Covid Mea Culpas and Back-flips

So many are now coming out admitting we were massively wrong in dealing with Covid:

Better late than never I suppose. Many of us have been saying for nearly three years now that the hysterical government overreactions to Covid were way over the top, unnecessary, and doing far more harm than good. Consider the lunacy:

The madness of being confined inside our homes 23 hours a day; wearing masks everywhere; avoiding parks and beaches and empty streets; confined to 5 kilometre radius for travel; destroying businesses and the economy; banning proven medicines; denouncing natural immunity; making jabs mandatory; arresting those who dared to question all this – it was an Orwellian nightmare.

Of course for daring to suggest that medicine had been politicised and much of this was simply a grab for more power and control by our petty dictators, we were mocked, scorned, vilified and treated like scum. But finally it seems almost on a daily basis now there are some who are willing to put up their hands and admit that we got things wrong – massively.

There are numerous reports now out on the near-uselessness of masks; of the inability of the vaccines to prevent transmission; of the overwhelming damage done to people by the draconian lockdowns, and so on. This site could go full time in just reporting on these regular mea culpas and admissions that our leaders – political, medical and others – got it wrong big time.

Here I want to look at two of the more recent examples of this – one from Australia and one from America. The title and subtitle of the first one read as as follows: “Infectious disease expert slams ‘absolutely atrocious’ Covid measure. A leading Australian infectious disease expert has ripped into one of the most draconian measures enforced during the pandemic.” The article begins:

A leading Australian doctor has said that restrictions on outdoor activity at the height of the Covid pandemic were a massive mistake that should never be repeated. Professor Peter Collignon, an infectious disease expert who previously worked for the World Health Organisation, said Australia should “never in the future stop people from being outdoors”.


He said the virus was rarely spread between passers-by outdoors – and that he had warned against the draconian measures at the time. Several studies have shown that as few as one in 1,000 cases of Covid were transmitted from person-to-person outdoors.


Professor Collignon is among many in the medical field who have now come out against aspects of Australia’s pandemic response, as calls for more independent reviews continue to mount. “No matter how hard you look, you cannot find (much Covid) transmission outdoors,” he told Daily Mail Australia. “We should never in the future stop people from being outdoors.

The piece continues:

Professor Collignon said the rules against being outdoors in various states during 2020 and 2021 were “absolutely atrocious” in retrospect. He said there was risk of picking up Covid in enclosed spaces, such as on public transport or inside a home, but if you travelled alone to an outdoor venue then the chance of transmission was low.


He also criticised the closures of beaches, national parks and playgrounds as the risk of transmission was “minimal”. In October last year, the Premiers of Victoria and Queensland pushed back against an independent review of Australia’s response to Covid-19 which found “significant mistakes were made”.


Both states introduced strict laws during the pandemic, with Queensland closing its borders for prolonged period and Victoria have one of the longest lockdowns in the world. Daniel Andrews and Annastacia Palaszczuk both defended the decisions made by their governments during the pandemic after the 97-page Fault Lines review was released.


The review found state and federal governments “overreached” with politically driven health orders and excessive lockdowns which failed to protect the elderly, disregarded the young and abandoned disadvantaged communities. Mr Andrews dismissed the report as “academic views”….


The infectious diseases expert admitted that “vaccines are much less effective at preventing mild disease than I thought they would be” and declared that “hybrid immunity is the most effective”. In January of 2023, Prof Collignon openly criticised gain-of-function research, asking if there had been any tangible benefits to developing diseases in a lab. “I can’t see how it has helped with any better vaccines, or drugs for flu, coronavirus,” he said. “All risk and pain with no gain.”

And in the US an opinion piece in Newsweek is still making headlines. An MS MD/PhD medical school student argued that “It’s Time for the Scientific Community to Admit We Were Wrong About COVID and It Cost Lives.” He starts his piece as follows:

As a medical student and researcher, I staunchly supported the efforts of the public health authorities when it came to COVID-19. I believed that the authorities responded to the largest public health crisis of our lives with compassion, diligence, and scientific expertise. I was with them when they called for lockdowns, vaccines, and boosters.


I was wrong. We in the scientific community were wrong. And it cost lives.


I can see now that the scientific community from the CDC to the WHO to the FDA and their representatives, repeatedly overstated the evidence and misled the public about its own views and policies, including on natural vs. artificial immunity, school closures and disease transmission, aerosol spread, mask mandates, and vaccine effectiveness and safety, especially among the young. All of these were scientific mistakes at the time, not in hindsight. Amazingly, some of these obfuscations continue to the present day.


But perhaps more important than any individual error was how inherently flawed the overall approach of the scientific community was, and continues to be. It was flawed in a way that undermined its efficacy and resulted in thousands if not millions of preventable deaths.


What we did not properly appreciate is that preferences determine how scientific expertise is used, and that our preferences might be—indeed, our preferences were—very different from many of the people that we serve. We created policy based on our preferences, then justified it using data. And then we portrayed those opposing our efforts as misguided, ignorant, selfish, and evil.


We made science a team sport, and in so doing, we made it no longer science. It became us versus them, and “they” responded the only way anyone might expect them to: by resisting.

He concludes:

[P]andemic policy was created by a razor-thin sliver of American society who anointed themselves to preside over the working class—members of academia, government, medicine, journalism, tech, and public health, who are highly educated and privileged. From the comfort of their privilege, this elite prizes paternalism, as opposed to average Americans who laud self-reliance and whose daily lives routinely demand that they reckon with risk. That many of our leaders neglected to consider the lived experience of those across the class divide is unconscionable.


Incomprehensible to us due to this class divide, we severely judged lockdown critics as lazy, backwards, even evil. We dismissed as “grifters” those who represented their interests. We believed “misinformation” energized the ignorant, and we refused to accept that such people simply had a different, valid point of view.


We crafted policy for the people without consulting them. If our public health officials had led with less hubris, the course of the pandemic in the United States might have had a very different outcome, with far fewer lost lives.


Instead, we have witnessed a massive and ongoing loss of life in America due to distrust of vaccines and the healthcare system; a massive concentration in wealth by already wealthy elites; a rise in suicides and gun violence especially among the poor; a near-doubling of the rate of depression and anxiety disorders especially among the young; a catastrophic loss of educational attainment among already disadvantaged children; and among those most vulnerable, a massive loss of trust in healthcare, science, scientific authorities, and political leaders more broadly.


My motivation for writing this is simple: It’s clear to me that for public trust to be restored in science, scientists should publicly discuss what went right and what went wrong during the pandemic, and where we could have done better.


It’s OK to be wrong and admit where one was wrong and what one learned. That’s a central part of the way science works. Yet I fear that many are too entrenched in groupthink—and too afraid to publicly take responsibility—to do this.


Solving these problems in the long term requires a greater commitment to pluralism and tolerance in our institutions, including the inclusion of critical if unpopular voices.


Intellectual elitism, credentialism, and classism must end. Restoring trust in public health—and our democracy—depends on it.

Wow, strong words indeed. But much needed words. We need more and more of our leaders and experts to come forward and own up to their mistakes, their hysterical over-reactions, and their harmful policy recommendations. And some real apologies would be a first step.

Many of us warned about what was happening for the past several years but were treated as absolute lepers, pariahs and worse. Many of us paid the price: losing our jobs or being hounded out of polite society or even being arrested and jailed. It was hell for so many of us.

It is nice to see some folks now admitting how very wrong they were. But much more is needed in this regard if they want to regain our trust.


And one more recent study said this: “Immunity acquired from a Covid infection provides strong, lasting protection against the most severe outcomes of the illness, according to research published Thursday in The Lancet — protection, experts say, that’s on par with what’s provided through two doses of an mRNA vaccine.”

[1610 words]


11 Replies to “Covid Mea Culpas and Back-flips”

  1. Dear Bill,

    I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your recent article on how badly the so-called pandemic was handled by the “experts” and our pathetic political leaders. It is refreshing to see that some people are now admitting how wrong they were in their stance on COVID-19 mandates. Your article highlights the need for more people to come forward and take responsibility for their previous actions if they want to regain trust.

    I also wanted to touch on a recent news story that has caught my attention, and I believe it aligns with your views on mandate madness. As you may already be aware, a Melbourne mother, Vicki Derderian, was denied the opportunity to receive a heart transplant at the Alfred Hospital due to her COVID-19 vaccine status. This decision is both concerning and unacceptable, as every individual deserves the right to life and opportunity to receive medical treatment regardless of their vaccine status.

    This decision highlights the severity of the consequences of vaccine mandates and the need to stand up against them. It is essential that individuals have the freedom to make their own medical choices without fear of discrimination or punishment.

    In addition to the moral implications, it is clear that the denial of medical treatment based on one’s vaccination status is a clear violation of our fundamental human rights. The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 clearly states that every person has the right to life and the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life, and that a person must not be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

    Denying someone the opportunity to receive a life-saving organ transplant due to their vaccination status is an arbitrary deprivation of life and a cruel and inhumane treatment. It is important that we continue to fight against such mandates and uphold our fundamental human rights. The recent study published in The Lancet on the strong and lasting protection provided by natural immunity from COVID-19 only adds to the urgency of this fight.

    Thank you for your ongoing advocacy for freedom and individual rights.


  2. If it’s difficult for the scientific community to apologise, what about social media? Will we live to see the day?

  3. Great article Bill. Unfortunately some people are waking up to what has happened due to the covid vaccinations and are retaliating and I don’t blame them eg a young father was videoed by his doctor after the father chased him down in car and bashed the doctor’s side mirror and side window. I maybe shouldn’t say it but I see people outside parliament house bashing down the doors when they realize that the govt and medical profession has caused the death or injury to a loved one. Thus I feel a lot of doctors and politicians who promoted the vax are going to have to go into hiding when the public wakes up to all the lies. That’s why they are saying Nuremburg 2.0 is coming.

  4. Nuremberg 1 took place as a result of a military victory. There cannot be a second one in this world without a similar upheaval. But there is a God in heaven, where justice will be done.

  5. One of the big questions is how so many democratically elected nations let so many bureaucrats get it so wrong. Some have postulated theories of some sort of “pre-emptive bias” where the relevant bureaucrats know that if they leave their government job then there is little hope for employment outside of what is controlled by big pharma. It is obviously much more than this and I believe it really highlights how big pharma has been able to near saturate the narrative and control people’s thinking.

    What we had effectively was a panic. Where cool heads and scientific process, free speech and discerning of truth should have prevailed what we got was shutting down of any narrative which opposed big pharma’s supposed single solution. We have ample evidence for what big pharma’s primary motivation is and we now know that they knew the jab was not going to stop the spread of the disease while simultaneously governments were saying and acting as though it would.

    As usual the bureaucracy that is “Our ABC” was complicit in this bureaucratic cabal of stupidity in its criticism of early treatment and medicines such as Ivermectin and as a direct result of shutting down options for early treatments, based on the absurd notion that these would take away from the supposed single solution of the jab, we know many more people died than should have.

    Add to all this the complete disregard for the associated impact of the panic-induced control measures which many experts protested were wrong and which lead to massive hardship, suicides, lack of medical treatment etc. etc. and you have a perfect storm of incompetence fed essentially by big pharma misinformation, human panic and the nonsensical idea that we should have put all our reliance on an untested single solution.

  6. Dear Bill, Thank you for the article. The lady Petar refers to who has been refused a heart transplant because she is not vaccinated put her views forward in a very reasonable manner I thought. However it did not convince the Doctor who featured with her on Channel 9. His name escapes me but his face became well known on TV as a regular spokesperson about Covid during the pandemic. He doesn’t seem to have budged much in his views I am sad to say. Some people find it very hard to admit they might have made mistakes. The truth is some doctors gained a lot of notoriety and adulation during the pandemic by the MSM seeking out their opinions and they are unwilling to give that up. I for one will never trust politicians ever again. Furthermore the pandemic instilled in me a distrust of the medical profession which I didn’t have before. Many of them proved to me that they were just as unwilling to lose their livelihoods by disagreeing with the accepted decisions as everyone else. No different from the Nazi doctors of WW2

  7. Great article Bill. Our overlords wanted to divide us, and they acheived that. I have close family members who still believe in the Covid-19 “vaccine” and cannot (or will not) see the harm that was inflicted on so many. Try to get any sort of comment or letter in the Herald Sun that is in any way negative about vaccines, and you will be censored. Very few in the mainstream media or medical profession will acknowledge the excess deaths, which cannot be attributed to the disease itself.
    What we saw over the past 3 years was the very worst in human behaviour from our political leaders down. We can forgive, but we cannot forget what happened, and is still happening, despite the wealth of information that makes it clear that the vaccines were never “safe and effective”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *