LyrArc Article Gist
The Editorial Board of the WSJ questions the lack of debate on the frequent lockdowns and the quashing by public health officials Fauci and Collins of an alternative point of view on lockdowns. That point of view by epidemiologists at three universities Oxford, Harvard and Stanford favored a policy of "focused protection" of high risk populations instead of snap response of blanket lockdowns. It cites statement by Dr. Fauci that people who criticize him are "really criticizing science, because I represent science. That's dangerous." And questions the idea that one man can by himself represent science, saying scientific debate over pandemic policy was and still is in the public interest.

In some ways the Biden administration has adopted some of these ideas on a new pandemic policy that does respond with focused and selective lockdowns. Today shuttered businesses, lost livelihoods, untreated illnesses, mental illness, isolation effects are all taken into account in decisions throughout the US, and other countries in Europe, in Asia and the rest of the world. Some of the emails mentioned in this WSJ editorial were in October 2020 at the height of the first wave and second waves before the vaccination drive in 2021, when the fear of the coronavirus was the dominant response. Yet a spirited public scientific debate could have prevented some of the rancor and division that has led to high vaccine resistance in the US with fully vaccinated stalling at about 62% of the American population at the beginning of 2022. It did'nt have to be that way. America could have done a lot better with sincere scientific and public debate.