothless ‘royal commission lite’ alternative put forward by Albanese after he got into power.

From the Australian,

“The long-awaited report into Australia’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic has lashed state premiers for fuelling distrust and confusion, and for adopting draconian border closures that lacked consistency and compassion…

“In the report, the panel argued the need for transparency in future pandemic responses after “economic, social and mental health and human rights impacts were not always understood or considered” in 2020.”

That’s putting it lightly.

Economic, social and mental health, and human rights impacts weren’t considered at all.

That’s why the Queensland Supreme Court ruled that Covid vaccine mandates enforced by the Police Commissioner were unlawful. Justice Glenn Martin held that the Police Commissioner “did not consider the human rights ramifications” before issuing the Covid workplace vaccination directive within the Queensland Police Service (QPS).

When asked about potential human rights abuses caused by his government’s heavy-handed Covid response, former Victorian Premier Dan Andrews retorted, “Seriously? One more comment about human rights – honestly.”

In one egregious case, the Ombudsman determined that the Andrews Government had “breached human rights” by confining over 3,000 Melburnians to nine tower blocks, under police guard, for up to two weeks.

Back to the Australian,

“[The report] lashed “control measures” instituted by state and federal authorities without sufficient explanation.

“This fed the perception that the government did not trust the public to understand or interpret the information correctly and contributed to the decrease in trust,” the summary reads.

“It was the mandating of public health restrictions, especially vaccination, that had the biggest negative impact on trust. The combination of mandatory measures and the perception people had that they were unable to criticize or question government decisions and policies has contributed to non‑mandated vaccination rates falling to dangerously low levels.”

This is absolutely the case. The hashtag I used the most on social media during Australia’s Covid response was, ‘make it make sense.’

There is nothing like aggressively wresting human and civil rights away from a population to forcibly impose rules that fly in the face of available evidence, whilst censoring those who try to point this out, and refusing to reveal information on which your rules are based, to bottom out trust in the population at large.

The biggest failure by far was the silver bullet vaccines that authorities mandated in order to prevent infection and transmission, when they were not tested for such endpoints, and observational data showed they waned in effectiveness after a month or two at best.

Safety surveillance databases exploded with adverse event reporting rates never seen before, yet authorities still insist these are definitely the best, most safe and effective products ever deployed on the population.

It’s small wonder then that fewer than 4% of Australians under the age of 65 have bothered to get a booster in the past six months.

But the nonsensical Covid response wasn’t just limited to the failure of the vaccines to deliver as promised. A few other rules that made no sense:

You need to be protected by a mask standing up, but if sitting at a table you are safe.

Mandatory vaccines are voluntary.

Rapid antigen tests are illegal – wait, now they’re mandatory.

Footballers can cross the border safely but children wishing to visit a dying parent cannot.

And so on, and so on, and so on.

To this day, federal, state, and territory governments have blocked all attempts to access the health advice on which their extremist policies were based.

In an address on Tuesday, Health Minister Mark Butler admitted that “heavy-handed” policies implemented during the pandemic eroded trust, and that “many of the measures taken during Covid-19 are unlikely to be accepted by the population again.”

But don’t think for one second that means they won’t try it again.

Just as the Queensland Government took its Supreme Court loss as a signal that it needs to add a ‘considering human rights’ box-ticking exercise next time it breaches human rights to bring in a mandate, the federal Covid Inquiry report recommends ways to do the whole shebang next time, but better.

That includes more spending, fast-tracking the new Australian Centre for Disease Control (CDC, which the government  has invested $251.7 million to establish), and better global coordination, particularly with the World Health Organization’s One Health policy.

The report recommends transparent, evidence-based decision-making next time around, but in light of my recent interactions with the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), forgive me for considering this a pipe dream under the political status quo.

Butler said that the report was not about laying blame for individual decisions, but was rather about learning lessons. In other words, there will be no accountability.

Instead, Covid premiers and leaders have been awarded medals and cushy jobs. Most recently, Andrews was appointed to the lucrative role of chairman of Orygen, a youth mental health not-for-profit, to collective outrage.

A good thing that has come out of the report is that government overreach on vaccination mandates has been squarely blamed for a drop in vaccination rates in Australia more generally (not just for Covid vaccines).

“The erosion of trust is not only constraining our ability to respond to a pandemic when it next occurs, but it’s already, we know, bled into the performance of our vaccination programs, including our childhood vaccination programs,” said Butler.

“Since the beginning of Covid…we’ve seen a reduction of seven or eight percentage points in participation in the whooping cough vaccination program for under fives and measles vaccination program for under fives, which means we are well below herd immunity levels for those two really important diseases.”

Nice to see a politician finally admit the role of government in driving this trend, which is too often blamed on the boogeyman of ‘misinformation.’

Read the COVID-19 Response Inquiry Report.

Read the COVID-19 Response Inquiry Report Summary.

For further commentary, check out Alison Bevege’s response to the report on her Substack, Letters from Australia

Republished from the author’s Substack

Author

  • Rebekah Barnett is a Brownstone Institute fellow, independent journalist and advocate for Australians injured by the Covid vaccines. She holds a BA in Communications from the University of Western Australia, and writes for her Substack, Dystopian Down Under.

Continue Reading

Trending

X