Frances Lee

I mean, there was a sense that with the two weeks to slow the spread, that we get control of this thing. It'll go up, there'll be a peak, and then it'll come down, we'll defeat it. This will be done in a few months. So there was optimism that this could be over with in short order.

I mean, there was a sense that with the two weeks to slow the spread, that we get control of this thing. It'll go up, there'll be a peak, and then it'll come down, we'll defeat it. This will be done in a few months. So there was optimism that this could be over with in short order.

But there just wasn't a lot of long-term thinking of any sort around this, and a great deal of hope that long-term these measures wouldn't be in place.

But there just wasn't a lot of long-term thinking of any sort around this, and a great deal of hope that long-term these measures wouldn't be in place.

I would also add on this point that it's not just that there were costs, it's that the costs were inequitably distributed so that some would suffer to protect the lives of others. I mean, the pandemic restrictions did not protect essential workers from exposure to COVID. And so they were being asked to bear the societal burden of disease.

I would also add on this point that it's not just that there were costs, it's that the costs were inequitably distributed so that some would suffer to protect the lives of others. I mean, the pandemic restrictions did not protect essential workers from exposure to COVID. And so they were being asked to bear the societal burden of disease.

So I think we have to confront the nature of these restrictions, that it's not a matter of saving everyone's life. It was saving some. I mean, that was all they could have achieved, is to save some. It's a question as to whether they saved any, in that, as we look back, the places that imposed tougher restrictions did not do better.

So I think we have to confront the nature of these restrictions, that it's not a matter of saving everyone's life. It was saving some. I mean, that was all they could have achieved, is to save some. It's a question as to whether they saved any, in that, as we look back, the places that imposed tougher restrictions did not do better.

How can we coexist with anti-science people? What can we do to survive the ignorance?

How can we coexist with anti-science people? What can we do to survive the ignorance?

The Great Barrington Declaration is a strategic plan. I mean, it's one page long and it just lays out a different approach and then invites people to think carefully about how it might be implemented, how one might engage in the effort of protecting the vulnerable, like more COVID testing of people who interact with the elderly.

The Great Barrington Declaration is a strategic plan. I mean, it's one page long and it just lays out a different approach and then invites people to think carefully about how it might be implemented, how one might engage in the effort of protecting the vulnerable, like more COVID testing of people who interact with the elderly.

More help, you know, organized society-wide help of, you know, getting groceries and taking them to the elderly. Like, you know, looking for ways to reduce the risk of those who were at most risk of severe outcomes. That was what they hoped to initiate with the Great Barrington Declaration was then a discussion that might develop more fully paths to implementing this strategic plan.

More help, you know, organized society-wide help of, you know, getting groceries and taking them to the elderly. Like, you know, looking for ways to reduce the risk of those who were at most risk of severe outcomes. That was what they hoped to initiate with the Great Barrington Declaration was then a discussion that might develop more fully paths to implementing this strategic plan.

But instead, they were denounced. They were presented as if they wanted people to die. Their motives were profoundly questioned. And that happened also at the highest levels of the U.S. scientific establishment. Just explain that.

But instead, they were denounced. They were presented as if they wanted people to die. Their motives were profoundly questioned. And that happened also at the highest levels of the U.S. scientific establishment. Just explain that.

Well, the question presupposes that the measures that we were taking were working. They were not protecting the essential workers. And if we're not going to be able to contain the virus, if it's going to continue to spread through society, if it's going to become endemic, then aiming at protecting those at most risk makes more sense. It's a matter of what you see as the future trajectory here.

Well, the question presupposes that the measures that we were taking were working. They were not protecting the essential workers. And if we're not going to be able to contain the virus, if it's going to continue to spread through society, if it's going to become endemic, then aiming at protecting those at most risk makes more sense. It's a matter of what you see as the future trajectory here.

So at the outset, states across the board implemented stay-at-home orders. 43 states put them in place. Of the seven states that did not, all but one had broad business closures. So there was great unity of response across the country, and these measures were hugely popular. Something like 87% of Americans supported the measures at the time of their implementation.

So at the outset, states across the board implemented stay-at-home orders. 43 states put them in place. Of the seven states that did not, all but one had broad business closures. So there was great unity of response across the country, and these measures were hugely popular. Something like 87% of Americans supported the measures at the time of their implementation.