Chapter 1: The Impact of Political Decisions on Health Institutions

In December 2019, the local healthcare system in Wuhan, China, began to report cases of a pneumonia outbreak with an unknown origin. Dr. Li Wenliang was among the first to alert his peers via social media about this strange illness at his hospital. Unfortunately, just four days later, local authorities detained Dr. Li for "spreading false rumors," forcing him to sign a statement that claimed he had disrupted public order. The pneumonia outbreak was not a mere rumor; it was caused by a highly contagious new strain of coronavirus, marking the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Li was not alone in facing accusations from the Wuhan police. His detention exemplified a broader strategy by local officials to stifle the dissemination of information about the outbreak. Whether motivated by political concerns or genuine fears of public panic, local authorities ignored warnings from health professionals. This censorship delayed the central Chinese government's response, which was hesitant to confirm that the virus could be transmitted between individuals. Although the exact impact of this delay is unknown, it likely led to a rise in cases, especially just before the Chinese Lunar New Year celebrations. Tragically, Dr. Li himself became one of the outbreak's victims, succumbing to COVID-19 in February 2020 at the age of thirty-four.

The reason for the silencing of health professionals often stemmed from a misguided belief that they could be political dissidents threatening social stability. The trustworthiness of health authorities became increasingly ambiguous, a lesson made painfully clear over the past year.

A prime example of this ambiguity is The Great Barrington Declaration — a document released in October 2020 that opposed lockdowns for lower-risk individuals. Proponents argued that allowing natural infections among less vulnerable populations would create herd immunity, thereby protecting those at greater risk once enough individuals became immune. Authored by three epidemiology professors from prestigious universities and endorsed by an international group of scientists, the declaration initially appeared credible. However, it was financed by a libertarian think tank, and many public health experts have discredited the assertion that natural herd immunity can be relied upon as a defense strategy.

The idea of achieving herd immunity through natural infection assumes that individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 would develop robust and long-lasting immunity, preventing reinfection and transmission. This assumption has not been validated for previous coronaviruses and remains uncertain for SARS-CoV-2. Evidence has recently surfaced indicating that while some individuals may develop long-term immune responses, the protection is not guaranteed and may diminish over time, as indicated by reports of reinfection. Thus, promoting a herd immunity strategy is based on flawed assumptions unless framed within vaccination efforts, where immune memory is anticipated.

Furthermore, pursuing herd immunity necessitates that a significant portion of the population contracts the virus. Although the fatality rate among reported COVID-19 cases may seem low, failing to control infection rates will inevitably lead to increased hospitalizations and deaths, a reality that Sweden has experienced.

In contrast to most countries, Sweden adopted a relaxed stance towards the pandemic, choosing not to impose strict lockdown measures. This strategy resembled a natural herd immunity approach, resulting in Sweden's COVID-19 death rate (per million people) surpassing the European Union's average during both the initial and subsequent waves. Moreover, the death rate remained consistently higher than that of neighboring Nordic countries such as Norway, Finland, and Denmark. Ultimately, proposals like the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocate for Sweden-like responses, can be detrimental as they cast doubt on well-established scientific consensus.

In recent decades, two organizations have emerged as primary health authorities: the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Both entities have historically provided the public and health professionals with science-backed guidelines across various health issues. Their records demonstrate their role as impartial messengers, helping to mitigate the risks of disregarding health expertise. Unfortunately, their credibility has been compromised throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the early stages of the pandemic, Taiwan (officially the Republic of China) accused the WHO of disregarding its request for information regarding the pneumonia outbreak in Wuhan on December 31, thereby denying it timely information. This accusation carries significant political weight given Taiwan's observer status in the WHO, which is influenced by China. Beijing claims Taiwan as part of its territory and prevents international organizations from acknowledging its sovereignty. The query raised concerns about "atypical pneumonia cases" involving patients who were "isolated for treatment." According to the Taiwanese Health Minister, any health expert would recognize that isolated patients suggested the possibility of human-to-human transmission.

While China and the WHO denied evidence of such transmission until January 20, Taiwan took proactive measures by screening arrivals from Wuhan starting December 31 and activating its emergency operations center on January 2. The WHO's dismissive attitude towards Taiwan's warnings severely damaged the organization's credibility, revealing a lack of foresight and a reluctance to question China's transparency regarding the outbreak — despite its history of untrustworthiness. This situation fostered widespread skepticism about the WHO's ability to provide unbiased reports on Chinese matters, such as its investigations into the origins of SARS-CoV-2, which itself has become a highly politicized issue.

Almost a year into the pandemic, political interference in public health reporting became rampant. In New York, Governor Andrew Cuomo's office falsified data on nursing home deaths, while the Trump administration in the U.S. interfered with the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports. These essential reports, produced by health experts, are designed to inform the public about the pandemic's status. As reported by Politico, the administration mandated that political officials review these documents before publication and pressured scientists to alter their wording. It also attempted to suppress the release of certain reports and retroactively edit them, claiming they undermined the President's response to the outbreak, reminiscent of the Chinese government's lack of transparency in case reporting. Overall, this political meddling undermined the credibility and transparency of both the weekly reports and the CDC.

Today, the primary threat to the scientific community lies in the political corruption that has infiltrated our health institutions over the past year. Despite recent events, both the WHO and the CDC remain among our most trusted scientific organizations. However, this interference erodes public confidence in these institutions, transforming them into political entities and undermining the credibility of the scientists and health experts working diligently behind the scenes.

Next in this series: Chapter 2 — The Origins of COVID-19

Hutchinson discusses DeSantis's skepticism towards COVID-19 science and emphasizes the importance of not undermining scientific integrity.

Yuval Noah Harari highlights how irresponsible political actions have eroded public trust in science during the pandemic.