Counterpoint: A perspective different from Jan Malcolm’s on Minnesota’s COVID-19 response

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

On Sunday in the Minnesota Star Tribune, former Health Commissioner Jan Malcolm painted a picture of the state’s response to the epidemic that was glowing but highly misleading (“The COVID response, five years on: A reflection,” March 23). As someone with a lifelong background in health care, research and data, and who actively tracked and wrote about the epidemic, including doing extensive independent analysis of the data the state was and wasn’t presenting to the public, I have a more complete and accurate perspective of the true impact of the state’s response, which was guided by the commissioner and Gov. Tim Walz.

From the start, the state’s response was driven by fear, panic and models with obvious flaws. We will all recall the forecast of 50,000 deaths that was so widely promoted by the governor. The state’s model was created by amateurs who refused to accept any input from me or others and who ignored such basic tenets as understanding variations in susceptibility across the population and differing penetration rates into segments of the population over time. So of course the model was wildly erroneous, but the governor used it to justify radical actions, essentially shutting down all aspects of society.

Contrary to Malcolm’s assertions, experience with respiratory-virus epidemics was completely ignored. The U.S. has endured a number of serious influenza epidemics, with equal morbidity and mortality to that shown by COVID-19, and never engaged in mandated widespread lockdowns or school closures, social distancing, masking or other measures forced upon the public in this epidemic. The known nature of respiratory-virus epidemics was also ignored — spread is impossible to suppress; these viruses have reservoirs and transmission methods that are not well understood and eventually evade every suppression attempt.

The claim that the response was balanced is absurd. From the start the only consideration was attempting futilely and unsuccessfully to stop infections, with no regard for the damage done by the measures employed. The truth about Minnesota’s response is seen in its health, social and economic consequences. Almost every Minnesotan was ultimately infected, many multiple times, demonstrating the typical futility of respiratory-virus suppression efforts. Properly adjusted for age and minority proportion of the population, Minnesota’s hospitalization and death rates were middle of the pack at best. Minnesota experienced high rates of nursing-home deaths. Care for other conditions was delayed, making those conditions worse for many patients. Drug and alcohol abuse soared.

The population was terrorized with constant fear-inducing press conferences. Children’s lives were upended, leading to a surge in mental health issues and a massive decline in educational attainment. Minority children were particularly grievously damaged, with many becoming and staying chronically absent from school. Athletic and social opportunities were eliminated. The educational issues persist to this day. Many businesses went under, and the flight of companies, individuals and income from Minnesota’s particularly draconian lockdowns accelerated. And most infamously, the governor forbade families and friends to gather and encouraged people to snitch on those who might be violating his orders.

By now the entire nation is familiar with Walz’s constant estrangement from truth. This was on full display during the epidemic as he frequently twisted data and “misstated” facts. A particularly striking example was after a day in which Minnesota experienced a high number of deaths; the governor demonized the unvaccinated and said that not a single one of the deaths was among the vaccinated. This was false; in fact, almost half the deaths that day were among the vaccinated. The governor must have known it was false. I am a strong supporter and defender of vaccines, but respiratory-virus vaccines have notoriously weak effectiveness, and the governor’s constant erroneous statements regarding effectiveness were a major contributor to public mistrust, which lingers particularly toward vaccines in general.

The governor and commissioner could have sought multiple sources of data, analysis and perspectives on an appropriate response. Not only did they not do that, but constant attempts were made to shut down any criticism of their actions. They barred certain journalists from news conferences. They demeaned and mocked those who questioned the wisdom of lockdowns, masking, school closures and other measures. They made it difficult for people to access data; we still have multiple data requests that have simply never been responded to. Not the actions of people who really believe what they did was correct.

It is now commonly accepted that lockdowns and school closures were ineffective and inflicted far more harm than they prevented. Malcolm fails to acknowledge the scope of this harm. Instead of a selective whitewash of Minnesota’s epidemic response, the public deserves a full, independent inquiry, which would deliver proposals on how to avoid such a futile and damaging response to future epidemics. In particular, the use of never-ending emergency dictatorial powers must be stopped. Within a few days of any event, the Legislature is perfectly capable of responding and will do so in a manner that is more likely to consider all the evidence and options.

Commissioner Malcolm and Gov. Walz owe the public a mea culpa and an apology, not a false portrayal of brave and effective actions. Anything less only heightens the citizenry’s distrust of public health and other government officials that Malcolm claims to be so concerned about.

Kevin Roche is a health care investor and consultant and writes the health care policy and research blog the Healthy Skeptic.