logo
‘A case study in groupthink': were liberals wrong about the pandemic?

‘A case study in groupthink': were liberals wrong about the pandemic?

The Guardian05-04-2025

Were conservatives right to question Covid lockdowns? Were the liberals who defended them less grounded in science than they believed? And did liberal dismissiveness of the other side come at a cost that Americans will continue to pay for many years?
A new book by two political scientists argues yes to all three questions, making the case that the aggressive policies that the US and other countries adopted to fight Covid – including school shutdowns, business closures, mask mandates and social distancing – were in some cases misguided and in many cases deserved more rigorous public debate.
In their peer-reviewed book, In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us, Stephen Macedo and Frances Lee argue that public health authorities, the mainstream media, and progressive elites often pushed pandemic measures without weighing their costs and benefits, and ostracized people who expressed good-faith disagreement.
'Policy learning seemed to be short-circuited during the pandemic,' Lee said. 'It became so moralized, like: 'We're not interested in looking at how other people are [responding to the pandemic], because only bad people would do it a different way from the way we're doing'.'
She and Macedo spoke to the Guardian by video call. The Princeton University professors both consider themselves left-leaning, and the book grew out of research Macedo was doing on the ways progressive discourse gets handicapped by a refusal to engage with conservative or outside arguments. 'Covid is an amazing case study in groupthink and the effects of partisan bias,' he said.
Many Covid stances presented as public health consensus were not as grounded in empirical evidence as many Americans may have believed, Macedo and Lee argue. At times, scientific and health authorities acted less like neutral experts and more like self-interested actors, engaging in PR efforts to downplay uncertainty, missteps or conflicts of interest.
It's a controversial argument. Covid-19 killed more than a million Americans, according to US government estimates. The early days of the pandemic left hospitals overwhelmed, morgues overflowing, and scientists scrambling to understand the new disease and how to contain it.
Still, Macedo and Lee say, it is unclear why shutdowns and closures went on so long, particularly in Democratic states. The book argues that in the US the pandemic became more politically polarized over time, after, initially, 'only modest policy differences between Republican- and Democratic-leaning states'.
After April 2020, however, red and blue America diverged. Donald Trump contributed to that polarization by downplaying the severity of the virus. Significant policy differences also emerged. Ron DeSantis, the Republican governor of Florida, moved to re-open physical schools quickly, which progressives characterized as irresponsible.
Yet in the end there was 'no meaningful difference' in Covid mortality rates between Democratic and Republican states in the pre-vaccine period, according to CDC data cited in the book, despite Republican states' more lenient policies. Macedo and Lee also favorably compare Sweden, which controversially avoided mass lockdowns but ultimately had a lower mortality rate than many other European countries.
The shutdowns had foreseeable and quantifiable costs, they say, many of which we are still paying. Learning loss and school absenteeism soared. Inflation went through the roof thanks in part to lockdown spending and stimulus payments. Small businesses defaulted; other medical treatments like cancer screenings and mental health care suffered; and rates of loneliness and crime increased. The economic strain on poor and minority Americans was particularly severe.
Covid policies escalated into culture wars, amplifying tensions around other social issues. Teachers' unions, which are often bastions of Democratic support, painted school re-openings as 'rooted in sexism, racism, and misogyny' and 'a recipe for … structural racism', the book notes, despite the fact that minority and poor students were most disadvantaged by remote learning.
These measures also had a literal price. 'In inflation-adjusted terms,' Macedo and Lee write, 'the United States spent more on pandemic aid in 2020 than it spent on the 2009 stimulus package and the New Deal combined' – or about what the US spent on war production in 1943.
Yet of the $5tn that the US Congress authorized in 2020 and 2021 for Covid expenditure, only about 10% went to direct medical expenses such as hospitals or vaccine distribution, according to the book; most of the spending was on economic relief to people and businesses affected by shutdowns. Ten per cent of that relief was stolen by fraud, according to the AP.
The pandemic was an emergency with no modern precedent, of course, and hindsight is easy. But In Covid's Wake tries to take into account what information was known at the time – including earlier pandemic preparedness studies. Reports by Johns Hopkins (2019), the World Health Organization (2019), the state of Illinois (2014) and the British government (2011) had all expressed ambivalence or caution about the kind of quarantine measures that were soon taken.
'We take a look at the state of the evidence as it was in early 2020,' Lee said. 'It was clear at the time that the evidence was quite unsettled around all of this, and if policymakers had been more honest with the public about these uncertainties, I think they would have maintained public trust better.'
The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security hosted a wargaming exercise in October 2019, shortly before the pandemic began, to simulate a deadly coronavirus pandemic; the findings explicitly urged that '[t]ravel and trade … be maintained even in the face of a pandemic'. Similarly, a WHO paper in 2019 said that some measures – such as border closures and contact tracing – were 'not recommended in any circumstances'.
'And yet we did all of that in short order,' Macedo said, 'and without people referring back to these plans.'
He and Lee also believe there was a strong element of class bias, with a left-leaning 'laptop class' that could easily work from home touting anti-Covid measures that were much easier for some Americans to adopt than others. Many relatively affluent Americans became even wealthier during the pandemic, in part due to rising housing values.
At the same time, the laptop class was only able to socially isolate at home in part because other people risked exposure to provide groceries. Stay-at-home measures were partly intended to protect 'essential workers', but policymakers living in crisis-stricken major metropolitan areas such as New York or Washington DC did not reckon with why social distancing and other measures might be less important in rural parts of the country where Covid rates were lower.
Lockdowns were intended to slow Covid's spread, yet previous pandemic recommendations had suggested they only be used very early in an outbreak and even then do not buy much time, Macedo said.
Policymakers and experts often embraced stringent measures for reasons that are more political than medical, Macedo and Lee argue; in a pandemic, authorities are keen to assure anxious publics that they are 'in charge' and 'doing something'.
In strange contrast, policymakers and journalists in the US and elsewhere seemed to take China as a model, the book argues, despite the fact that China is an authoritarian state and had concealed the scale of the outbreak during the crucial early days of the pandemic. Its regime had obvious incentives to mislead foreign observers, and used draconian quarantine measures such as physically welding people into their homes.
When the WHO organized a joint China field mission with the Chinese government, in February 2020, non-Chinese researchers found it difficult to converse with their Chinese counterparts away from government handlers. Yet the WHO's report was 'effusive in its praise' of China's approach, the book notes.
'My view is that there was just a great deal of wishful thinking on the part of technocrats of all kinds,' Lee said. 'They wanted there to be an answer – that if we do X and Y, we can prevent this disaster. And so they're kind of grasping at straws. The Chinese example gave them hope.' She noted that Covid policymakers might have been better served if there had been people assigned to act as devil's advocates in internal deliberations.
Lee and Macedo are not natural scientists or public health professionals, they emphasize, and their book is about failures in public deliberation over Covid-19, rather than a prescription for managing pandemics.
But they do wade into the debate about Covid-19's origin, arguing that the 'lab leak' hypothesis – that Covid-19 accidentally leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, rather than spontaneously leaping from animals to humans – was unfairly dismissed.
The Wuhan Institute studied coronaviruses similar to the one responsible for Covid-19, had a documented history of safety breaches, was located near the outbreak, and is known to have experimented on viruses using controversial 'gain-of-function' methods funded by the US, which involve mutating pathogens to see what they might look like in a more advanced or dangerous form.
Perhaps because Trump had fanned racial paranoia by calling Covid-19 the 'China virus' and rightwing influencers were spreading the notion that it had been deliberately engineered and unleashed on the world by China, many scientists, public health experts and journalists reacted by framing the idea of a lab leak – even an accidental one – as an offensive conspiracy theory. Dr Anthony Fauci and other top public health figures were evasive or in some cases dishonest about the possibility of a lab leak, Macedo and Lee say, as well as the fact that a US non-profit funded by the National Institutes of Health allegedly funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute.
Since then, though, the CIA and other US intelligence agencies have cautiously endorsed the lab leak theory, and the discourse around Covid has softened somewhat. The economist Emily Oster sparked immense backlash by arguing against school closures in 2020. Now publications such as New York Magazine and the New York Times have acknowledged the plausibility of the lab leak hypothesis, for example, and there is growing consensus that school closures hurt many children.
The reception to In Covid's Wake has been more positive than Macedo and Lee expected – perhaps a sign that some of their arguments have penetrated the mainstream, if not that we've gotten better as a society at talking about difficult things. 'The reception of the book has been much less controversial [and] contentious than we expected,' Macedo said.
Yet the wounds fester and debates continue. Some readers of the New York Times were furious when The Daily, the newspaper's flagship podcast, recently interviewed them, with subscribers arguing that the episode was not sufficiently critical of their stance. And some coverage of the book has criticized it for underplaying the danger of the disease.
Macedo and Lee said that a few of their colleagues have expressed concern that their critique could fuel political attacks on science – a worry that crossed their minds too. 'Our response is that the best way to refute criticisms that science and universities have been politicized is to be open to criticism and willing to engage in self-criticism,' Macedo said.
'We need to make sure these institutions are in the best possible working order to face the challenges ahead. And we think that's by being honest, not by covering over mistakes or being unwilling to face up to hard questions.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US lawmakers to attend Paris Airshow amid tariff, national security concerns
US lawmakers to attend Paris Airshow amid tariff, national security concerns

Reuters

time24 minutes ago

  • Reuters

US lawmakers to attend Paris Airshow amid tariff, national security concerns

WASHINGTON, June 11 (Reuters) - More than two dozen U.S. lawmakers are set to attend the Paris Airshow next week amid rising concerns about potential American aerospace tariffs and national security issues, lawmakers told Reuters. Senators Jerry Moran and Jeanne Shaheen will lead a previously unreported bipartisan delegation of 11 U.S. senators, including Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker, as well as about a dozen U.S. governors and more than a dozen House lawmakers led by Representative Sam Graves, who heads the House Transportation Committee. "As China continues to exert its aggression on democratic countries and Russia prolongs its unjust war in Ukraine, the U.S. must partner with our allies to bolster our national security and promote economic partnerships," said Moran, the Republican senator who chairs a Senate aviation subcommittee. Airbus ( opens new tab and Boeing (BA.N), opens new tab are both boosting U.S. investments. Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin and Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders are among the state officials attending as they make the case for aerospace companies to boost U.S. investments. The push comes as global aerospace companies and U.S. airlines have warned new tariffs on imported commercial aircraft, jet engines and parts could put air safety and the supply chain at risk or trigger other unintended consequences like higher ticket prices. "Unfortunately, our manufacturers are experiencing severe disruptions as a result of this administration's tariffs and our allies are questioning our commitment to mutual defense," Shaheen said, adding "it's especially important for this bipartisan delegation to reaffirm that America remains a reliable, stable partner and that our capabilities remain unmatched – and that's exactly what we intend to do." Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and Acting FAA Administrator Chris Rocheleau are also attending the show. The industry already faces 10% tariffs on nearly all imported planes and parts after U.S. President Donald Trump announced sweeping duties on trade partners in April. Last month, the Commerce Department opened an investigation known as Section 232 looking at risks to U.S. national security from imported goods, which could be used as a basis for even higher tariffs on imported planes, engines and parts. Airlines and manufacturers have been lobbying Trump to restore a tariff-free regime under the 1979 Civil Aircraft Agreement, in which the U.S. sector enjoyed a $75 billion annual trade surplus. According to the agreement, parts must be certified by the Federal Aviation Administration to be deemed tariff-free.

'There is no Plan B': Republicans make a daring bet on the debt limit
'There is no Plan B': Republicans make a daring bet on the debt limit

NBC News

time2 hours ago

  • NBC News

'There is no Plan B': Republicans make a daring bet on the debt limit

WASHINGTON — As Republicans barrel toward a critical deadline this summer to lift the debt ceiling, they say there's no 'Plan B' to avert an economically disastrous default if they fail to pass the massive bill for President Donald Trump's agenda in time. Congressional Republicans are eyeing increasing the debt limit by $4 trillion to $5 trillion so the government can keep borrowing to meet the country's obligations. It's part of their broader domestic policy package, which the Senate needs to pass before it can go back through the House and ultimately to Trump's desk for his signature. And the GOP only has three votes to spare in both chambers. 'There is no Plan B,' Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said Tuesday when asked by NBC News if he has a backup plan for the debt limit. 'It's Plan A. We have to get it done. Failure is not an option.' It's a risky gamble by GOP leaders, who are putting all their chips on passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act by the debt ceiling deadline. 'We're going to get reconciliation done,' Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said when asked what the party's fallback plan is on the debt ceiling. (Reconciliation refers to the budget process Republicans are using to pass their bill, which allows them to bypass the 60-vote threshold in the Senate and cut Democrats out of the process.) The Treasury Department has urged Congress to raise the debt ceiling "by mid-July" to safely avoid default. The Congressional Budget Office projected this week that the deadline may be later, 'between mid-August and the end of September,' although that won't be official unless the Treasury Department agrees. If Republicans fail to pass their sprawling bill in time, they would need to negotiate with Democrats to pass a standalone debt limit extension through the 60-vote process in the Se nate. But there have been no negotiations between party leaders on that front, according to Republican and Democratic aides with knowledge of the dynamics. One GOP aide said the party is 'full steam ahead on Plan A' and suggested there may still be time to consider a fallback if they absolutely need to. Some Republicans say it's a deliberate tactic to drive up the urgency of passing their filibuster-proof bill. 'We should be set an expectation that we're getting this done in July, and it includes the debt ceiling,' said Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C. 'I think the minute you start talking about a backup plan, you're going to have a backup plan.' If Republican leaders eventually decide they want to cut a bipartisan deal on the debt ceiling, it's unclear what — if anything — Democrats would demand. Some, like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, of Massachusetts, and Rep. Brendan Boyle, of Pennsylvania., have insisted on abolishing the debt limit entirely in order to prevent the full faith and credit of the United States from being used as leverage in policy negotiations. That's an idea Trump recently endorsed. 'I am very pleased to announce that, after all of these years, I agree with Senator Elizabeth Warren on SOMETHING,' Trump wrote on Truth Social last week. 'The Debt Limit should be entirely scrapped to prevent an Economic catastrophe.' But there's scant support within the GOP for it, as Republicans have found success using it to extract concessions from Democratic presidents in the past. There's no indication that Democrats would respond in kind this year if Republicans came to them and asked for their votes on the debt ceiling. 'I'm not debating hypotheticals,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said when asked what he'd want in exchange.

After a boost from Trump, Jack Ciattarelli pivots in the New Jersey governor's race
After a boost from Trump, Jack Ciattarelli pivots in the New Jersey governor's race

NBC News

time2 hours ago

  • NBC News

After a boost from Trump, Jack Ciattarelli pivots in the New Jersey governor's race

DOVER, N.J. — Republican Jack Ciattarelli won Tuesday's primary for governor in New Jersey in part by touting President Donald Trump's endorsement. But the former state legislator is now looking to make his campaign against Democratic Rep. Mikie Sherrill about a different executive. Ciattarelli name-checked Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy's administration five times in the course of a nearly 7-minute interview with NBC News at a Colombian bakery here on Wednesday. He only mentioned Trump's name once, when prompted, and went on to call Sherrill 'out of touch' with key state issues like affordability, education and immigration policies, suggesting she would be an extension of Murphy's administration if she wins the governorship. 'This race is all about New Jersey,' Ciattarelli said. 'My opponent is going to want to talk about Donald Trump every day of the week, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security — by the way, the way to save those programs is by getting rid of the fraud. I've got to hit the reset button here in New Jersey come January. We're going to keep the focus on New Jersey.' 'What people want to hear about [is] what are we doing about property taxes? What are we doing about public education? What are we doing about our infrastructure? What are we doing about the lawlessness? What are we doing about the over development? What are we doing about the cost of electricity? Those are all the failures of the Murphy administration. Mikie Sherrill has supported every one of his policies,' Ciattarelli added. Ciattarelli's focus on Murphy comes as he is trying to win over independent voters and disaffected Democrats in the traditionally blue state. Trump significantly improved on his margin last year compared to 2020, but he still lost New Jersey by 6 points. Ciattarelli called out those voters in his victory speech Tuesday night, and on Wednesday he laid out how he plans to win them over. 'They've had it, as have I,' Ciattarelli said. 'They've had it with sanctuary cities. They've had it with us being a sanctuary state. They've had it with our property taxes. We saw what went on on our Jersey Shore over the Memorial Day weekend, flash mobs, because we don't support our local police. It's across the board. Look what's happened in education. We just slipped from two to 12 on the national report card because of the performance or lack thereof of our students.' Ciattarelli is, of course, still linked to Trump, who endorsed him and helped consolidate Republican primary voters behind him, helping fuel his resounding re-nomination. On Tuesday night at a victory party in Holmdel, New Jersey, voters who spoke to NBC News emphasized Trump's endorsement as having 'sealed the deal' for them. 'If he continues with Trump and doesn't become like one of them RINOs [Republican In Name Only], if he continues going the right path, I think he's going to do great,' one supporter said. On Wednesday, Ciattarelli said Trump is 'really excited about the possibilities here in New Jersey. There's an opportunity for us to win this year, and that's exactly what we're going to do.' Sherrill suggested in her primary victory speech Tuesday night that she plans to tie Ciattarelli to the president, referring to her opponent as a 'Trump lackey.' 'This country is too beautiful to be beholden to the cruelty and self interest that Jack and Trump are trying to hoist on her,' Sherrill said. For his part, Ciattarelli has been hesitant to publicly break with the president. The Republican told NBC News that he supports Trump's decision to federalize California's National Guard troops to respond to protests in Los Angeles against immigration raids, despite objections from Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom. 'The first job of any elected official is public health and safety. If they feel the National Guard is needed, why not? I think our local police and our state police would welcome the National Guard here to help them,' Ciattarelli said. Sherrill wrote in an X post on Sunday that the Trump administration's move was 'a dangerous stunt designed to inflame divisions and further a political agenda' and that it was 'disturbing' to see Ciattarelli applauding the decision. 'I think it's a dangerous situation to put military on the streets of this country, trained in combat, as opposed to the police officers who know how to handle this,' Sherrill told reporters after casting her primary ballot on Tuesday, noting a governor can ask the federal government for support. 'That is not the case here,' Sherrill said. 'Governor Newsom surged law enforcement in and what Trump seems to be doing is trying to add fuel to the fire and really make a situation violent and bad. And I just think that's completely unacceptable.' Immigration is expected to be a top issue in the governor's race, with around 1 in 4 New Jersey residents born in another country, according to census data. The first of several Ciattarelli campaign events on Wednesday took place in a predominantly Latino area in Sherrill's congressional district. 'Immigrants that are here legally want to achieve the American dream, and too many people right now don't feel like they can do that here in New Jersey,' Ciattarelli said. 'Whether it's get the job of their dreams, get the education they want, raise a family, start a business, retire here, those are all the things that people are terribly insecure about.' 'Those are all the failures of the Murphy administration,' Ciattarelli added. Ciattarelli, who lost a close race against Murphy in 2021, said that this year is going to be different, in part because the state is not in the throes of the Covid-19 pandemic. 'I thought we were going to win in '21, but I know we're going to win this race. The political landscape is very different,' Ciatterelli said. 'I'm not competing with a pandemic or a shelter-in-place order. I'm not going up against an incumbent. I'm going up against somebody who's totally out of touch with what it is that really matters and bothers New Jersey.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store