Grok says:
In Covid’s Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us by Stephen Macedo and Frances Lee, both Princeton political scientists, is a provocative examination of the U.S. response to the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on political and institutional failures. The book argues that the pandemic exposed deep flaws in public deliberation, with policies driven by groupthink, politicized science, and a failure to weigh costs and benefits. Below is a critique of the book’s strengths, weaknesses, and overall contribution, drawing on available reviews and analysis while critically assessing its arguments.
Strengths
Rigorous Political Lens
Macedo and Lee bring a political science perspective to the pandemic, a refreshing departure from public health or epidemiological analyses. They focus on how institutions—government, academia, media, and public health authorities—handled decision-making, highlighting failures in open debate and tolerance for dissent. Their emphasis on liberal democratic values, such as transparency and evidence-based deliberation, is compelling, especially when they critique slogans like “follow the science” for obscuring complex trade-offs.
Evidence of Pre-Pandemic Planning Ignored
The authors effectively document how pre-COVID pandemic plans, such as those from the World Health Organization (2019) and Johns Hopkins (2019), cautioned against blanket lockdowns and emphasized balancing public health with societal costs. They argue convincingly that these plans were sidelined in favor of China-inspired measures, like widespread quarantines, without sufficient scrutiny. This historical context strengthens their case that policy decisions were reactive rather than reasoned.
Critique of Elite Overreach
The book’s critique of the “laptop class” (elites who could work from home) imposing policies that disproportionately harmed essential workers and less privileged groups is a sharp observation. They highlight how extended school closures hit low-income families hardest, a point backed by emerging data on learning loss and social inequity. This focus on distributional impacts adds moral weight to their argument.
Engagement with Dissent
Macedo and Lee, identifying as left-leaning, take a bold step by engaging with conservative critiques of COVID policies, such as those in the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD). They argue that dissenting voices, like those of GBD authors Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, were unfairly marginalized or censored, stifling debate. This willingness to bridge ideological divides is rare and aligns with their call for open-mindedness.
Comprehensive Documentation
The book is meticulously researched, with roughly 60 pages of references, making it a valuable resource for scholars and policymakers. Reviewers praise its data-driven approach and thorough documentation of policy choices, which lends credibility to its claims.
Weaknesses
Selective Use of Evidence
Critics note that the book sometimes cherry-picks data to support its arguments. For instance, when comparing international outcomes, the authors cite Sweden’s “excess mortality” to downplay its higher COVID mortality compared to Norway or Denmark, which used stricter measures. This shift in metrics feels like moving the goalposts to fit their narrative against stringent controls. Similarly, they underplay the U.S.’s higher mortality rate compared to Canada, which could undermine their critique of lockdowns.
Neglect of Vaccination Failures
A significant omission is the lack of focus on political failures around vaccination uptake, particularly among Republican voters. Critics argue that the refusal of GOP leaders to counter vaccine hesitancy cost hundreds of thousands of lives, a point the book barely addresses. This gap weakens its claim to be a comprehensive political assessment, as it sidesteps a major partisan failure.
Overemphasis on Great Barrington Declaration
The authors’ defense of the GBD is contentious. Critics, like neurologist Jonathan Howard, argue that they downplay the declaration’s flaws, such as its unrealistic premise of achieving herd immunity through mass infection and its ties to right-wing funding. By framing GBD authors as victims of censorship rather than scrutinizing their scientific errors, the book risks appearing biased toward contrarian narratives.
Limited Engagement with Public Health Experts
While Macedo and Lee critique the public health establishment, they rely heavily on public records and research rather than direct interviews with key figures, such as signers of the John Snow Memorandum, which supported stricter measures. This approach limits their ability to stress-test their conclusions against opposing views, potentially weakening their argument’s robustness.
Tone and Empathy Concerns
Some reviews criticize the book for lacking empathy for COVID victims, particularly those affected by delayed or lax responses. For example, one Amazon reviewer calls it “disgusting” for ignoring the ongoing impact of Long COVID and the millions who died due to insufficient measures. The book’s focus on policy failures over human suffering can feel cold to readers expecting a more balanced tone.
Broader Context and Contribution
Macedo and Lee’s book enters a polarized debate about the pandemic, where both sides—pro-lockdown and anti-restriction—often cling to oversimplified narratives. By framing the response as a case study in groupthink and institutional failure, the authors challenge progressive elites to reflect on their role in stifling debate and prioritizing ideology over evidence. Their call for “devil’s advocates” in policy deliberations and greater public input is a constructive suggestion, though critics argue that involving the general public in complex infectious disease decisions is impractical.
The book’s reception has been mixed but less contentious than expected, suggesting some of its critiques resonate beyond conservative circles. Endorsements from figures like Sandro Galea and Sunetra Gupta highlight its appeal to those questioning public health orthodoxy, while pushback from New York Times readers and colleagues wary of fueling anti-science sentiment reflects ongoing sensitivities.
Critical Assessment
While In Covid’s Wake is a valuable contribution to understanding the political dimensions of the pandemic, it is not without flaws. Its strength lies in exposing how fear and moral panic short-circuited deliberation, leading to policies that often failed to deliver promised benefits. However, its selective engagement with evidence and omission of key issues, like vaccine hesitancy, limit its scope. The authors’ outsider status as political scientists, not public health experts, is both a strength (offering fresh perspective) and a weakness (lacking granular insight into scientific debates).
The book’s most enduring insight is its warning about the fragility of liberal democratic institutions under crisis. By showing how science became politicized and dissent was suppressed, it underscores the need for humility and openness in future emergencies. Yet, its occasionally one-sided framing risks alienating readers who see value in the public health measures that, however imperfectly, saved lives.
Recommendation
In Covid’s Wake is a must-read for those interested in the intersection of politics, policy, and crisis management. It is particularly suited for academics, policymakers, and readers open to questioning mainstream narratives. However, it should be paired with works like Lessons from the Covid War by the Covid Crisis Group for a fuller picture of the pandemic’s complexities. Approach it critically, recognizing both its incisive critique and its blind spots.
