GEOFF BENNETT: Five years ago, the# World Health Organization declared## the outbreak of COVID-19 a pandemic,# and that launched widespread shutdowns,## mandates for masks and vaccines, and had# an enormous social and economic impact.

William Brangham speaks with the authors of a new## book that's sharply critical of how# the U.S. responded to the crisis.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: that new book is called "In# COVID's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us."

And it looks back at how critical American# institutions, the government, academia,## and the press among them, performed# during the pandemic, and how their## response inflamed distrust, cracked down on# dissent, and cost the country tremendously.

Its authors are two political# scientists from Princeton University,## Stephen Macedo and Frances# Lee.

And they join us now.

Welcome to you both.

One of the main themes of this book#as it seems to me, is that, in the early,## crazy days of this pandemic, as our leaders# were debating lockdowns, how to respond,## that any dissent over or real debate about the# costs and benefits of those actions was squelched.

STEPHEN MACEDO, Co-Author, "In COVID's Wake: How# Our Politics Failed Us": Well, it's interesting.

In March 2020, as the lockdowns were being# enacte.. Western countries, there were dissenters who# spoke up in March.

Some very well-known people## warned that these measures were unlikely# to be successful and would be very costly.

And then consensus seemed to develop# in April and May that these kinds of## strategies enacted by the Chinese and# that had been implemented in Italy,## national lockdown and across much of the United# States, that that was the correct strategy,## that everyone needed to be on board for it,# that there needed to be a sense of vital unity,## that government, the academy, science,# journalism all needed to pull together,## and that this was what we were going to# do and that this is what we needed to do.

And, indeed, at that point, voices of# dissent became scarce.

Social media## companies began removing some postings# that were at odds with government## messaging, and dissent dwindled# over the summer and into the fall.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Frances, one of the# things that was a real revelation to## me was how you document in the book that,# prior to COVID, that there was a good deal## of analysis done about what happens# if a respiratory virus does emerge.

And the consensus or some version of# a consensus was that lockdowns are## not that effective and that they# would cost society enormously.

FRANCES LEE, Co-Author, "In COVID's Wake: How# Our Politics Failed Us": Yes, there had been## a tremendous amount of work planni.. And we took measures in the early# going of the pandemic that were## at odds with the recommendations.# They had been recommended against## in some cases.

There was a World Health# Organization report from November 2019## that looked at what was known about all the# proposed non-pharmaceutical interventions.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: This is masks, shutdowns,# isolation, testing, tracing, et cetera.

FRANCES LEE: Business closures, school closures,## looked at what was known about the effectiveness# of each of those measure.. the report states that the evidence base for# the effectiveness of each of them was poor.

And so it's so striking that you get six months# later and those measures are being employed all## around the world, with policymakers saying# that they're following the science.

And,## of course, it's quite obvious that all# of those measures have tremendous costs.

So, as policymakers are# weighing their alternatives,## there's uncertain benefits, but certain costs.

STEPHEN MACEDO: I mean, there's one thing --# other thing in those pre-COVID pandemic plans## that's relevant to this question, which# is, those plans warn that science -- that## government officials, public officials# will be tempted to adopt these measures,## these stringent lockdown measures,# to show that they're in charge, to... WILLIAM BRANGHAM: To say, hey, we got this.

STEPHEN MACEDO: Yes, exactly, to take control.

And those pre-COVID plans are# emphatic in advising experts## and public health officials# to be frank with the public## about the thin evidentiary basis for them and# the certainty of costs.

So that was ignored.

Then, of course, there was# the World Health Organization,## a mission that went to China, came# back after spending a week there and## endorsed the Chinese strategy of# lockdowns without qualification,## and said that the entire world should follow this# path of strict lockdowns to suppress the virus.

There was a prediction that came out of --# based on mathematical models out of Imperial## College London that predicted 2.2 million deaths# in the United States by August 2020 if we didn't## implement these suite of measures that led# to a kind of panic, I think, and a failure## to consider rationally the costs of these# measures and the likelihood of their success.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: There are a lot of public# health experts who look at our experience and say,## both in the heat of the moment and in what we have# subsequently learned, that keeping people apart,## that social distancing initially was# a critical part of protecting people.

And I wonder what -- what's your take on that?

FRANCES LEE: Well, that was a theory that, if# we could keep people apart, that we could b.. time before vaccines became available.

But# it had not been tried on any large scale.

And I think what was being overlooked# during that planning was the large## share of the work force that would have to# continue on the job regardless is about... WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The so-called essential workers.

FRANCES LEE: Essential workers is# about a third of t.. who had to continue doing their jobs# in person all through the lockdowns.

And so the virus has to continue# to spread under those conditions.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: When you look at how different# states reacted here in the U.S., we did see## wildly different responses, some employing very# strict policies, others being a little looser.

What does the evidence show about# how those states worked out?

FRANCES LEE: There were lockdowns across the# U.S.; 43 governors issued stay-at-home orders.## Where you began to see the divergence in policy# across the U.S. is in the reopening process.

Democratic states stayed locked down for# 2.5 times as long as Republican states.## Even as Democratic states began to# reopen, they still maintained more## restrictions than Republican states.

But# when you look at cumulative COVID mortality## at the time the vaccine rollout started,# there's no difference between states that## pursued more stringent COVID containment# policies and states that were more lax.

We can't conclude from this that# means these measures don't work,## but it means that there's still a# lack of evidence that they do work.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Especially in light of what# we now know as the psychological, economic,## academic cost for children, for people,# for businesses all over this country.

FRANCES LEE: And also the fiscal# costs, the amount of borrowing that## was necessary to finance the shutdowns.# It's roughly equivalent as a share of GDP## to what we spent on The New Deal and# the 2009 financial rescue combined.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Does your authorship of# this book help you give us a sense of how we## ought to do things differently if and when,# most likely when, the next pandemic comes?

STEPHEN MACEDO: Yes, I would say so.

I think we need to make sure that we're open to.. comes from the other side.

One of the things# that we found is that the pandemic became## very polarized.

Democratic states were on one# side.

Republican states were on the other side.

We should have been more open to criticisms# that were associated with the other side.## That, I think, applies to science.

The# science became politicized, journalism,## unfortunately.

And I think even universities, to# some extent, have been reluctant to ask some hard## questions about our COVID experience because of# the partisan inflection of some of these issues.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: There are so many other# elements in this book, social media,## free speech, as you're saying, the debate# over masks.

Can't get to those all here.

I want to thank you both so much.# The book is called "In COVID's Wake:## How Our Politics Failed Us."

Frances Lee, Stephen Macedo,# thank you both so much.

STEPHEN MACEDO: Thank you, William.

FRANCES LEE: Thank you.