The Covid-19 pandemic brought out the best and worst in politics. It was a time when decisions had to be made quickly, and priorities had to be set. Who made the calls? Who suffered the most? Why did certain choices lead to specific outcomes? These are the questions that need to be asked.

        The pandemic was a test for political systems worldwide. Institutions responsible for finding the truth, like journalism, science, and universities, were put under the microscope. How did they handle the pressure? Were they committed to the truth? Did they stick to the basic rules of liberalism and science? Could we have reasonable conversations about what was happening? If not, why not?

        The pandemic response was not just about the policies themselves. It was about the quality of the discussions and debates surrounding those policies. This is not just an academic exercise. Understanding what went wrong during the pandemic can help us prepare for the next crisis.

        The debate about the pandemic response was fast-paced and often truncated. Many decisions made early on deviated from conventional wisdom and violated pre-existing pandemic plans. Countries around the world scrapped their plans to follow the example set in Wuhan and Italy. There was no scientific basis for these actions. It was hoped that they would work, but there was a lack of evidence.

        The World Health Organization had a report in 2019 that rated the evidence base for many non-pharmaceutical interventions as poor quality. Some measures were even recommended not to be used under any circumstances. Yet, these measures were employed worldwide during the pandemic. Why did this happen?

        The decision-making process during the pandemic was flawed. Policymakers often focused on saving lives at all costs, without considering the trade-offs. For example, shutting down non-essential healthcare led to canceled cancer treatments. This was a trade-off between future risks to life and preserving healthcare capacity now. These are difficult choices, but they need to be made responsibly.

        Health officials were often intolerant of criticism and skepticism. They were in a tough position, but they should have acknowledged the possibility of failure. They should have factored this into their decision-making. It's not just about lives versus the economy. It's also about how many lives are being saved and whether these policies are workable for society.

        There was a disjunction between what health officials said in private and what they said in public. For example, Deborah Birx admitted that the "two weeks to slow the spread" was just a pretext to get initial closures in place. She also admitted that they immediately began to look for ways to extend them. This is a classic example of a "noble lie, " where the truth is hidden to achieve a greater good. But at what cost?

        The pandemic also highlighted the failures of other truth-seeking institutions. Where were the academics and journalists asking hard questions? Critical thinking got suspended during the pandemic. Government officials, including public health officials, were not held accountable in the way they should have been.

        The pandemic shattered the delusion that there's a value-free science. We can't make policy choices based on science alone. We have to come to terms with the reality of politics, which is diverse values and interests. When we make policy choices, there are always winners and losers. We have to see that with clear eyes and try to make as many winners as possible.

The Pandemic's Political Lessons

Actions