A new international study criticises the management of the health crisis

An excessive reliance on predictive models

From the very first weeks of 2020, alarming epidemiological models justified the adoption of unprecedented interventions: lockdowns, school closures, restrictions on movement. Yet these projections were often based on simplifying assumptions, derived from models ill-suited to the complexity of human behaviour or to immune heterogeneity. The problem was not the use of models, but their overvaluation without empirical validation or readjustment in the light of actual observation. The most alarmist scenarios eclipsed more nuanced forecasts, creating a climate of anxiety that weighed heavily on political choices.

Between haste and dogmatism

Most countries copied their neighbours’ measures: general lockdown, closure of shops, compulsory mask-wearing. Yet these methods had been judged to be of little proven value in pre-existing pandemic plans. Few real evaluations were carried out during the crisis to measure their effectiveness. Many studies subsequently showed that epidemic waves followed cycles largely independent of the severity of the measures. The social, educational, economic and health costs of these interventions were massive, aggravating inequalities and leaving deep scars, particularly among young people and vulnerable populations. The long-term consequences for overall public health were too often ignored in favour of a short-term logic focused on the virus alone.

A differentiated and asymmetrical treatment of pharmaceutical solutions

The other major shortcoming was the biased evaluation of treatments. While messenger RNA vaccines enjoyed unprecedented political and media support, treatments based on repurposed, cheap and well-known drugs, such as ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, met with marked hostility. The scientific debate about their effectiveness was quickly stifled, and practitioners wishing to use them were sometimes subjected to pressure or sanctions. Yet several of these treatments had a well-known safety profile and deserved at least an honest evaluation. These double standards undermined public trust and violated the principle of scientific neutrality.

The messenger RNA vaccines were authorised in haste under exceptional emergency procedures reserved for situations with no alternative treatment. Official recognition of an effective treatment would legally have prevented or delayed their emergency marketing. This regulatory reality partly explains the systematic rejection of treatments and the heavily slanted communication in favour of vaccination.

Science silenced in the name of consensus

The “disinformation” label was too often used to dismiss opinions that were scientific, but merely divergent. Doctors, researchers and academics were censored or discredited, not for errors, but for having dared to question the dominant measures. This climate of intellectual fear distorted scientific debate and prevented a calm and pluralistic assessment of the situation. At the same time, conflicts of interest within certain expert bodies were rarely questioned, fuelling suspicion.

For a new public health culture

The management of the COVID-19 crisis revealed the flaws of governance that is too centralised, technocratic and compartmentalised. There is an urgent need to restore the place of transparency, doubt, disciplinary pluralism and rigorous evaluation. This also means not repeating past mistakes: confusing caution with authority, science with communication, urgency with panic. A genuine public health policy cannot ignore ethics, respect for rights and a holistic vision of human well-being. Only on this condition will societies be able to face future pandemics with discernment and consistency.

Governance at odds with scientific lessons

In Belgium, the 2021 “pandemic law”, intended to provide a legal framework for future epidemic emergencies, is part of a centralised and technocratic logic that this study fundamentally calls into question. While the study argues for pluralistic, transparent and continuously evaluated governance, the Belgian law confers quasi-absolute power on the executive, guaranteeing neither interdisciplinary debate nor democratic oversight^[1].

In the same way, the international pandemic agreement recently adopted by the World Health Organization tends to institutionalise these same abuses. An orientation which, while it seems to suit pharmaceutical companies and certain technocratic actors perfectly, in no way meets democratic expectations or the interests of citizens.

Read the full study:
What Lessons can Be Learned From the Management of the COVID‑19 Pandemic?

BAM detox

[1] Carte blanche: la loi “pandémie” ne permettra pas de sortir de la “sidération politique” - Le Soir