The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide pandemic in 2020. In response, most countries in the world implemented lockdowns, restricting their population’s movements, work, education, gatherings, and general activities in attempt to ‘flatten the curve’ of COVID-19 cases. The public health goal of lockdowns was to save the population from COVID-19 cases and deaths, and to prevent overwhelming health care systems with COVID-19 patients. In this narrative review I explain why I changed my mind about supporting lockdowns. First, I explain how the initial modeling predictions induced fear and crowd-effects [i.e., groupthink]. Second, I summarize important information that has emerged relevant to the modeling, including about infection fatality rate, high-risk groups, herd immunity thresholds, and exit strategies. Third, I describe how reality started sinking in, with information on significant collateral damage due to the response to the pandemic, and information placing the number of deaths in context and perspective. Fourth, I present a cost-benefit analysis of the response to COVID-19 that finds lockdowns are far more harmful to public health than COVID-19 can be. Controversies and objections about the main points made are considered and addressed. I close with some suggestions for moving forward.

Given that population COVID-19 vaccination does not appreciably reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission, instead, the potential to reduce hospitalization has been used to justify coercive vaccine passports. We aim to use a recently published research study as an example in order to demonstrate how data can be misinterpreted and result in deriving misleading ethical and policy implications. Bagshaw et al wrote that unvaccinated patients with COVID-19 in Alberta, Canada “had substantially greater rates of ICU admissions, ICU bed days, and ICU related costs than vaccinated patients did. This increased resource use would have been potentially avoidable had these unvaccinated patients been vaccinated.” The authors in Bagshaw et al then concluded that their findings “have important implications for discourse on the relative balance of increasingly stringent public health protection (restrictions), including mandatory vaccination policies, and the sustainability and function of health system infrastructure and capacity during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.” Here we show the following. First, the effect of vaccination on intensive care admissions were grossly over-estimated due to several limitations of this and almost all other vaccine studies. Second, an effect of vaccination on access to acute care and on all-cause excess deaths was grossly over-stated due to several more likely causes being omitted from discussion and from the common narrative. Third, policy implications were overstated and at best unclear due to missing consideration of more relevant aspects required to inform policy. Overall, the data cannot support what Bagshaw et al called “increasingly stringent public health protection (restrictions), including mandatory vaccination policies”.

Part of philosophy is to subject assertions to critical scrutiny, clarifying exactly what the assertion is saying, its implications, and thus its direct plausibility. The goal is to ensure clarity, logical consistency, and rational argumentation in order to arrive at reasoned conclusions. A common problem is that arguments have missing implied premises that, unless explicitly stated, are mistakenly assumed to be true. Here we subject conclusions made regarding the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic to critical scrutiny, revealing their implied premises so that these premises can be explicitly examined and refuted. Specifically, we refute the conclusions that “no one is protected until everyone is protected” and “population lockdowns are required to protect those at high risk of adverse outcomes.” In the end, we argue for the conclusion that “an Emergency Management principles based response to the pandemic, compared to population-wide lockdowns, offers a way to prevent more adverse outcomes from COVID-19, better prevent overwhelmed healthcare, and prevent most of the collateral damage to the wellbeing of the population that has resulted from the lockdowns.”