Trump's Health Appointees Seek Covid Vindication: Evaluating the Longevity of Their Criticisms
Trump's selections to head the NIH and FDA were individuals who had criticized health officials and their pandemic strategies.
TroibNews 
The Covid wars continue into 2024, with the Covid contrarians now at the helm.
President-elect Donald Trump has completed his lineup of health agency nominees by selecting Jay Bhattacharya, a physician and economist from Stanford University who criticized lockdowns, school closures, and the leadership of health agencies during the pandemic, to lead the National Institutes of Health.
Bhattacharya will join a group of Trump nominees whose pandemic claims were dismissed by health officials such as Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins, who were instrumental in the Covid response. This group includes Marty Makary, a surgeon from Johns Hopkins, who criticized the Biden administration’s Covid response and is Trump’s nominee for the Food and Drug Administration.
Trump’s choices reflect a widespread sentiment among Americans that health officials made significant mistakes during the pandemic, particularly regarding school closures and lockdowns.
Some experts argue that framing the pandemic response as a binary of right versus wrong is counterproductive. Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, cautioned against what he termed “false alternatives” regarding Covid policy.
“Most of the time during the pandemic, nuance was not allowed,” he remarked.
However, experts suggest that the strictest Covid policies may have gone overboard, leading to resentment and bolstering contrarians' newfound influence.
“In retrospect, we probably shut down businesses and shuttered schools and restricted travel more than we needed to,” Paul Offit, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told PMG.
“We are paying the price for that. That was seen by many as government overreach, and I think it largely contributed to the distrust we have now in public health agencies. To take it a step further, I think that distrust, in many ways, opened the door for people like Makary and Bhattacharya and RFK Jr.”
The public, however, tends to use a binary lens to view the pandemic, regardless of health experts' opinions. While some of Bhattacharya and Makary's previously fringe views now seem supported by evidence, many of their claims are still deemed controversial or even hazardous.
Here’s how experts assess five contrarian claims made by Bhattacharya and Makary during the pandemic, based on current knowledge:
1. Keeping students out of school was “a grave injustice”
Who made the claim: Bhattacharya, October 2020
What happened: The pandemic led to unprecedented disruption for children, families, and schools. The suspension of regular classroom activities starting in March 2020 and the inconsistent return to in-person learning contributed to sharp declines in test scores, with many mental health professionals and parents attributing a rise in social and emotional challenges in young people to this disruption.
Teacher unions resisted pressure for a swift reopening of K-12 schools. While advocates for reopening, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics by the summer of 2020, recognized the need, widespread fears still lingered regarding health risks to children, teachers, and their communities.
The reopening debate became intertwined with partisan issues and broader discussions about masks, social distancing, and vaccines. Colleges and universities faced different challenges than elementary schools, imposing strict social distancing measures even as vaccines became available. Many families, particularly from communities hardest hit by the pandemic, opted to keep their children learning from home.
What the evidence shows: Studies indicate that prolonged school closures likely did not significantly curb the virus's spread but came with a heavy cost to students, suggesting that schools might have functioned more normally with basic safety measures in place. Disagreements persist between those who argue for keeping schools open without adequate precautions and those who advocate for more stringent measures.
2. Natural immunity from prior infection could end the pandemic
Who made the claim: Makary, February 2021
What happened: A 77 percent decrease in new Covid cases over six weeks led Makary to believe that herd immunity was imminent, and that vaccination and prior infection could dramatically reduce disease transmission.
“At the current trajectory, I expect Covid will be mostly gone by April, allowing Americans to resume normal life,” he wrote. “When the chain of virus transmission has been broken in multiple places, it’s harder for it to spread — and that includes the new strains.”
While acknowledging that new variants would allow Covid-19 to persist for decades, he noted that countries with new strains were experiencing significant case reductions and that reinfections were mostly mild.
“As we encourage everyone to get a vaccine, we also need to reopen schools and society to limit the damage of closures and prolonged isolation. Contingency planning for an open economy by April can deliver hope to those in despair and to those who have made large personal sacrifices,” he added.
What the evidence shows: If the virus had not mutated, Makary might have been correct that Covid would have been “mostly gone” by April 2021, though this remains uncertain. With the rise of new variants, experts noted that herd immunity had not been attained, even with a substantial number of vaccinations and prior infections.
Studies suggest that reinfections carry similar severity levels, and many public health officials now argue that herd immunity was never realistically attainable for SARS-CoV-2.
3. Mandatory masking was a mistake, especially for kids
Who made the claim: Makary, November 2021
What happened: Throughout 2021 and into early 2022, many states and cities, particularly those led by Democrats, enforced mask mandates, occasionally requiring children to wear masks even into the summer. A federal judge later struck down mask mandates for public transportation and pre-K programs.
Having initially recommended universal masking in May 2020, Makary concluded by late 2021 that it was no longer necessary outside of certain high-risk groups.
“If you use universal masking as a heavy hand beyond its utility, you alienate the authority of public health,” he stated.
He expressed concerns that indiscriminate mask policies adversely affected children's learning and language acquisition and pointed to a lack of evidence supporting their effectiveness in these contexts.
What the evidence shows: Many public health officials still assert the importance of masking.
“Masking was a good idea,” Offit noted, highlighting that while masks don’t offer flawless protection, high-quality masks effectively reduce transmission.
However, a 2023 review of mask studies by the Cochrane Library found insufficient evidence to conclusively prove their effectiveness against respiratory viral infections. In hindsight, Offit said a more nuanced approach would have been preferable, advocating for targeted mask advisories.
4. Vaccine mandates and guidance for young, healthy people were unscientific
Who made the claim: Makary, June 2021, and Bhattacharya, November 2021
What happened: President Biden introduced vaccine mandates for employees at companies with over 100 workers and for various public sector workers in late 2021.
The summer of 2021 saw a notable outbreak among vaccinated individuals, contradicting earlier assurances about vaccination preventing the virus transmission.
Bhattacharya claimed mandating the vaccine was unethical since the shots didn’t prevent infection, while Makary argued that the guidance advising all individuals to receive two doses was excessive.
Despite the U.S. still recommending Covid vaccines for all individuals aged 6 months and older, most European nations have shifted their focus away from recommending annual vaccinations for young, healthy citizens.
What the evidence shows: There is broad agreement among public health officials emphasizing the benefits of initial vaccination for most individuals, while opinions on boosters are more varied.
Benjamin affirmed that as understanding evolved, it became evident that the risks to children were lower than initially perceived. Current CDC messaging has been adjusted to focus on higher-risk populations, alongside recognition that vaccinations help protect vulnerable individuals.
5. Lockdown costs outweighed their benefits
Who made the claim: Bhattacharya, October 2020
What happened: As Covid began spreading in the spring of 2020, most states enacted stay-at-home orders. While these restrictions were less stringent than those seen in Europe or China, they nonetheless closed non-essential businesses and schools while allowing some movement.
Bhattacharya proposed an alternative strategy through the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated against lockdowns and encouraged low-risk individuals to develop herd immunity.
“Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health,” the declaration argued, pointing to consequences such as declines in childhood vaccinations.
What the evidence shows: Some experts contend that Bhattacharya’s concerns about the restrictions' impacts are valid. Offit shared, “We didn’t need to close schools nearly as long as we did,” acknowledging the adverse effects on children’s education and socialization.
Others, however, caution that the intent behind social distancing was crucial for controlling spread prior to vaccine availability.
“Lockdowns aren’t a treatment of choice," Adalja remarked, emphasizing that such measures should be considered a last resort.
Mathilde Moreau contributed to this report for TROIB News
President-elect Donald Trump has completed his lineup of health agency nominees by selecting Jay Bhattacharya, a physician and economist from Stanford University who criticized lockdowns, school closures, and the leadership of health agencies during the pandemic, to lead the National Institutes of Health.
Bhattacharya will join a group of Trump nominees whose pandemic claims were dismissed by health officials such as Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins, who were instrumental in the Covid response. This group includes Marty Makary, a surgeon from Johns Hopkins, who criticized the Biden administration’s Covid response and is Trump’s nominee for the Food and Drug Administration.
Trump’s choices reflect a widespread sentiment among Americans that health officials made significant mistakes during the pandemic, particularly regarding school closures and lockdowns.
Some experts argue that framing the pandemic response as a binary of right versus wrong is counterproductive. Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, cautioned against what he termed “false alternatives” regarding Covid policy.
“Most of the time during the pandemic, nuance was not allowed,” he remarked.
However, experts suggest that the strictest Covid policies may have gone overboard, leading to resentment and bolstering contrarians' newfound influence.
“In retrospect, we probably shut down businesses and shuttered schools and restricted travel more than we needed to,” Paul Offit, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told PMG.
“We are paying the price for that. That was seen by many as government overreach, and I think it largely contributed to the distrust we have now in public health agencies. To take it a step further, I think that distrust, in many ways, opened the door for people like Makary and Bhattacharya and RFK Jr.”
The public, however, tends to use a binary lens to view the pandemic, regardless of health experts' opinions. While some of Bhattacharya and Makary's previously fringe views now seem supported by evidence, many of their claims are still deemed controversial or even hazardous.
Here’s how experts assess five contrarian claims made by Bhattacharya and Makary during the pandemic, based on current knowledge:
1. Keeping students out of school was “a grave injustice”
Who made the claim: Bhattacharya, October 2020
What happened: The pandemic led to unprecedented disruption for children, families, and schools. The suspension of regular classroom activities starting in March 2020 and the inconsistent return to in-person learning contributed to sharp declines in test scores, with many mental health professionals and parents attributing a rise in social and emotional challenges in young people to this disruption.
Teacher unions resisted pressure for a swift reopening of K-12 schools. While advocates for reopening, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics by the summer of 2020, recognized the need, widespread fears still lingered regarding health risks to children, teachers, and their communities.
The reopening debate became intertwined with partisan issues and broader discussions about masks, social distancing, and vaccines. Colleges and universities faced different challenges than elementary schools, imposing strict social distancing measures even as vaccines became available. Many families, particularly from communities hardest hit by the pandemic, opted to keep their children learning from home.
What the evidence shows: Studies indicate that prolonged school closures likely did not significantly curb the virus's spread but came with a heavy cost to students, suggesting that schools might have functioned more normally with basic safety measures in place. Disagreements persist between those who argue for keeping schools open without adequate precautions and those who advocate for more stringent measures.
2. Natural immunity from prior infection could end the pandemic
Who made the claim: Makary, February 2021
What happened: A 77 percent decrease in new Covid cases over six weeks led Makary to believe that herd immunity was imminent, and that vaccination and prior infection could dramatically reduce disease transmission.
“At the current trajectory, I expect Covid will be mostly gone by April, allowing Americans to resume normal life,” he wrote. “When the chain of virus transmission has been broken in multiple places, it’s harder for it to spread — and that includes the new strains.”
While acknowledging that new variants would allow Covid-19 to persist for decades, he noted that countries with new strains were experiencing significant case reductions and that reinfections were mostly mild.
“As we encourage everyone to get a vaccine, we also need to reopen schools and society to limit the damage of closures and prolonged isolation. Contingency planning for an open economy by April can deliver hope to those in despair and to those who have made large personal sacrifices,” he added.
What the evidence shows: If the virus had not mutated, Makary might have been correct that Covid would have been “mostly gone” by April 2021, though this remains uncertain. With the rise of new variants, experts noted that herd immunity had not been attained, even with a substantial number of vaccinations and prior infections.
Studies suggest that reinfections carry similar severity levels, and many public health officials now argue that herd immunity was never realistically attainable for SARS-CoV-2.
3. Mandatory masking was a mistake, especially for kids
Who made the claim: Makary, November 2021
What happened: Throughout 2021 and into early 2022, many states and cities, particularly those led by Democrats, enforced mask mandates, occasionally requiring children to wear masks even into the summer. A federal judge later struck down mask mandates for public transportation and pre-K programs.
Having initially recommended universal masking in May 2020, Makary concluded by late 2021 that it was no longer necessary outside of certain high-risk groups.
“If you use universal masking as a heavy hand beyond its utility, you alienate the authority of public health,” he stated.
He expressed concerns that indiscriminate mask policies adversely affected children's learning and language acquisition and pointed to a lack of evidence supporting their effectiveness in these contexts.
What the evidence shows: Many public health officials still assert the importance of masking.
“Masking was a good idea,” Offit noted, highlighting that while masks don’t offer flawless protection, high-quality masks effectively reduce transmission.
However, a 2023 review of mask studies by the Cochrane Library found insufficient evidence to conclusively prove their effectiveness against respiratory viral infections. In hindsight, Offit said a more nuanced approach would have been preferable, advocating for targeted mask advisories.
4. Vaccine mandates and guidance for young, healthy people were unscientific
Who made the claim: Makary, June 2021, and Bhattacharya, November 2021
What happened: President Biden introduced vaccine mandates for employees at companies with over 100 workers and for various public sector workers in late 2021.
The summer of 2021 saw a notable outbreak among vaccinated individuals, contradicting earlier assurances about vaccination preventing the virus transmission.
Bhattacharya claimed mandating the vaccine was unethical since the shots didn’t prevent infection, while Makary argued that the guidance advising all individuals to receive two doses was excessive.
Despite the U.S. still recommending Covid vaccines for all individuals aged 6 months and older, most European nations have shifted their focus away from recommending annual vaccinations for young, healthy citizens.
What the evidence shows: There is broad agreement among public health officials emphasizing the benefits of initial vaccination for most individuals, while opinions on boosters are more varied.
Benjamin affirmed that as understanding evolved, it became evident that the risks to children were lower than initially perceived. Current CDC messaging has been adjusted to focus on higher-risk populations, alongside recognition that vaccinations help protect vulnerable individuals.
5. Lockdown costs outweighed their benefits
Who made the claim: Bhattacharya, October 2020
What happened: As Covid began spreading in the spring of 2020, most states enacted stay-at-home orders. While these restrictions were less stringent than those seen in Europe or China, they nonetheless closed non-essential businesses and schools while allowing some movement.
Bhattacharya proposed an alternative strategy through the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated against lockdowns and encouraged low-risk individuals to develop herd immunity.
“Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health,” the declaration argued, pointing to consequences such as declines in childhood vaccinations.
What the evidence shows: Some experts contend that Bhattacharya’s concerns about the restrictions' impacts are valid. Offit shared, “We didn’t need to close schools nearly as long as we did,” acknowledging the adverse effects on children’s education and socialization.
Others, however, caution that the intent behind social distancing was crucial for controlling spread prior to vaccine availability.
“Lockdowns aren’t a treatment of choice," Adalja remarked, emphasizing that such measures should be considered a last resort.
Mathilde Moreau contributed to this report for TROIB News
