We've been ostracised for telling the truth about how the liberal elite got Covid so wrong

Five years on from the pandemic and yet Covid and the measures used to respond to it still, it seems, have the capacity to shock.
Stephen Macedo, a liberal academic at Princeton University, has just spent months examining how the Western political class got its response to the pandemic so wrong – an endeavour that has made him an outlier among many of his peers.
Macedo, 68, a professor of politics, says he was 'shocked on a daily basis' by information that he and Frances Lee, a professor of politics and public affairs at the university, unearthed throughout the writing process.
'I have often not been able to believe what I've been reading,' says Macedo. Among the most perturbing was a plan published by the World Health Organisation in 2019, months before the pandemic started, followed by a report by Johns Hopkins University (JHU) later that year, in which both were were 'sceptical about a whole range of non-pharmaceutical interventions [NPIs, i.e. face coverings and social distancing],' Lee explains. A 2011 UK government pre-pandemic plan had reached similar conclusions. And yet these 'interventions' formed a central part of the response to the pandemic in Britain and the United States.
Along with Lee, Macedo has become a loud voice in the effort to challenge how the 'laptop classes' defined our pandemic response, and got it badly wrong.
In their book, In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us, published on Tuesday and described by The New York Times as 'an invitation to have a reckoning', the two men argue that, in the face of a global emergency, democracy and free speech failed.
We meet at Princeton, in New Jersey, on a grey spring day, earnest undergrads clutching coffee cups passing along the cherry blossom-lined streets.
Macedo and Lee explain that their goal is 'not just to look back for looking back's sake' but to reflect on where the liberal political class veered off course, and set out the change of approach that is required ahead of the next global emergency.
The JHU analysis warned that 'public health officials would need to advise politicians that there's a poor evidence base here, and that they shouldn't go out and make promises for results that may not pan out, and that they needed to weigh the costs' of simply shutting everything down – from isolating humans, who are social creatures, to closing businesses, and the risk of learning delays for children being kept out of school.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

New Statesman​

an hour ago

• New Statesman​

Ayatollah Khamenei faces a nuclear nightmare

Iranian Supreme Leader'S Office / ZUMA Press Wire / Shutterstock Iran's nuclear program traces its origins back to the reign of the Shah, when it was initiated with significant assistance from the United States. The program's initial focus was on peaceful nuclear technology, with early collaboration aiming to develop nuclear energy. However, as the US soon detected the possibility of military applications emerging within Iran's nuclear ambitions, Washington strongly urged Iran to abandon the path of uranium enrichment and instead focus solely on nuclear technology for energy purposes. Many years ago, my colleague Sig Hecker and I discussed in an article for The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists how Iran should have followed a path akin to South Korea, which chose nuclear technology over weapons development. South Korea is now a global leader in nuclear technology, while North Korea — on the other hand — pursued nuclear weapons, resulting in isolation, poverty, and an economy reliant on the bombastic rhetoric of its leaders. During the Shah's rule, Iran enjoyed the support of key Western powers, particularly France and Germany, who assisted with technology and expertise. High-ranking US officials, including Henry Kissinger and even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were backing the Shah's nuclear ambitions. They, in turn, convinced the Carter administration to adopt a similar stance, leaving Iran's nuclear program relatively unchallenged. In this period, Iran's nuclear ambitions were also supported by Israel, which saw Iran as close ally. In 1979, the Iranian Revolution fundamentally altered the country's political and nuclear trajectory. The overthrow of the Shah and the establishment of the Islamic Republic under Ayatollah Khomeini led to an abrupt halt in Iran's nuclear program. Khomeini justified the cessation by claiming that the nuclear program was a product of imperialist imposition, aimed at furthering the Shah's alliance with the West and selling 'garbage' to Iran. Yet, as often happens in political regimes, a change in leadership and national priorities can lead to a reversal of course, and that is precisely what transpired in Iran. During the brutal eight-year war with Iraq (1980-1988), in which Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iranian forces with little international consequence, the Iranian regime reconsidered its nuclear ambitions. As the world turned a blind eye to Iraq's chemical warfare, the Iranian leadership clandestinely resumed its nuclear program. This time, they sought assistance from Russia and Pakistan. Iran's nuclear program underwent a dramatic shift under Ayatollah Khamenei, who succeeded Khomeini as the 'Supreme Leader.' Khamenei's approach to the nuclear program marked a significant departure from previous policies. Under his leadership, the nuclear program was no longer merely a tool for regional deterrence; it became a symbol of Iranian independence and resistance to Western imperialism and Zionism. Drawing on the legacy of Iran's 1951 nationalization of oil, Khamenei framed the nuclear program as a matter of national pride and a sign of defiance against foreign domination. His rhetoric invoked Iran's right to technological advancement and self-sufficiency, paralleling the ideals of resistance against foreign intervention that had historically fueled Mosaddeq's effort to nationalize Iran's oil. Iran's nuclear ambitions, initially viewed as dual-purpose — energy and potential military use — became increasingly intertwined with religious and political symbolism. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, hand-picked by Khamenei, linked the nuclear program to the apocalyptic return of the Twelfth Imam, a central figure in Shiite eschatology. According to this narrative, Iran's nuclear progress would hasten the return of the Twelfth Imam, a figure believed to have been in occultation for over 1,300 years. This apocalyptic vision of global victory was central to Khamenei's strategic messaging. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe To bolster his regime's legitimacy, Khamenei also invested in establishing proxy forces in Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen, and worked to maintain the Assad regime in Syria. These proxies served as strategic deterrents against Israel and the United States, creating a network of alliances and military leverage across the region. Simultaneously, the nuclear program was consistently portrayed as peaceful, with Khamenei supposedly issuing fatwas (religious decrees) purportedly forbidding nuclear weapons, even as the Iranian regime continued to enrich uranium to levels near those needed to develop the capacity to build a nuclear bomb. Despite the regime's insistence on the peaceful nature of its nuclear pursuits, the internal contradictions of its messaging became increasingly evident. Public rhetoric, particularly more recently, frequently suggested that Iran had now the capacity to build a nuclear weapon, while simultaneously claiming that it had no military component in its nuclear program. For years, this dual posture allowed the regime to maintain a sense of strategic ambiguity, creating an atmosphere of uncertainty for both regional actors and international powers. The combination of bluster, bluff, and strategic posturing helped Iran navigate the international community's reactions. The regime used the leverage of its regional proxies, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon, as well as the survival of the Assad regime in Syria, to create a sense of invulnerability. The presence of a couple of hundreds of thousands of Iranian missiles in Syria and Lebanon further complicated the geopolitical calculus for Israel and the United States. Moreover, Iran's economic and political dealings with European countries, and its ability to secure economic concessions in return for partial restrictions on its nuclear activities, enabled it to prolong its nuclear aspirations while averting the imposition of crippling sanctions. However, as is often the case with regimes led by dogmatic figures, the Iranian leadership missed several warning signs of a changing geopolitical landscape. The Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states, undermined Iran's longstanding narrative of Muslim unity against Israel. The rise of Donald Trump, whose unpredictable foreign policy shifted from attempts at negotiation to direct threats against Iran, further complicated matters. As Trump took a hardline stance, Israel became more assertive in its military operations against Iranian proxies, particularly in Lebanon, and the Assad regime's eventual decline weakened Iran's regional position. Internally, the Iranian regime faced mounting pressure from both economic crises and popular dissent. The Iranian economy was in freefall, with inflation skyrocketing and the value of the national currency plummeting from around 40,000 tomans to nearly 100,000 tomans to the dollar. Strikes by truckers, power shortages, and the inability of the regime to provide basic services to the public highlighted the deep structural problems within the Iranian economy. Perhaps even more troubling for Khamenei's regime was the growing domestic unrest, particularly among women who resisted the mandatory veiling law. The wave of civil disobedience led by women, coupled with increasing economic hardship, forced the regime to confront the growing cracks in its social and political foundation. Yet, Khamenei's response remained stubbornly consistent: criticism of the regime was dismissed as the work of foreign agents or 'tools' of imperialism and Zionism. This lack of self-reflection and refusal to engage with the real problems facing the nation further isolated the leadership from reality and of course from the aspirations of the Iranian people. As international pressure mounted, Khamenei continued to insist on the importance of Iran's nuclear program, despite growing internal and external challenges. The regime's posture shifted between negotiations with the Trump administration and blustery declarations about Iran's ability to produce a nuclear weapon 'on demand.' Under Khamenei's guidance, discussions about a new nuclear deal were in virtual deadlock as Iran insisted on maintaining enrichment activities, and the fundamental demands of the US is for a suspension of enrichment. For Khamenei, the prospect of 'giving up' on the nuclear program and enrichment—as demanded by the United States—would be tantamount to admitting defeat. His rhetoric, which had built the nuclear program into a cornerstone of national pride and resistance, made it almost impossible for him to back down without losing face. Yet, the path of insisting on maintaining the program could also lead to Iran's destruction, as the geopolitical situation rapidly deteriorated around him. Khamenei now faces a dire dilemma. To abandon the nuclear program would be to accept a humiliating defeat, one that would wipe away any political and ideological legitimacy he might have. But to persist in pursuing the nuclear option could bring ruin upon Iran, with catastrophic consequences for the Iranian people and all but certainly end the clerical despotism in Iran. The only thing he and his negotiating team seem to seek is a path that allows them to declare victory by claiming they have continued their enrichment activities while in fact they have abandoned it. Following the strikes conducted against Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday, will the Trump administration wish to allow them a 'face saving' exit, and will Netanyahu be willing to stop attacking what is essence a defenseless Iranian regime? The people of Iran are collateral damage to a war they never bargained for. The only solution to Iran's nuclear crisis — and to the broader instability created by the regime's policies — is a democratic Iran. The Iranian people, particularly the brave women who have led protests against the regime, offer the greatest hope for genuine change. Iran's future should be determined by its people, not by foreign powers or by the dogmatic leadership of a failed regime. In the short term, the international community must halt the violence against the Iranian people and support democratic voices within Iran and the Iranian diaspora. Some leading Iranian artists and activists from Inside Iran and two Iranian noble laureates have issued statement saying no to war, no to enrichment, and no to the regime. The regime's hypocrisy and brutal tactics cannot be allowed to dictate the future of the country or bring about its destruction. In the long term, the world must prioritize a strategy that aids the Iranian people in overthrowing their oppressive rulers. A democratic Iran, free from the shackles of nuclear proliferation, holds the key to peace and stability in the Middle East. [Further reading: Trump's war without honour] Related

The National

11 hours ago

• The National

With independence, Scotland could become a beacon for peace

Firstly Scotland is acting as a staging post for the US bombing missions in Iran and their assistance to Israel's war. Prestwick Airport, which is owned by the Scottish Government, has seen large numbers of US war plans landing and being refuelled on their way to wage war on Iran and to assist the Israeli war effort. It's time the Scottish Government closed this route for war by banning US war planes at Prestwick. READ MORE: Scotland may be 'complicit in war crimes' allowing US to use Prestwick Secondly, if this war in the Middle East extends to a global war, Scotland's nuclear base at Faslane will be the number one target for attack, and if it's hit then much of Glasgow will disappear. Surely it's time that this expensive and ineffective nuclear base was closed. Thirdly, Scottish arms industries are supplying the Israeli war machines with vital spare parts and it's time this was ended. Of course I realise that none of this can be achieved while Scotland is part of the UK and where Starmer's Labour government is guilty of failing to condemn Israel for genocide in Gaza or the US for its warlike interventions. Instead, they are grovelling to Trump in the hope of crumbs from his table. Support for Scottish independence has reached a new high of 56% recently. Let's turn that into a pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament elections next year. If that happens, the Scottish Parliament should declare our independence, end our complicity in war and instead make Scotland a beacon for peace in the world. Hugh Kerr (former MEP) Edinburgh ARE nuclear weapons defensive or offensive? It seems the answer depends on whether the UK Government is talking about a lauded 'friend' or a condemned 'foe', a supposedly 'democratically elected' President or a supposedly 'expertly elected' Ayatollah. The obscene devastation in Gaza and unabated slaughter of its people on the pretext of responding to the horrendous terrorist acts of October 7 is a totally disproportionate portend of what an expansionist, war-mongering, fanatical regime might impose on the rest of the Middle East if Iran is neutered militarily. This may suit Western governments (which appear to have learned little from the catastrophic consequences of war rhetoric ahead of the illegal invasion of Iraq), with 'energy companies' keen to further exploit Iran and the region's massive oil and gas reserves, but when will the British public stand up and say 'enough is enough'? READ MORE: UK providing 'political cover' for US and Israel after Iran attack Proscribing a protest group as a terrorist organisation for spray-paint vandalism would simply demonstrate how far the UK Government, aided and abetted by much of the UK mainstream media, is prepared to go in order to justify its lethal bias in the Middle East, where an out-of-control despot intent on obliterating cities and massacring civilians wreaks generational havoc. Scotland, as an independent country, could choose a different path by genuinely promoting global nuclear disarmament and by ending compelled complicity in the actions of a 'British state' still posturing as a global super-power in order to feed the greed of international capitalist moguls and the wealthy British establishment while more inconsolable mothers cradle lifeless children in their forlorn arms. Stan Grodynski Longniddry, East Lothian ARE we really expected to believe that British planes are working with the Israelis only to help find the hostages, and only information pertinent to this is given to the Israelis and shared with the US? Why are the hostages still not found? Why are British spy planes still flying over Gaza? Hundreds of Palestinians have been killed and wounded since May 27th, when the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation began distributing food in southern Gaza. On June 17, at least 51 people were killed and 200 wounded, including children, while waiting for food. Westminster talks big about finding a diplomatic solution while supporting Israel with British aircraft. Is this not complicity in war crimes? READ MORE: UK Defence Secretary walks into oncoming traffic to escape Israel questions Now that Iran is in the picture, Gaza is no longer in the news. This allows the IDF to run further amok in the Occupied Territories, destroying homes and businesses. What will be the end result of this destruction? The Riviera of the Middle East? Keir Starmer is so enamoured with his 'special relationship' with Donald Trump and his rhetoric about Israel's right to defend itself that he ignores the message of the many thousands of UK citizens who march in protest against the treatment of the Palestinians and especially the carnage in Gaza. Sophocles gives a message from the past that is so relevant for now: 'whoever makes his journey to a tyrant's court becomes his slave, although he went there a free man'. Marion McPherson Ayr PALESTINE Action stage a protest at an RAF base and the Home Secretary announces she plans to proscribe them. The IDF slaughters in excess of 55,000 Palestinians and we give them armaments and surveillance assistance! READ MORE: Mark Brown: Donald Trump's ultimatum is a threat to Iran and the Middle East In the US, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified before congress in March that Iran had a stock of materials but was not building nuclear weapons. President Trump did not challenge this, but now says she was 'wrong' and that intelligence showed Iran had a 'tremendous amount of material' and could have a nuclear weapon 'within months'. Ms Gabbard has now made a statement to the effect that Iran could produce nuclear weapons 'within weeks' and that her March testimony (which seemed crystal clear at the time ) had been taken out of context by 'dishonest media'! To paraphrase the Doors from 1967 – strange days indeed! Alan Woodcock Dundee

Metro

15 hours ago

• Metro

Why Iran closing this 103-mile stretch of ocean could be catastrophic

As fighting between Israel and Iran is boiling over with the US now involved, the most strategic oil chokepoint in the world – the Strait of Hormuz – is in the spotlight. Concerns have been raised about just how disruptive the war could be for the steady flow of Gulf oil shipments to Europe, the US and Asia. All eyes are on the Strait of Hormuz after Iran's parliament voted to approve the closure today. The decision still needs to be rubber-stamped by the country's Supreme National Security Council. Adam Lakhani, security director at International SOS, warned that shutting it could cause a bigger market turmoil than the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Covid-19. He told Metro that the price of oil could jump from the current $71.77 to as much as $120 per barrel in a 'worst-case scenario'. 'Iran has a very well-established naval base in the city of Bandar Abbas and it has a strong naval capability,' Lakhani explained. 'So whether they decide to pull that lever… is something we are concerned about and are watching very closely.' About a fifth of the world's oil is transited through the shipping lane, which splits Iran on one side and Oman and the UAE on the other, and links the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea in the Indian Ocean. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Tankers collecting from various ports on the Persian Gulf must go through Hormuz. The strait – between 35 to 60 miles wide – has been at the heart of regional tensions for decades, but the threat from Iran to shut it has only escalated the fears. Islamic Revolutionary Guard commander Sardar Esmail Kowsari told local media that closing Hormuz 'is under consideration, and Iran will make the best decision with determination.' He said: 'Our hands are wide open when it comes to punishing the enemy, and the military response was only part of our overall response.' As a major chokepoint, the operation of Hormuz is critical to global energy security. The inability of any oil to transit – even temporarily – can create substantial supply delays and raise shipping costs, increasing world energy prices. Although most chokepoints can be bypassed by using other routes, which often add significantly to transit time, some have no alternatives. Lakhani stressed that Kowsari's threat 'should be taken seriously', judging by the US repositioning of the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier along with several support tankers to bolster the military in the region. Iran's threat to shut Homruz comes as a vessel crashed into two ships sailing nearby, 22 nautical miles east of Khor Fakkan in the UAE. The Emirati national guard said it evacuated 24 people from an oil tanker after the collision. The crude oil tanker, ADALYNN, was bound for Egypt's Suez Canal when the crash in the Gulf of Oman happened. More Trending British maritime security firm Ambrey has said the cause of the incident is 'not security-related'. Naval sources cited by Reuters warned that electronic interference with commercial ship navigation systems has surged in recent days around the strait and the wider Gulf, which is having an impact on vessels. Maritime ship experts say shipowners are increasingly wary of using the waterway, with some ships having tightened security and others canceling routes there. The Strait of Hormuz vote today comes after the US administration announced that is warplanes had dropped 'bunker buster' bombs on three key nuclear sites. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Is Donald Trump gambling his popularity and presidency with strikes on Iran? MORE: London to Dubai BA flight turns back 90 minutes from landing after Iran strikes MORE: UK prepares flights to help British nationals escape Israel after US bombs Iran