COVID-19 lockdown revisionism

When Claims of ‘Revisionism’ and ‘Misinformation’ are Themselves Misinformed: Implications for Policy Decision-Making

“…We agree that "not every measure was implemented ideally in terms of its costs versus benefits. Competing priorities… created spaces for reasonable disagreement" (Murdoch and Caulfield 2023). However, we do not agree with assertions that follow that statement, which we believe misrepresent arguments and claim victory for public health interventions.…”

“…The term 'lockdowns' was asserted to be framed as a false binary, since measures varied in severity and "attempted to strike a complex balance" -specifically, a meta-analysis was said to be "less convincing than comparative assessments of health measures, like the Oxford Stringency Index" (Murdoch and Caulfield 2023). These are puzzling assertions.…”

“…The Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) was asserted to "ha [ve] been scientifically discredited" (Murdoch and Caulfield 2023), referring to a paper by Caulfield and colleagues, where discredited seemed to mean being argued by a "small, vocal, and heavily publicized coalition of scientists with prestigious credentials and prominent government advisors," who "introduce controversy on uncontroversial topics… misinformed opinions… [including] unscientific ideas… [that have been] countered by others as a false option" (Zenone et al 2022). This claim was based on assertions that the GBD had proposed "natural herd immunity" [defined as when "community-acquired infections in low-risk populations are used to protect high risk populations from infection"] was said to be "condemned by most public health institutions and academics," and the "death toll would be intolerable and overwhelm healthcare systems," it is "impossible to control the spread of the virus to certain low-risk populations," it "isn't clear who is at higher risk" (for example, "young people may get a persistent illness"), that it is "not possible or ethical to segregate certain populations to protect them," and that Sweden's mortality and infections are higher than in other similar locales (Zenone et al 2022).…”

“…Lockdown "revisionism" has been defined as "the spread of misinformation on lockdowns and other public health measures" (Murdoch and Caulfield 2023). We are concerned that the term 'revisionism', like the term 'misinformation' contained in its definition, are merely labels used to denigrate evidence-based contrary conclusions so as to avoid having to confront and critically appraise the best evidence itself.…”

“…Framed in this way, authors risk being accused of engaging in the very lockdown revisionism they so desire to regulate and censor. Here we aim to use a recent publication by Murdoch and Caulfield (2023) claiming 'lockdown revisionism' to describe how, by glossing over topics without fully engaging with the best evidence available, many assertions made do not withstand critical scrutiny. At least that is one area of agreement between us and Murdoch and Caulfield: "people everywhere should be armed with the critical thinking and media literacy skills necessary to see through the noise" (Murdoch and Caulfield 2023).…”