A new book by political scientists Stephen Macedo and Frances Lee argues that many aggressive Covid policies, such as lockdowns and mask mandates, were not sufficiently supported by empirical evidence and lacked rigorous public debate. They highlight how public health authorities often acted more like PR agents than neutral experts, dismissing dissenting voices from the public and contributing to a climate of groupthink and partisan bias. The authors, who identify as left-leaning, critique the liberal approach to policy discussions during the pandemic and suggest that this distanced approach has lasting implications for American society.
"Many Covid stances presented as public health consensus were not as grounded in empirical evidence as many Americans may have believed."
"Policy learning seemed to be short-circuited during the pandemic, it became so moralized... only bad people would do it a different way from the way we're doing"
"Covid is an amazing case study in groupthink and the effects of partisan bias."
"Public health authorities and the mainstream media often pushed pandemic measures without weighing their costs and benefits, ostracizing people who expressed good-faith disagreement."
Collection
[
|
...
]