Quit gaslighting us — elite groupthink drove the COVID disaster

New York Post - Apr 25th, 2025

Five years after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, a contentious debate has resurfaced regarding the accountability of elite figures and organizations in shaping pandemic policies. The discourse is fueled by claims from influential individuals like economist Tyler Cowen, who argues that the elites largely succeeded in managing the crisis, despite undeniable failures such as prolonged school closures. Critics point to figures like Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers, accused of hindering school reopenings, and argue that political motives rather than public health were often prioritized. The narrative attempts to absolve elites of blame while ignoring the economic and educational impacts still felt in states like New York and California, in contrast to recoveries seen in places like Florida and Texas.

The story highlights the intersection of pandemic policy-making and political dynamics, with accusations of virtue signaling and cancel culture affecting decision-making processes. This period is described as one where groupthink dominated the left, leading to policy decisions that were more about maintaining political alliances than public welfare. The case of the American Academy of Pediatrics' shifting stance on school reopenings, influenced by political pressures and special-interest groups, exemplifies the politicization of pandemic responses. The ongoing debate underscores the need for accountability and challenges the notion that the elite class managed the pandemic effectively without significant mistakes, urging a re-examination of past decisions and the political context in which they were made.

Political Influence School Closures American Federation Of Teachers Randi Weingarten Covid 19 Policies Tyler Cowen Pandemic Accountability

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

4.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article presents a provocative and opinionated perspective on the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on the perceived failures of liberal policies and figures. While it addresses topics of significant public interest, such as school closures and political accountability, its accuracy is undermined by a lack of direct citations and reliance on subjective interpretations. The narrative is clear and engaging but heavily biased, which limits the balance and comprehensiveness of the analysis. Despite its potential to spark discussion and influence public opinion, the article would benefit from a more balanced approach and greater transparency in sourcing and methodology.

Accuracy

The article presents a mix of factual claims and subjective opinions that require verification. For instance, it claims that school closures led to speech impediments and significant learning loss, which are partially supported by existing studies but require more specific data to confirm the extent and causation. The statement about unemployment rates in New York and California versus Florida and Texas is another area needing precise economic data for verification. The narrative about the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) reversing its stance due to political pressure is partially grounded in documented events, but the exact influence of unions needs further evidence. Statements regarding Anthony Fauci's position on school reopenings linked to Biden's spending bill also require a review of public records and timelines to verify accuracy. Overall, while some claims are based on factual events, others are speculative or require additional context and data for full verification.

Balance

The article exhibits a clear bias, predominantly criticizing liberal policies and figures while underrepresenting opposing viewpoints. It focuses heavily on the perceived failures of Democratic leaders and institutions during the pandemic, such as the AAP, Anthony Fauci, and teachers' unions, without equally examining the actions or mistakes of Republican leaders or red states. This imbalance suggests a lack of comprehensive perspective and an inclination towards a particular political narrative. The piece could benefit from a more balanced exploration of the complexities and challenges faced by decision-makers across the political spectrum during the pandemic.

Clarity

The article is written in a clear and engaging style, making it accessible to a general audience. However, the tone is highly opinionated, which may affect the neutrality and objectivity of the information presented. The structure is logical, with a clear progression of arguments, but the use of emotionally charged language and strong rhetoric may detract from the factual clarity of the piece. While the article effectively communicates its central narrative, the lack of balanced perspective and reliance on subjective opinions may hinder comprehensive understanding.

Source quality

The article lacks direct citations and references to authoritative sources to support its claims. It relies heavily on the author's interpretations and anecdotal evidence, such as private messages on social media, rather than verified data or expert analysis. The absence of diverse and credible sources, such as academic studies or official reports, undermines the reliability of the information presented. The article would benefit from incorporating a wider range of sources to substantiate its claims and provide a more robust foundation for its arguments.

Transparency

The article does not clearly disclose the basis for many of its claims, nor does it provide sufficient context or methodology behind the assertions made. The lack of transparency in how conclusions are drawn and the absence of clear sourcing for statements, such as the impact of mask mandates on speech development, detracts from the article's credibility. Additionally, potential conflicts of interest, such as the author's political affiliations or motivations, are not addressed, which could influence the impartiality of the narrative presented.