Stanford professor who challenged lockdowns and 'scientific clerisy' declares academic freedom 'dead

[Stevicus]

Stanford professor who challenged lockdowns and 'scientific clerisy' declares academic freedom 'dead' (msn.com)

I thought this was interesting, although I can't say whether his position is correct or not. Just curious what others might think about this.

I'm going to operate under the assumption that a professor of medicine at a prestigious institution like Stanford is not some uneducated hillbilly who doesn't know what he's talking about.

A Stanford University professor of medicine says "academic freedom is dead" after his life became a "living hell" for challenging coronavirus lockdown orders and the "scientific clerisy" during the pandemic.

"The basic premise is that if you don't have protection and academic freedom in the hard cases, when a faculty member has an idea that's unpopular among some of the other faculty - powerful faculty, or even the administration … If they don't protect it in that case, then you don't have academic freedom at all," Dr. Jay Bhattacharya told Fox News Digital in a phone interview.

Bhattacharya is a tenured professor of medicine at Stanford University and also an economist who serves as director of Stanford’s Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Aging.

He came under fire during the pandemic after co-authoring the Great Barrington Declaration, which was an open letter signed by thousands of doctors and scientists in 2020 denouncing lockdowns as harmful. Bhattacharya was joined by Harvard professor of medicine Dr. Martin Kulldorff and Oxford professor Dr. Sunetra Gupta in co-authoring the document.

Great Barrington Declaration - Wikipedia

The declaration was quickly denounced by other health leaders including National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Dr. Anthony Fauci, who slammed the call for herd immunity in the document as "nonsense and very dangerous."

As a result, Bhattacharya says he's been getting harassed, received death threats, and that he's facing a hostile work environment at his job.

Bhattacharya spoke at the Academic Freedom Conference at Stanford's Graduate School of Business earlier this month and said that in the current era, "we have a high clerisy that declares from on high what is true and what is not true."

"When you take a position that is at odds with the scientific clerisy, your life becomes a living hell," he said at the conference. "You face a deeply hostile work environment."

Clerisy definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary (collinsdictionary.com)

He uses the term "clerisy" here, although the definition indicates that it's a synonym for "intelligentsia."

Bhattacharya said that soon after the Great Barrington Declaration gained widespread attention, he received death threats, hate mail and questions on where he receives funding, which he noted, "most of my money has come from the NIH for most of my life."

"The purpose of the one-page document was aimed at telling the public that there was not a scientific consensus in favor of lockdown, that in fact many epidemiologists, many doctors, many other people — prominent people — disagreed with the consensus," Bhattacharya said during his 10-minute talk at the conference.

And on campus, "a chill" on debate set in and he was disinvited from delivering a campus talk and an effort to organize a debate on COVID policies stalled, the College Fix reported of his remarks at the conference.

"If Stanford really truly were committed to academic freedom, they would have … worked to make sure that there were debates and discussions, seminars, where these ideas were discussed among faculty," regardless of whether academics agreed or disagreed, he told Fox News Digital following his address at the conference.

Bhattacharya argued in his comments to Fox News that in many scientific circles during the pandemic, "power replaced the idea of truth as the guiding light."

"So you have somebody like Tony Fauci who says unironically, that if you question me, you're not simply questioning a man, you're questioning science itself. That is an exercise of raw power, where he places himself effectively as the pope of science rather than a genuine desire to learn the truth."

This may point up one of the reasons why there is confusion among the general public of mostly non-scientists. I'm not suggesting that Bhattacharya's characterization painting Fauci as the "pope of science" is correct here, but if nothing else, it appears that science doesn't have a full consensus. Of course, this is normal in academics overall. There are plenty of topics and subjects which have not had full, absolute 100% consensus within the academic community, but they're usually protected by principles of academic freedom and have the freedom to publish and debate.

"They systematically tried to make it seem like everyone agreed with their ideas about COVID policy, when in fact there was deep disagreement among scientists and epidemiologists about the right strategy. That's why we wrote the Great Barrington Declaration to tell the public that there was this disagreement. There was another alternate policy available," he said.

Bhattacharya charged at the conference that "academic freedom is dead" and that he was left without support from Stanford leaders.

"The policy of the university, when push comes to shove, is to permit this kind of hostile work environment," he said. "What if there had been open scientific debate on campus, sponsored by the university on this? So that people could know there were legitimate alternate views?"

He argued that if the Stanford president had pushed for a debate when the Great Barrington Declaration was written, "there would have been tremendous controversy around it."

"But at the same time the hostile work environment would have dissipated because what it would have said is, ‘Look, there’s a debate, it’s legitimate to have this debate, a place like Stanford is where this debate ought to happen."

Neither Stanford’s media team nor the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases immediately responded to Fox News Digital’s requests for comment on Bhattacharya’s remarks.

Is academic freedom dead? Does an institution of higher learning have an obligation to promote and protect academic freedom?

In general, employers have an obligation to protect workers from a hostile work environment, so at the very least, Stanford may have dropped the ball on that issue. Should they be penalized or punished for doing so?

What about his view of a "scientific clerisy" which "declares from on high what is true and what is not true"?

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not dead. But academia has always
had political agendas & interference.
Just ask Roland Fryer. Rocking the
boat has consequence.
Oft said of academia...
"The fighting is never so vicious
as when the stakes are so low."

 

[Stevicus]

It's not dead. But academia has always
had political agendas & interference.
Just ask Roland Fryer. Rocking the
boat has consequence.
Oft said of academia...
"The fighting is never so vicious
as when the stakes are so low."

I hadn't heard of Roland Fryer, so I looked him up: Roland G. Fryer Jr. - Wikipedia

It says he was suspended for sexual harassment, not for anything academically related.

 

[Revoltingest]

I hadn't heard of Roland Fryer, so I looked him up: Roland G. Fryer Jr. - Wikipedia

It says he was suspended for sexual harassment, not for anything academically related.

The story is more complex than that distraction.
Consider his research & reactions to it.

 

[Stevicus]

The story is more complex than that distraction.
Consider his research & reactions to it.

I see what you might be getting at, as I also saw this in the Wiki article:

In 2016, Fryer published a working paper concluding that although minorities (African Americans and Hispanics) are more likely to experience police use of force than whites, they were not more likely to be shot by police than whites in a given interaction with police.[17] The paper generated considerable controversy and criticism.[18][19][20][21] Fryer responded to some of these criticisms in an interview with The New York Times.[22] In 2019, Fryer's paper was published in the Journal of Political Economy.[17] Some scholars criticized Fryer's study, arguing that due to selection bias, he was unable to draw any conclusions about racial bias in shootings from police stops. If police are more likely to stop a black person than a white person, then the average white person that they stop might be dissimilar to the average black person (for example, the white person might be behaving in a more threatening manner), thus leading to faulty inferences about racial bias in shootings. Some of these potential differences (e.g. type of weapon held by the suspect, and whether they attacked the police officer), were accounted for in the analysis. A 2019 study by Princeton University political scientists disputed the findings by Fryer, saying that if police had a higher threshold for stopping whites, this might mean that the whites, Hispanics and blacks in Fryer's data are not similar.[24] Nobel-laureate James Heckman and Steven Durlauf, both University of Chicago economists, published a response to the Fryer study, writing that the paper "does not establish credible evidence on the presence or absence of discrimination against African Americans in police shootings" due to issues with selection bias.[25] Fryer responded by saying Durlauf and Heckman erroneously claim that his sample is "based on stops". Further, he states that the "vast majority of the data [...] is gleaned from 911 calls for service in which a civilian requests police presence."[26]

However, they note that his suspension was due to something unrelated, where he allegedly made inappropriate sexual advances towards at least five women. If he did that, then shame on him, but his research should still be allowed. The article notes that his research was roundly criticized by his peers, which is fair and appropriate within the principles of academic freedom.

Are you suggesting that the sexual harassment complaints were bogus or manufactured just to get rid of him over his politically incorrect academic research?

 

[Revoltingest]

I see what you might be getting at, as I also saw this in the Wiki article:



However, they note that his suspension was due to something unrelated, where he allegedly made inappropriate sexual advances towards at least five women. If he did that, then shame on him, but his research should still be allowed. The article notes that his research was roundly criticized by his peers, which is fair and appropriate within the principles of academic freedom.

You didn't mention awards for his work.

Are you suggesting that the sexual harassment complaints were bogus or manufactured just to get rid of him over his politically incorrect academic research?

Complaints can be treated in different ways,
at the discretion of the university management.
Swept under the rug...denied...handled deftly..
...& made into career engine actions.
I notice that at universities, far worse behavior
is covered up when the offender is an insider,
eg, UofM, MSU, PA State.
His harsher than usual treatment at Harvard
appears to be retaliatory.

Again, the point is that academic freedom exists.
But if one offends the senses of one's employer,
life will be made rougher.

 

[PureX]

Academia is often very political. The mistake, here, is in assuming a correlation between academia and actual science, or history, or whatever. Teaching is not doing, and doing is not teaching. Some people can do both, and some can't. Some do, and some don't. And even a great teacher is subject to 'administration'. Same as every other job.

So this guy is neither wrong nor right. Because there is both freedom and censorship in academia. Just as there are both doers and teachers. And teachers and administrators. And this guy should know this better than most.

 

[Revoltingest]

I see what you might be getting at, as I also saw this in the Wiki article:



However, they note that his suspension was due to something unrelated, where he allegedly made inappropriate sexual advances towards at least five women. If he did that, then shame on him, but his research should still be allowed. The article notes that his research was roundly criticized by his peers, which is fair and appropriate within the principles of academic freedom.

Are you suggesting that the sexual harassment complaints were bogus or manufactured just to get rid of him over his politically incorrect academic research?

I see far far worse sexual misbehavior at universities
(including my alma mater) being covered up because
the perp is highly valued, I question his suspension over
fewer & lesser allegations.
If his research had towed the line at Harvard, would it
have been handled thus, ie, shutting down his lab?
I'm suspicious.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Stanford professor who challenged lockdowns and 'scientific clerisy' declares academic freedom 'dead' (msn.com)

I thought this was interesting, although I can't say whether his position is correct or not. Just curious what others might think about this.

I'm going to operate under the assumption that a professor of medicine at a prestigious institution like Stanford is not some uneducated hillbilly who doesn't know what he's talking about.





Great Barrington Declaration - Wikipedia



As a result, Bhattacharya says he's been getting harassed, received death threats, and that he's facing a hostile work environment at his job.



Clerisy definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary (collinsdictionary.com)

He uses the term "clerisy" here, although the definition indicates that it's a synonym for "intelligentsia."





This may point up one of the reasons why there is confusion among the general public of mostly non-scientists. I'm not suggesting that Bhattacharya's characterization painting Fauci as the "pope of science" is correct here, but if nothing else, it appears that science doesn't have a full consensus. Of course, this is normal in academics overall. There are plenty of topics and subjects which have not had full, absolute 100% consensus within the academic community, but they're usually protected by principles of academic freedom and have the freedom to publish and debate.







Is academic freedom dead? Does an institution of higher learning have an obligation to promote and protect academic freedom?

In general, employers have an obligation to protect workers from a hostile work environment, so at the very least, Stanford may have dropped the ball on that issue. Should they be penalized or punished for doing so?

What about his view of a "scientific clerisy" which "declares from on high what is true and what is not true"?

One look at the quality of the education system should be enough to suffice any answers.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Is academic freedom dead?

I don't see this as an academic freedom issue. If the matter had remained academic, it would have proceeded like other dissent within the field. But the scientists went public with an open letter, and the conservatives seized on it to exploit a political agenda. This reminds me of the climate denial scientists' fight with the mainstream consensus. Also, the creationists fight with evolutionists. It's the same "they're oppressing my freedom" language and the usual suspects promoting it - conservative ideologues. When legitimate scientists find resistance among their peers, they just keep making their case, which may eventually gain traction and supplant a preexisting paradigm. They don't go public like these people did with their open letter. It became political as soon as the American conservatives found a paper they could exploit.

The Great Barrington Declaration was deemed unscientific and dangerous by the WHO, and would cause unnecessary additional deaths. From Wiki (notice who supported this proposal apart from "some scientists"):

"The World Health Organization (WHO) and numerous academic and public-health bodies have stated that the strategy is dangerous and lacks a sound scientific basis.[9][10] They say that it would be challenging to shield all those who are medically vulnerable, leading to a large number of avoidable deaths among both older people and younger people with pre-existing health conditions.[11][12] As of October 2020, they warn that the long-term effects of COVID-19 are still not fully understood.[10][13] Moreover, the WHO said that the herd immunity component of the proposed strategy is undermined by the unknown duration of post-infection immunity.[10][13] They say that the more likely outcome would be recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination.[12] The American Public Health Association and 13 other public-health groups in the United States warned in a joint open letter that the "Great Barrington Declaration is not grounded in science and is dangerous".[9] The Great Barrington Declaration received support from some scientists, the Donald Trump administration, British Conservative politicians, and from The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. The Great Barrington Declaration was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian free-market think tank associated with climate change denial."​

This is why I don't see this as an academic freedom issue.

 

[Stevicus]

You didn't mention awards for his work.

Noted.

Complaints can be treated in different ways,
at the discretion of the university management.
Swept under the rug...denied...handled deftly..
...& made into career engine actions.
I notice that at universities, far worse behavior
is covered up when the offender is an insider,
eg, UofM, MSU, PA State.
His harsher than usual treatment at Harvard
appears to be retaliatory.

Again, the point is that academic freedom exists.
But if one offends the senses of one's employer,
life will be made rougher.

Maybe it's retaliatory, I don't know. Personally, I don't condone sexual harassment of any form, and I work for an organization that has a zero tolerance policy on that sort of thing.

Perhaps those who are higher up on the food chain might get a pass or softer treatment for their lecherous misbehavior, but that's wrong, in my opinion.

But on the other hand, it's possible the charges against him could have been fabricated. I wasn't there, so I don't really know. But if the allegations are true, then I don't see where he has a leg to stand on, even if others at other universities might have gotten a pass for comparable or worse behavior.

 

[exchemist]

Stanford professor who challenged lockdowns and 'scientific clerisy' declares academic freedom 'dead' (msn.com)

I thought this was interesting, although I can't say whether his position is correct or not. Just curious what others might think about this.

I'm going to operate under the assumption that a professor of medicine at a prestigious institution like Stanford is not some uneducated hillbilly who doesn't know what he's talking about.





Great Barrington Declaration - Wikipedia



As a result, Bhattacharya says he's been getting harassed, received death threats, and that he's facing a hostile work environment at his job.



Clerisy definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary (collinsdictionary.com)

He uses the term "clerisy" here, although the definition indicates that it's a synonym for "intelligentsia."





This may point up one of the reasons why there is confusion among the general public of mostly non-scientists. I'm not suggesting that Bhattacharya's characterization painting Fauci as the "pope of science" is correct here, but if nothing else, it appears that science doesn't have a full consensus. Of course, this is normal in academics overall. There are plenty of topics and subjects which have not had full, absolute 100% consensus within the academic community, but they're usually protected by principles of academic freedom and have the freedom to publish and debate.







Is academic freedom dead? Does an institution of higher learning have an obligation to promote and protect academic freedom?

In general, employers have an obligation to protect workers from a hostile work environment, so at the very least, Stanford may have dropped the ball on that issue. Should they be penalized or punished for doing so?

What about his view of a "scientific clerisy" which "declares from on high what is true and what is not true"?

Silly drama queen.

Public heath measures are never going to please everyone, but in the need you need to announce a policy and stick to it. It's called leadership.

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe it's retaliatory, I don't know. Personally, I don't condone sexual harassment of any form, and I work for an organization that has a zero tolerance policy on that sort of thing.

But it isn't zero tolerance for all, is it, eh. How else
did Jerry Sandusky, Robert Anderson, Larry Nassar
operated for decades, despite numerous complaints.
And is response proportionate, or appropriately timed,
eg, imposing sanctions based upon allegations without
a hearing of any kind?
The totality of circumstances are suspicious regarding
Fryer.

Perhaps those who are higher up on the food chain might get a pass or softer treatment for their lecherous misbehavior, but that's wrong, in my opinion.

But on the other hand, it's possible the charges against him could have been fabricated. I wasn't there, so I don't really know. But if the allegations are true, then I don't see where he has a leg to stand on, even if others at other universities might have gotten a pass for comparable or worse behavior.

Academic freedom is a tricky thing. To be a member
in good standing of the tribe, is to have more slack.

Another I remember is Barry Marshall. His work was
initially ignored because he wasn't one of "them", ie,
senior respected scientists. In his case, academic
freedom would've meant appropriate funding. So he
took the unconventional approach that he's now so
famous for.

 

[Stevicus]

I see far far worse sexual misbehavior at universities
(including my alma mater) being covered up because
the perp is highly valued, I question his suspension over
fewer & lesser allegations.
If his research had towed the line at Harvard, would it
have been handled thus, ie, shutting down his lab?
I'm suspicious.

Well, I can't answer for the administration at Harvard. I just know that most organizations have very strict rules against sexual harassment. If he hasn't been treated fairly or given proper due process, then he might have a case against Harvard.

 

[metis]

The lockdowns were very inconvenient, and it did hurt business.

Covid killed people and hurt a great many who survived.

Do I really have to say more?

 

[Stevicus]

But it isn't zero tolerance for all, is it, eh. How else
did Jerry Sandusky, Robert Anderson, Larry Nassar
operated for decades, despite numerous complaints.
And is response proportionate, or appropriately timed,
eg, imposing sanctions based upon allegations without
a hearing of any kind?
The totality of circumstances are suspicious regarding
Fryer.

Perhaps, although it could be that, because of those previous cases you mention and the ultimate controversy and negative reaction against the institutions in question, I'm sure they're a lot more sensitive to it now than they once were. Things have changed, and what was tolerated decades ago may not be tolerated anymore.

Academic freedom is a tricky thing. To be a member
in good standing of the tribe, is to have more slack.

Another I remember is Barry Marshall. His work was
initially ignored because he wasn't one of "them", ie,
senior respected scientists. In his case, academic
freedom would've meant appropriate funding. So he
took the unconventional approach that he's now so
famous for.

Interesting.

 

[wellwisher]

Stanford professor who challenged lockdowns and 'scientific clerisy' declares academic freedom 'dead' (msn.com)

I thought this was interesting, although I can't say whether his position is correct or not. Just curious what others might think about this.

I'm going to operate under the assumption that a professor of medicine at a prestigious institution like Stanford is not some uneducated hillbilly who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Great Barrington Declaration - Wikipedia

As a result, Bhattacharya says he's been getting harassed, received death threats, and that he's facing a hostile work environment at his job.
Clerisy definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary (collinsdictionary.com)

He uses the term "clerisy" here, although the definition indicates that it's a synonym for "intelligentsia."

This may point up one of the reasons why there is confusion among the general public of mostly non-scientists. I'm not suggesting that Bhattacharya's characterization painting Fauci as the "pope of science" is correct here, but if nothing else, it appears that science doesn't have a full consensus. Of course, this is normal in academics overall. There are plenty of topics and subjects which have not had full, absolute 100% consensus within the academic community, but they're usually protected by principles of academic freedom and have the freedom to publish and debate.

Is academic freedom dead? Does an institution of higher learning have an obligation to promote and protect academic freedom?

In general, employers have an obligation to protect workers from a hostile work environment, so at the very least, Stanford may have dropped the ball on that issue. Should they be penalized or punished for doing so?

What about his view of a "scientific clerisy" which "declares from on high what is true and what is not true"?

Science does not have it own money. Science is beholden to Government, Business and Private donations for the money and resources needed to do science. Go to any major science publication, and ask them how many scientists, who have publish in their journal, use their own money to buy resources? The answer will be close to zero. What that means is the money people, who fund science have a lot say as to what can be done, and what will not be done or said.

If anyone is able to get hooked into one of these large money streams, publishing is almost automatic. The preponderance of evidence can bought and paid for by these money givers by making this automatic. They have a say into how they wish to control the data narrative. If you work for a tobacco company, as a scientist, you will still do good science, but it has a trajectory with the needs of the company, that pays your salary and who owns your lab. University work the same way; middle men in the money stream.

COVID was Big bucks, with a capital "big". To get some of these big bucks for science, you had to play ball with the CDC; Bureaucratic state, who had all this money to burn. The gravy train needed to stay on a given track for this free ride to perpetuate. This is why anything that could be seen as a permanent or cheap solution was taboo, since cheap or permanent would mean less need to justify gravy train waste.

During COVID, if you treated people as adults and offered health guidelines, but allowed things to get back to normal; Florida's schools and business, there would be less need for Big Government Money. That money will be more needed by the states who created all type of problems for their citizens. Not able to work or not able to go to school means you need to be supported. It is strange reward system but this is how Washington works; waste comes first.

Those who were trying to be truthful and efficient, will be frowned upon, since they risk derailing the gravy train. Fauci was given an open check and to get resources for your university, you needed to follow his lead, which was also follow the Lead of those in power.

The way I see it was, Trump had the economy humming just before COVID hit. The Democrats, who had just failed their coup; Russian Collusion was debunked, needed to another way to undermine Trump before 2020. The opportunity came to ruin his booming economy. This would help them in 2020. They went into Big Bother mode, due to COVID, shutting down half the country, in Democrats run states. This justified the larger gravity train. This train also included resources for science, which had to toe the "need" line, to get on the train.

The consensus of science, behind climate change is another example of a gravy train. With enough money and control over who gets the money; protest all alternate views, any emperors new clothes; idea, will look shiny with sparkles.

What we are now learning now is how Universities and science sold its soul for the CDC resources. This happened in universities, businesses and government agencies, which tell you the power of money holders in science. The pendulum is starting to swing from Big Brother, back to freedom of speech. This may not be in the best interests of all those who over indulged in gravy.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, I can't answer for the administration at Harvard. I just know that most organizations have very strict rules against sexual harassment. If he hasn't been treated fairly or given proper due process, then he might have a case against Harvard.

Rules may be strict, with enforcement handled less so.
I don't think he needs a case against Harvard at all.
Just persevere.
But tread lightly...universities have a culture & agendas.
If one goes against either....

 

[Stevicus]

I don't see this as an academic freedom issue. If the matter had remained academic, it would have proceeded like other dissent within the field. But the scientists went public with an open letter, and the conservatives seized on it to exploit a political agenda. This reminds me of the climate denial scientists' fight with the mainstream consensus. Also, the creationists fight with evolutionists. It's the same "they're oppressing my freedom" language and the usual suspects promoting it - conservative ideologues. When legitimate scientists find resistance among their peers, they just keep making their case, which may eventually gain traction and supplant a preexisting paradigm. They don't go public like these people did with their open letter. It became political as soon as the American conservatives found a paper they could exploit.

The Great Barrington Declaration was deemed unscientific and dangerous by the WHO, and would cause unnecessary additional deaths. From Wiki (notice who supported this proposal apart from "some scientists"):

"The World Health Organization (WHO) and numerous academic and public-health bodies have stated that the strategy is dangerous and lacks a sound scientific basis.[9][10] They say that it would be challenging to shield all those who are medically vulnerable, leading to a large number of avoidable deaths among both older people and younger people with pre-existing health conditions.[11][12] As of October 2020, they warn that the long-term effects of COVID-19 are still not fully understood.[10][13] Moreover, the WHO said that the herd immunity component of the proposed strategy is undermined by the unknown duration of post-infection immunity.[10][13] They say that the more likely outcome would be recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination.[12] The American Public Health Association and 13 other public-health groups in the United States warned in a joint open letter that the "Great Barrington Declaration is not grounded in science and is dangerous".[9] The Great Barrington Declaration received support from some scientists, the Donald Trump administration, British Conservative politicians, and from The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. The Great Barrington Declaration was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian free-market think tank associated with climate change denial."​

This is why I don't see this as an academic freedom issue.

You make some good points, although I would note that, regarding COVID policies, it wasn't merely an academic exercise or confined within academia. Public policies were determined and made based on recommendations and information supplied by scientists employed in the relevant government agencies set up to deal with public health and diseases. The lockdowns, mask mandates, school closures and remote learning - all of this had a profound impact on life in these United States.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The lockdowns were very inconvenient, and it did hurt business.

Covid killed people and hurt a great many who survived.

Do I really have to say more?

And would have killed many, many more without lockdowns, masks and other precautions...as it was, it nearly overwhelmed the health care system...

I think the lesson here is that "Pandemics are bad for people and society."

I shall alert the media, post haste!