Jenin Younes – February 21, 2021
@ American Institute for Economic Research
This past year has given rise to some strange and novel methods of
disease containment, including lockdowns and mask mandates. It is
unsurprising that the natural next step in this progression has been the
development of a movement known as “ZeroCovid.”
Its growing influence is, perhaps, predictable given that for nearly a
year we have been inundated by the views of so-called experts seeking to
legitimize their myopic worldview that public health is determined
solely by prevention of Covid-19.
Rather than acknowledge to a weary public that their approach has
been a failure, they are doubling down and attempting to save their
reputations by claiming that the problem is not that lockdowns do not
work, but that they have not gone far enough.
There is, apparently, some diversity of opinion among the ZeroCovid crowd as to whether the term is to be interpreted literally, as some of its most impassioned and vocal proponents argue, or whether it simply means a more extreme version
of the ideology that has dominated societies around the globe for the
past year: the belief that suppressing the coronavirus is a singularly
important goal, to replace all others and to be pursued with no or only
minimal consideration of the effects of doing so.
ZeroCovid promoters appear to agree that much stricter border controls, lockdowns, and mask mandates are needed than exist in most nations today. Sam Bowman, one of the most prominent ZeroCoviders, claims for instance that
the only way to address the coronavirus problem is with “lockdowns,
school closures, travel bans, mass testing, contact tracing, and masks.”
Likewise, former United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair’s think-tank has stated that the only way to avoid another lockdown is to bring coronavirus cases to zero. China, Australia and New Zealand are portrayed as successes by ZeroCovid proponents, and prove that suffering now brings with it the promise of eventual freedom.
While marketing themselves as theoretically opposed to lockdowns,
ZeroCovid adherents actually aspire to implement a totalitarian-style
state, which we are supposed to believe will exist only temporarily. For
example, Devi Sridhar, one of the movement’s most public faces in the
United Kingdom, has claimed
that the only way out of endless lockdown is a “crude, harsh,
catastrophic lockdown” now, the first phase. Given that the third phase
of Sridhar’s plan entails an “East Asian and Pacific model of
elimination” that prohibits travel abroad, I can only imagine precisely
what sort of totalitarian nightmare Sridhar envisions during phase one.
Those who follow this philosophy fail to recognize the glaringly
obvious truth that suppression tactics have not succeeded because they
run contrary to human nature (as well as basic cell biology) and entail
severe deprivations of human rights and liberties. They also do not
acknowledge the fact that if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) managed
to eliminate the coronavirus (a questionable assumption given the CCP’s tenuous relationship with the truth), it did so using tactics that prima facie constitute human rights violations.
Even Australia and New Zealand, which before 2020 were considered
beacons of liberal democracy, have recently been the subject of
investigations or inquiries by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. The ZeroCovid proponents do not address the reality that China, Australia, and New Zealand have continually had to implement lockdown policies
in response to new cases arising even after declaring victory over the
virus, and that the latter two are island nations able to effectuate
border control in a way that cannot possibly be applied to nations that
are geographically proximate to others and in which the virus has
already become endemic.
The “Covid Community Action Summit,”
a conference held at the end of January, and led and attended by many
of ZeroCovid’s main players – needless to say, over Zoom – offers a
glimpse into the warped worldview that pervades the ideology.
The architect of ZeroCovid, and the first speaker at the Summit, was Yaneer Bar-Yam,
an American scientist who specializes in complex systems and
quantitative analysis of pandemics and founded the New England Complex
Systems Institute (NECSI). The participants came from a variety of
backgrounds: in addition to doctors and scientists, political
consultants and communications specialists were in attendance. Many
presenters had business interests in pharmaceuticals and diagnostics, and those from the United States tended to be affiliated with Democratic Party politics and campaigns.
One of the most disturbing presentations was delivered by Blake Elias, a researcher at the NECSI who works directly
under Bar-Yam. Given Elias’s position, it is fair to assume that his
views, as articulated at the Summit, reflected those held by its
organizer.
Elias, like numerous other “ZeroCovid” advocates, believes that the “lives versus economy” framing of the problem is incorrect (notably, many lockdown
opponents also consider this the wrong lens through which to view the
issue, but for different reasons; namely that the economy and people’s
lives are inextricably intertwined and lockdown policies do not take
into account crucial considerations such as mental health and civil
liberties).
Valuing each life–somewhat arbitrarily and without regards to life
expectancy–at $10 million, Elias plugged a bunch of numbers into a
machine and voila! came up with irrefutable proof that locking down hard
and fast is less costly than failing to do so. Elias earnestly stated
that his airtight equation demonstrates that if you are against
elimination (ZeroCovid) the only conceivable reason could be that you
dispute one of his premises, so you therefore believe one of the
following: the cost of infections is lower than it is; the cost of
lockdowns is more; hospital capacity is greater; the importation rate is
higher; or complete vaccination is achievable in a shorter time frame.
At no time did he mention psychology, human rights, or civil
liberties. If Elias had the slightest understanding of these concepts,
he did an exceptional job of hiding it.
Michelle Lukezic and Eric Nixon, like Elias, gave a presentation akin
to what I imagine it would be like to watch aliens discuss human
psychology and behavior. Presumably a couple, Lukezic and Nixon founded a
company called MakeGoodTogether, and believe that
the coronavirus problem boils down to a lack of individual discipline
and accountability. They acknowledged that the extreme social distancing
they touted as the answer to the world’s woes is contrary to our
nature, but insisted that we simply must try harder.
We could eradicate coronavirus, they solemnly instructed us, if only
we would insist upon declining social invitations, and suggested that
people post pledges on social media to that effect. They apparently
spent little time considering the plight of essential workers whose
employment does not allow them the luxury of distancing, apart from a
comedic description of the psychic discomfort they experienced when the
mask of a workman in their home slipped down his face. Lukezic was very
proud of Nixon for refusing to shake the man’s hand upon his departure. I
had to double-check the link a couple of times to make sure I had not
inadvertently stumbled upon a Saturday Night Live episode.
Another noteworthy contributor to the ZeroCovid Summit was Michael Baker,
the architect of New Zealand’s coronavirus strategy. Baker insisted
that “following the science” indisputably leads to the ZeroCovid
strategy, as though science alone informs policy. He made several
stunning admissions, among which are that containment should also be the
strategy for influenza, and that the coronavirus pandemic has given us
the opportunity to reset in order to address inequities in society and
threats posed by climate change. In other words, Baker does not foresee a
return to normal life.
As demonstrated by its presenters at the Summit, ZeroCovid is the
unfortunate end result of the inexplicable belief held by too many
people that it makes sense to fixate upon one problem to the exclusion
of all others. No one at the Summit, or in any other context for that
matter, has ever made a convincing case for elevating the coronavirus
pandemic above all other considerations. There is a reason for this: the
facts and logic all point in the opposite direction.
An argument could certainly be made that a virus or other threat
calculated to wipe out humanity or a significant portion of it, across
age ranges, warrants exclusive focus on that threat for its duration. As I and others
have written before, the coronavirus simply does not constitute such a
danger. We now have a year of data from which to conclude beyond all doubt that exposure to the virus only poses a significant risk, beyond those we are accustomed to taking in everyday life, to the very old.
The overwhelming majority of those infected with the virus suffer not
at all, or minimally, and recover within days or weeks. This does not
mean that the problem should be ignored, but rather that it should be
addressed utilizing the same methodology with which we approach all public health matters: by taking into account the effects of the policies enacted in response to them.
ZeroCovid adherents are not qualitatively different from the
epidemiologists and politicians who have advocated for and imposed
lockdowns and mask mandates across the globe. They all believe that they
can force billions of people to behave, for an indefinite time period,
in ways that are contrary to our nature and deleterious to our
well-being. They see nothing wrong with assuming control over every
facet of our lives.
They are maniacally focused upon theories and models, and
uninterested in what works in practice. They have no conception of human
liberty or dignity. Rather than recognize that lockdowns, forced human
separation, and masks are ineffective at quelling
the spread of the coronavirus, while carrying enormous costs, not least
among them the erasure of liberal democracy, the most fervent adherents
to this ideology believe that the answer is more, and harder. That
means deprivation of our rights and liberties, and denial of our basic
human needs, until the coronavirus is eradicated from the globe. If they
get their way, that may well be until the end of time.
Many thanks to my friends and
colleagues Phil Magness and Kiley Holliday, who assisted me in
researching and writing this article.
Jenin Younes is a graduate of Cornell University and New York University School of Law.
Jenin currently works as an appellate public defender in New York City.
She enjoys running, restaurants, and reading in her free time.
Get notified of new articles from Jenin Younes and AIER.
By Rich Kozlovich
Print