Podcast Summary: "In Covid's Wake": Lying About Lockdowns
Podcast Information:
- Title: If Books Could Kill
- Hosts: Michael Hobbes & Peter Shamshiri
- Episode: "In Covid's Wake": Lying About Lockdowns
- Release Date: June 17, 2025
- Description: Exploring the airport bestsellers that both captivated our hearts and challenged our minds.
Introduction: Dissecting "In Covid's Wake"
In the episode titled "In Covid's Wake": Lying About Lockdowns, hosts Michael Hobbes and Peter Shamshiri delve deep into the contentious narratives surrounding COVID-19 mitigation strategies. The focal point of their discussion is the book "In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us" by Stephen Macedo and Francis Lee, two political scientists from Princeton. Hobbes and Shamshiri critically examine the book's claims, arguing that it misrepresents scientific data and fosters a revisionist view of the pandemic response.
Critique of "In Covid's Wake"
From the outset, Hobbes and Shamshiri dismiss the book as "awful" and "reactionary," suggesting it has a "self-published on Amazon kind of feel" (02:03). They challenge the credibility of political scientists making substantial claims about public health without direct expertise in the field.
Notable Quote:
Michael: "This book is awful. It's reactionary. It has a very self published on Amazon kind of feel to it. It's just kind of janky throughout."
[02:03]
Pre-Pandemic Policies and WHO Recommendations
The hosts discuss a pivotal argument from the book: that pre-pandemic analyses deemed lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) ineffective and economically burdensome. They reference a November 2019 World Health Organization (WHO) report, highlighting that measures like mask mandates and business closures lacked robust evidence at the time.
Notable Quote:
Michael: "The thing about this WHO document is that the document is using what's called the grade standard... many, many interventions cannot be studied in a randomized control trial."
[10:17]
Hobbes and Shamshiri argue that the omission of mandatory measures in the U.S. reflected a lack of enforcement rather than an endorsement of the WHO's cautious stance. They emphasize that NPIs were implemented globally despite the WHO's reservations, leading to significant societal and economic costs.
Mask Mandates and Scientific Evidence
A significant portion of the discussion centers on the efficacy of mask mandates. While the book claims there was "no evidence" masks were effective, the hosts counter this by mentioning existing randomized controlled trials demonstrating masks' benefits in reducing illness spread, albeit often in conjunction with other measures like handwashing.
Notable Quote:
Michael: "There's a number of randomized controlled trials that have been done with masks. They do actually find that people who wore masks are much less likely to get sick."
[15:21]
They criticize the book for misunderstanding or misrepresenting the nature of scientific evidence, especially in scenarios where conducting certain studies is impractical or unethical.
Lockdowns: Effectiveness and Public Compliance
Hobbes and Shamshiri vehemently defend lockdown measures, presenting data that shows significant reductions in COVID-19 cases and fatalities following stay-at-home orders. They reference studies indicating a 30% reduction in weekly cases after one week of lockdowns, escalating to a 49% reduction after three weeks (49:46).
Notable Quote:
Michael: "Stay at home orders are associated with a 60% average reduction in weekly fatalities after three weeks."
[49:46]
The hosts argue that the book inaccurately portrays these measures as ineffective, highlighting the real-world data that supports their efficacy. They also point out the swift decline in lockdown compliance, undermining the book's assertion that such measures were unnecessary from the outset.
Sweden's Pandemic Approach: A Case Study in Misrepresentation
A critical examination of Sweden's strategy reveals a disconnect between the book's portrayal and actual outcomes. "In Covid's Wake" suggests that Sweden managed the pandemic effectively without strict lockdowns, citing negative excess mortality rates (32:32). However, Hobbes and Shamshiri refute this, presenting evidence that Sweden experienced the highest mortality rates among Nordic countries during the initial phase of the pandemic.
Notable Quote:
Michael: "Sweden had the highest mortality rate in the world from COVID... It was 25% higher than the USA."
[34:21]
They further expose inaccuracies in the book's citations, showing that Sweden's excess mortality was, in reality, worse than neighboring nations. The hosts emphasize that Sweden eventually adopted stricter measures after realizing the initial approach was flawed, aligning more closely with other European countries.
Economic Impact of Lockdowns: Separating Myths from Reality
Contrary to the book's assertions that lockdowns devastated economies, Hobbes and Shamshiri argue that government stimulus efforts mitigated severe economic downturns. They highlight that while aggregate spending did drop, substantial fiscal measures prevented a full-blown recession.
Notable Quote:
Michael: "There was actually a wide diversity of approaches across the United States. So if public health officials had been given this dictatorial power, we would have seen much more strict restrictions and we would have seen unified restrictions. We didn't see that."
[28:08]
The discussion underscores that economic hardships were not solely the result of lockdowns but also influenced by broader fiscal policies and economic interdependencies globally.
Public Health Policies and Political Influence
The podcast critiqued the book's claim that public health experts overstepped their bounds, suggesting a conspiratorial undertone. Hobbes and Shamshiri argue that in reality, public health decisions were diverse and often decentralized, contradicting the notion of a homogenous, overreaching authority.
Notable Quote:
Peter: "The problem of elites hubristically deciding that they know better than everyone else is as old as democracy."
[54:49]
They contend that political interference, particularly from figures like President Trump, undermined effective pandemic response rather than the purported overreach of public health experts.
Conclusion: The Hosts' Rebuttal and Final Thoughts
In wrapping up the episode, Hobbes and Shamshiri encapsulate their stance that "In Covid's Wake" misleads readers by distorting factual data and promoting a flawed understanding of pandemic responses. They advocate for recognizing the genuine complexities and necessities of NPIs, emphasizing that the book's revisionist narrative does not hold up against empirical evidence.
Notable Quote:
Peter: "Have you thought about your mistakes? Well, yes, and they're not really very meaningful mistakes."
[55:25]
The hosts conclude by advocating for critical thinking and adherence to scientific expertise, dismissing the book's arguments as not only incorrect but also detrimental to informed public discourse.
Key Takeaways:
- Critique of Authors: Hobbes and Shamshiri challenge the expertise and credibility of the book's authors, emphasizing the importance of relevant expertise in public health discussions.
- Scientific Evidence: The episode underscores the significance of empirical data supporting NPIs like masks and lockdowns, countering claims of their ineffectiveness.
- Sweden's Strategy: Contrary to the book's positive portrayal, real data indicates Sweden's initial pandemic response was less effective compared to its Nordic neighbors.
- Economic Measures: Government stimulus played a crucial role in cushioning the economic impact of lockdowns, a point the hosts feel is overlooked in the book.
- Political Dynamics: The episode highlights how political interference, rather than public health overreach, was a primary impediment to effective pandemic management.
- Call for Critical Thinking: Hobbes and Shamshiri advocate for informed, science-based decision-making, rejecting revisionist narratives that lack empirical support.
This episode of "If Books Could Kill" serves as a passionate rebuttal to "In Covid's Wake," arguing for a grounded understanding of the pandemic response and cautioning against narratives that distort scientific realities.