A COVID Autopsy, Part 1: 'The Virus Can Be Stopped, but Only With Harsh Steps, Experts Say'

Revisiting legacy press claims from early in the pandemic.

The indictment of a top aide to Dr. Anthony Fauci, formerly of the National Institutes of Health, for misleading the public on COVID has kicked off a renewed effort to hold the experts accountable for dishonesty and deceit about the virus. But do we really remember the start of the pandemic? What the experts and their handmaidens in the legacy media said was true, and what definitely – allegedly – wasn’t?

Those were heady days. Information about the virus and its danger were hazy; leaders and everyone else were scared about what was to come. It can feel uncharitable to look back critically at the pronouncements and decisions made at the time considering that.

But these were not forgivable missteps, or slightly missed calculations. The failures were era- and generation-defining.

There’s plenty of blame to go around. Governments and elected leaders were the decision makers, after all. But I feel like we’re in danger of letting the legacy press off the hook. The institution of the media has constitutionally enshrined protections precisely because they are supposed to hold government to account – and what could have been a more vital time to do so than when governments at all levels were wielding more power, limiting individual freedom more dramatically, than any time in recent history?

Instead, the legacy media became watercarriers for the use of government force, and the hall monitors of lockdowns and mask mandates and all manner of other restrictions.

Every prediction, every warning, every scold, was delivered with complete certainty by media-selected experts and their legacy press messengers, paired with a know-it-all condescension toward anyone who might even ask questions. It was The Science, after all.

I fear we’re already forgetting just how wrong the press and its collective cadre of experts were about combatting a pandemic, how misleading legacy media reporting on The Science was, and the attendant harm suffered across America as a result.

Yes, there was much these individuals couldn’t have known at the time. So why did they act like they did?

This is the first entry in a four-part series I’m calling “A COVID Autopsy,” to try to remember just how misguided, just how ridiculous, just how wrong so much of what was alleged by the press at the time turned out to be. And in some small way, capture the damage done as a result (most of that will come in Part 4).

In an attempt to capture the scale of failure and hypocrisy and synthesize the specific instances thereof, I’m breaking out each piece in the series by specific topics, from lockdowns to school closures and beyond. I’ve tried to denote places where those making the predictions had reason to think otherwise, and also call out the hypocrisy when these groups went from confidently declaring one thing to reversing course and asserting the exact opposite with the same conviction – a pattern that reliably appeared just as soon as a certain president weighed in.

Each of these topics has enough inaccuracy and deception to dedicate a whole piece to. On some, I’ve linked to my own longer attempts at doing that, or to the work of others doing likewise. Buckle up, there’s a lot.

The Novel Coronavirus

To help remember what the sequence of events was, there’s no place better to start than on the initial coverage of COVID and lockdowns.

You may have forgotten, but in what became a theme of COVID, the initial coverage was far different in tone and substance than where it would end up. In many cases, the dividing line in coverage wasn’t about the facts or even The Science, but about what President Donald Trump was saying at a particular moment in time.

Let’s start with masks. While the legacy press, The Science, and Democrats would eventually shift to dogmatic support for wearing a mask at all times as the only way to be a decent citizen (CNN, August 5, 2020: “The debate over masks today is a lot like the decades-long fight to mandate seat belts.” captures it well), each of these groups doubted the efficacy of what would soon become a symbol of the pandemic. The legacy media were of one voice in early 2020: stop buying masks, they don’t work, and shortages will hurt health care workers. Remember?

CNN, January 28,2020: “There’s been a run of surgical masks in the US because of the coronavirus scare. You don’t need them, physicians say.”

USA Today, February 17, 2020: “Top disease official: Risk of coronavirus in USA is ‘minuscule’; skip mask and wash hands.”

NPR, February 25, 2020: “Health Officials Warn Americans To Plan For The Spread Of Coronavirus In U.S.”: “Experts say that commonly worn surgical masks aren’t very effective protection.”

CNN, March 2, 2020: “Masks can’t stop the coronavirus in the US, but hysteria has led to bulk-buying, price-gouging and serious fear for the future.”

New York Times, March 10, 2020: “How Not to Get Sick While Traveling” (emphasis mine): “So do masks really work? The answer is yes and no. Dr. Tierno said he had seen people wearing surgical masks on the subway and it was ‘like having no mask at all.’ Air can seep in through the gaps. A cloth mask, too, provides little protection. Sometimes mask wearers cover only their mouths, leaving noses exposed. ‘For most people, a mask is not necessary,’ he said.”

And this gem of a tweet from Washington Post

But there were plenty more tweets just like that one – often dripping with condescension:

And then, the guidance did a 180. Everyone remembers the masking obsession. Few were as militant about masks as the legacy media:

So what changed? Well, among other factors, masking got a vocal critic: President Donald Trump, who refused to wear one in April, and thereafter made a campaign out of “playing down the effectiveness of masks,” according to the New York Times (despite the paper having shared the president’s sentiment mere months before). That’s when the battle lines were drawn, and the legacy press, The Science, and The Experts went from talking about masking to talking about Trump.

Lost in the politically induced shift was the truth: that masking wasn’t actually a silver bullet to combat COVID. There’ve been plenty of studies since, but the media’s initial skepticism around efficacy – quickly abandoned when Trump started to share it – was largely reasonable. COVID virus particles are so small that cloth masks – which also tend to leak from the sides – don’t do a very good job at source prevention. Wearing these and other masks improperly saps their limited benefits even further – and many Americans, knowingly or otherwise, wore masks wrong.

In 2023, much to the dismay of legacy media outlets, a review of clinical trials on mask effectiveness was published by an organization called Cochrane that determined the value of requiring masks during coronavirus was “approximately zero.” Who cares about this one study, you might ask? Well, as City Journal explained at the time:

The gold standard for medical evidence is the randomized clinical trial, and the gold standard for analyzing this evidence is Cochrane (formerly the Cochrane Collaboration), the world’s largest and most respected organization for evaluating health interventions. Funded by the National Institutes of Health and other nations’ health agencies, it’s an international network of reviewers, based in London, that has partnerships with the WHO and Wikipedia. Medical journals have hailed it for being “the best single resource for methodologic research” and for being “recognized worldwide as the highest standard in evidence-based healthcare.”

It has published a new Cochrane review of the literature on masks, including trials during the Covid-19 pandemic in hospitals and in community settings. The 15 trials compared outcomes of wearing of surgical masks versus wearing no masks, and also versus N95 masks. The review, conducted by a dozen researchers from six countries, concludes that wearing any kind of face covering “probably makes little or no difference” in reducing the spread of respiratory illness.

Cochrane’s editor-in-chief later clarified that the study didn’t determine that masks didn’t work at all, but rather that “it would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive.” An author of the study, in comments to CNN, was more straightforward: “Mask study author: ‘More likely than not they don’t work.’”

In any event, it’s important to remember who has the burden of proof in this case: it was masking proponents introducing new requirements, undermining individual liberty, and altering daily life for millions of Americans. That the gold-standard review of the coordinated attempt across governments and businesses to mandate everyone wear masks – cheered on relentlessly by the legacy press – found the benefit in doing so to be “inconclusive” is damning.

And masking was particularly ineffective outside. The logic of why is pretty simple: the risk of outdoor transmission for COVID and other similar diseases is low. Catching the virus usually requires the spread of respiratory droplets, so indoor settings and crowded places are the riskiest. Don’t tell that to the legacy media, former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, or former President Joe Biden. Despite the real science, during 2020, states and other jurisdictions across the country required outdoor masking, even when walking alone. The safetyism at the root of such measures was socially damaging, and as we would eventually learn, all for nothing. Despite that, the organ of American life tasked with holding power to account instead became enforcers and scolds

New York Times, May 15, 2020: “What We Know About Your Chances of Catching the Virus Outdoors”: “But [experts] recommend joggers wear a mask or some other form of face covering if they’re going to come close to other people. If someone sets up a picnic blanket within your six-foot perimeter and plans to stay a while, that’s a bigger concern. Try to avoid a confrontation. That only increases your risk of exposure. Such conflicts could spike as more people head outside.”

NBC News, May 21, 2020: “Memorial Day during coronavirus: Scientists still urge caution as Americans head outside”: “Still, there are ways people can keep themselves and their families safe while venturing outside, Bogoch said. Chief among his guidelines is to always practice proper social distancing, which means staying at least 6 feet apart from others. Frequent hand-washing is also essential, he said. And he recommended wearing a mask or some other type of face covering when social distancing is challenging or impossible.”

CBS News, June 24, 2020: “Is it safe to go to the beach as coronavirus cases rise in U.S.? Doctor gives tips”: “Wear a face mask: Ungerleider recommended bringing two face masks in case one gets wet.” (Two face masks! At the beach!)

Washington Post, July 27, 2020: “When, why and how to wear a mask during this pandemic, according to the experts”: “Public health experts say you need to wear masks outside, especially when near other people.” (so many experts!)

CNN, August 12, 2020: “Medical group shares dos and don’ts of wearing a face mask”: “When to wear masks outdoors: When outdoors, the safest option for everyone age 2 and older is to wear a mask, even when briefly passing by others, such as running or walking by someone on the sidewalk, according to the guidelines.”

Washington Post, September 10, 2020: “Covid-19 etiquette: A comprehensive guide”: “Do I have to wear a mask? Yes. Public health experts say that you should wear a mask outside, especially if you are going to be near other people. Also, be aware of the fact that it’s possible that virus droplets can spread more than six feet, which makes wearing the mask, until we know more, even more urgent.”

As someone who occasionally goes for a run, perhaps the most preposterous element of outdoor mask wearing was the support for doing so even while exercising alone.

In a deeply apologetic piece, New York Times explained that, while it may seem silly, (emphasis added):

Even so, most of us probably should cover our faces while we exercise outside. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that everyone now wear a mask of some kind when they leave home, and some municipalities require a facial covering if you are outside. Masks also could reassure people with whom you share paths or sidewalks while running and who, in my experience, have started to shy away when we runners pant by.

NBC News helpfully sought out experts to caution runners to “wear a mask or buff — a thick running headwear accessory generally worn for warmth — around their neck that they can easily pull up as a preventative measure should they come across other runners” in a piece titled “You can still run outside during the coronavirus pandemic. Here’s how to do it safely.”

NPR took a similar approach. “The experts I spoke to all said wearing a mask is a good thing,” digital editor Marc Silver dutifully intoned. Even if you don’t feel sick, caution is warranted, he went on:

Now you probably don’t think you have the coronavirus if you feel good enough to exercise. But some people are asymptomatic – they never show symptoms – or presymptomatic – sick but not yet feeling it. A mask will protect others by blocking respiratory droplets you breathe out that can carry viral particles. A mask with a tight weave (i.e., you can’t see the sunlight through the fabric) and multiple layers may give you a measure of protection as well by preventing you from inhaling viral particles expelled by someone who’s infectious.

You could even find “The Best Breathable Face Masks For Running And Exercising” over at HuffPost!

CNN, sensing skepticism, profiled one brave runner showing how easy doing so is, in a piece descriptively titled “A doctor runs 22 miles in a face mask to prove that they are safe.”

At a time when we should have been encouraging people to get fresh air and exercise, instead The Experts, and the media, made the outdoors seem dangerous, without cause.

Of all outlets, one of the first to gore the outside-mask-wearing sacred cow was Slate, in a 2021 piece titled “It’s About Time for Us to Stop Wearing Masks Outside.” The argument flowed from the subtitle: “Briefly passing someone on the sidewalk just isn’t risky.” The CDC and other public health experts got onboard shortly thereafter as the weather warmed up – even if the New York Times still found enough experts to allege that the decision to wear a mask outside “depends” and said the Slate piece “stirred controversy” before turning to random critics on Twitter who called the (accurate) argument a “Shallow and selfish take,” and another who said of Slate “You have blood on your hands. You should feel ashamed.”

Perhaps no subject tied to COVID became more politically charged, and more socially fracturing as a result, than masking – a phenomenon the legacy media dumped gasoline on. The press, seemingly forgetting they had up until then shunned the idea of wearing masks to combat coronavirus and unbowed by evidence that masks weren’t as effective as some had thought, rushed to make any reservations about mandating masks seem deeply antisocial. Challenging that idea made you something of a knuckledragger.

New York Times: “Coronavirus Safety Runs Into a Stubborn Barrier: Masculinity”: “Some experts who study masculinity and public health say the perception that wearing masks and following social distancing guidelines are unmanly has carried a destructive cost.”

Washington Post: “The battle over masks in a pandemic: An all-American story”: “Mask-wearing for some people is an identifier of broader beliefs and political leanings. Like so many issues rooted in science and medicine, the pandemic is now fully entangled with ideological tribalism. This has played out before: helmets for motorcyclists, seat belts in cars, smoking bans in restaurants. All of those measures provoked battles over personal liberty.”

Vox: “What Trump’s refusal to wear a mask says about masculinity in America”: Quoting this at length because just get a load of this everything-bagel social commentary (emphasis mine):

Since the pandemic began, the issue of wearing masks has further exposed America’s racial and gender prejudices. Earlier on, wearing masks was associated with Asian countries and often dismissed because of racist assumptions about those countries. Then, as many cities began to require residents to wear masks, police began targeting black men for covering their faces, profiling them as criminals rather than as people trying to abide by health guidelines. And for a certain subset of mostly white, conservative men, not wearing a mask seems to have become a hallmark of manliness.

NBC News: “N.J. Gov. to all the ‘knuckleheads’: Wear a mask outdoors or risk a ticket: Gov. Murphy’s order comes as the U.S. eclipsed a grim milestone with more than 3 million COVID-19 cases.”

The long-simmering battle over masking got a new infusion of rage in August 2020 – approximately 150 days into 15 days to slow the spread – when Joe Biden made the idea that all Americans should wear a mask whenever they were outside their homes a key plank of his campaign.

There was, however, one notable exception, captured here by the New York Times: “For Black Men, Fear That Masks Will Invite Racial Profiling: African-American men worry that following the C.D.C. recommendation to cover their faces in public could expose them to harassment from the police.”

We saw the same phenomenon when it came to comparing COVID to the flu. You might not remember but, at the start of 2020, the press wasn’t raising the alarm about a mysterious disease from China. Instead, they were saying the panic was overplayed and spread anti-Asian racism – with some outlets even suggesting that COVID might only amount to another flu season. Remember these headlines?

“Something Far Deadlier Than The Wuhan Virus Lurks Near You,” declared KFF Health News in January 2020. The lede of the story read: “There’s a deadly virus spreading from state to state. It preys on the most vulnerable, striking the sick and the old without mercy. In just the past few months, it has claimed the lives of at least 39 children. The virus is influenza, and it poses a far greater threat to Americans than the coronavirus from China that has made headlines around the world.”

“Get a grippe, America. The flu is a much bigger threat than coronavirus, for now,” wrote the Washington Post in February 2020.

“The flu has already killed 10,000 across US as world frets over coronavirus,” CNBC, not to be outdone, intoned in February 2020. The first “key point”? “The flu remains a higher threat to U.S. public health than the new coronavirus.”

“The flu is a far bigger threat to most people in the US than the Wuhan coronavirus. Here’s why,” explained Business Insider in January (using a phrase that would soon be referred to as racist, as soon as the legacy press and talking heads apparently forgot they had described the virus as such mere moments before).

“Worried About Catching The New Coronavirus? In The U.S., Flu Is A Bigger Threat,” NPR trumpeted in late January 2020.

Much as with masks, the legacy media turned on a dime to demonize anyone who might suggest that COVID and the flu were in any way similar shortly thereafter – following President Trump’s claim that they were comparable. Social media companies even took down Trump’s posts saying the same thing the media had said a few months prior. The defenders of free speech cheered along (NPR: “Facebook and Twitter took measures to screen against misinformation after President Trump put posts on both sites that falsely claimed COVID-19 is less deadly than the flu…”).

That, of course, all fell to the background once the prospect of lockdowns – like masking and flu comparisons – became a political issue, one where the supposedly good and decent people felt one way and Donald Trump felt another. Radical approaches to COVID and a reordering of everyday life weren’t just plausible but necessary to media soothsayers, on the advice, as ever, of The Experts. The only solution, we were confidently told, was a draconian set of restrictions on normal life.

I’ve got a whole thread from 2024 looking back at the coverage, but to highlight a few examples, look at these headlines, calling for “harsh measures” and Chinese-styled lockdowns, plus a couple key contextualizing quotes:

TIME magazine: “China’s Draconian Lockdown Is Getting Credit for Slowing Coronavirus. Would It Work Anywhere Else?” The answer? Of course!:

The case for China’s lockdown

According to many experts, the measures Beijing implemented to contain the virus worked. “China’s bold approach to contain the rapid spread of this new respiratory pathogen has changed the course of a rapidly escalating and deadly epidemic,” says a report written by health experts who traveled to the epicenter of the outbreak to study the coronavirus response for the World Health Organization (WHO).

NPR: “Health Officials Warn Americans To Plan For The Spread Of Coronavirus In U.S.”

While aggressive measures such as travel restrictions and the first federal quarantine in a half century have probably slowed the arrival of the coronavirus in the U.S., Messonnier said even more intrusive steps will likely be needed.

…

Those measures could include school closings, workplace shutdowns and canceling large gatherings and public events, she warned.

“I understand this whole situation may seem overwhelming and that disruption to everyday life may be severe, but these are things that people need to start thinking about now,” Messonnier said.

So Americans need to do things like start making plans to care for their children should schools and day care centers close, she said. They should talk to their employers about how they could work from home. And they should find out whether there might be a way to get medical care remotely, such as through telemedicine, Messonnier said.

New York Times, emphases both mine: “The Virus Can Be Stopped, but Only With Harsh Steps, Experts Say”

Subtitle: “Scientists who have fought pandemics describe difficult measures needed to defend the United States against a fast-moving pathogen.”

Politico: “Yes, a National Quarantine Is Constitutional … and Necessary”

This is where I think everything started to come off the rails. At a time when we were, collectively, still trying to understand what was happening with this new virus, and make sense of how dangerous it was and what to do about it, media outlets and their cadre of experts were suggesting that we needed a Chinese-style national lockdown, the suspension of the entirety of individual liberty, and the cessation of normal life.

But all this was only the start of the failed response to COVID. I’m planning to release the rest of this series in three more installations, one each week, tracking through the states’ attempts at reopening, the fight that followed, school closures, and what it all means six years later.

Stay tuned, and if you aren’t already, be sure to Subscribe to Holden Court to get the rest of this series in your inbox.