For over a year, the 22nd Statewide Grand Jury has been looking into the potential of "crimes and wrongdoing committed against Floridians related to the COVID-19 vaccine." There has been a nice post-COVID period in the last two years. We have seen the world come back together, with significant normalcy.
Well, significant. I still see people wearing masks. I still see the occasional social distancer. I even saw a shopper recently in the store wearing rubber gloves. There is no way to know what people are going through, what their comorbidities may be, and what their logic or reason(s) may be. In fairness, I never believed in masks, one-way store aisles, plexiglass, or the rest. See The Unmasked Man (September 2021).
Recently, masking is back in the news. Your decision to mask or not is not protected by the First Amendment. U.S. News reports on a recent court decision to that end. The government is well within its authority to tell you what you will wear:
“A question shadowing suits such as these is whether there is a First Amendment right to refuse to wear a protective mask as required by valid health and safety orders put in place during a recognized public health emergency. Like all courts to address this issue, we conclude there is not,”
The corollary seems as likely - that the government can tell you what you cannot wear. There is careful phrasing here. It need not require a "valid" health emergency or crisis, merely a "valid health and safety order()." Regardless of the science or methodology, the influence or the consensus, if your government issues a valid order, the result is that you will comply.
The government is very powerful and exercises enormous reach. See Could the Federal Government Meddle in Comp (March 2016). The government can undoubtedly tell you what you can grow or even must grow in your garden. It can also undoubtedly force you to make purchases against your will. Somehow in this free country, the rights of the people are subverted at times to government constraint. Government need not prove its constraint is rational, only that it is valid.
I bought into the vaccine. Notice the Grand Jury is focused specifically on "nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs)," but there is mention of "related to the COVID-19 vaccine." I know many who hate the vaccine and several who are "black helicopters" over the vaccine (no, the NFL is not conspiring with the singer either - cannot name the singer, that would be considered by some as "stalking"; well, perhaps at least in some small minds).
Many are alternatively in the mandate crowd. I went to conferences during the pandemic at which organizers asked attendees to self-identify as non-vaccinated (they wanted people to sew red "A" on their shirts, I jest; please don't email me Ms. Actress). Interestingly, some of the same people who favored forcing vaccines on others for the common good are also in the "my body my choice" group on other issues.
That has been worthy of some thought throughout. But, right or wrong, I was inoculated. I am in a seemingly small club of people who have never had COVID. Somehow, I have been very lucky or very right.
All that said, there is a great deal of skepticism about the manner and extent of our collective and individual reactions to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. The near-total economic shutdowns, the distancing, the masking, and more have generated strong feelings and opinions. The economic impacts are undeniable, and the volume of fraud and waste involved is astounding ("billions . . . stolen or wasted"). There is talk now of ending some programs. Some likely thought that the COVID aid programs ended back when the pandemic did? Not so.
The Grand Jury is making progress. However, there has been some reluctance by various organizations. Apparently, the following have refused to provide testimony: "the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Army." It is not clear why these agencies would be reluctant to provide documentation of the extent, timing, and purpose of their respective involvements and efforts. It might seem that more information is usually better. If you think or fear someone is misstating the facts, perhaps show up and provide your facts as a counterpoint?
The first report of the Grand Jury has been released. It notes that there were failings in judgment and the engagement of "nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs)." The report concludes that available information was not heeded or leveraged in the response to the SARS-CoV-2. Specifically, the report mentions information "ignored or even attacked." This was perhaps the fault of groupthink, consensus, and fear. When SARS-CoV-2 landed, no one "knew" anything. Even those funding high-level research were essentially guessing back in 2020. Educated guesses, certainly, but guesses nonetheless.
There is criticism of "lockdowns." The report notes that where lockdowns were employed there remained "excess mortality," and ongoing risk. The broad prophylactic of "lockdowns were not a good trade." This likely refers to the societal, economic, and production detriments of isolation and immobilization. Perhaps it refers also to the psychological impacts foist cavalierly upon the young, old, and vulnerable?
There is criticism of masking. This is perhaps the most specific and critical mentioned. The report concludes "we have never had sound evidence of their effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 transmission” and “there have always been legitimate questions around the impracticality of individual adherence to mask recommendations." The report alleges "failure" in the communications about masks and the purported benefits. Undoubtedly, masking had emotional benefits. We wanted to be protected, proactive, and engaged. With masks, we could either wear them or complain about them, and either way we had some perception of being involved and responding.
There is Grand Jury criticism of record keeping, particularly as to the measure of "hospitalization" necessity. It appears that those admitted for hospital care for COVID were statistically co-mingled with those admitted for treatment of other maladies, who also had "incidental SARS-CoV-2 infection." The Grand Jury expresses some belief that medical statistics may be characterized as "inflated to some degree." Why? Was there any economic benefit to labeling a patient as "COVID?" Was there medical benefit in precautions (keeping the infected consolidated to prevent exposure and spread?) There is much to consider.
The overall tenor of the report is critical of the government's response to this health threat. It accuses of "panic, hubris, ineptitude or some unfortunate combination of the three," contributing to the response and its efficacy. It concludes that "whatever benefits inured from these mandates, they were not worth the price.” That is fairly frank.
The efforts continue. It is likely an unimaginable volume of data and retrospection. And, with each passing day, it seems, another scientific study is published as to this viral threat and the reactions to it. I predicted back in 2020 that information was scarce, and conjecture and consensus were prevalent. I suggested that with time more science would come to bear. See Nature.com for a partial list.
In the end, will there be repercussions? Time will tell. In all, however, it is interesting to observe the retrospection and analysis. Did we respond well to SARS-CoV-2? That is for the observer. Could we have responded better?
