A cruise ship reporting an outbreak of Hantavirus, with a loss of life, brought back memories of COVID and how we responded. Lockdowns, needless nursing home deaths, school closures, isolation, and all the rules, such as distancing and mask requirements. Not a pleasant memory.

Then we have the recent Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee receiving testimony from a CIA whistleblower on the cover-up of the likely Wuhan Lab Covid origin. Dr. Anthony Fauci used his government position to intervene in a CIA report on the lab’s origins, which was connected to funding for the Wuhan Lab. That establishment was conducting “Change of Function” research that could have resulted in the Covid virus.

Shining a light on how misinformation and government actors led to actions we’re still suffering from, it made clear that the top-down government response failed on a massive scale. Yet, this is the type of crisis progressives claim government experts handle best.

To understand how we ended up on this Covid response road, we have to recall the history of top-down government dominance. As I’ve pointed out in “Long Journey to More”, for thousands of years, settled agricultural societies divided people into classes, with an educated ruling class at the top (up to 10%), an illiterate mass, and a smaller artisan-merchant class in between.

The masses lacked the knowledge to dispute what the government told them, and the artisan-merchant class, though often literate, was too dependent on the ruling class’s good graces to offer much dissent—human progress was glacial.

This situation allowed the ruling class to concoct any explanation and take whatever actions they decided. With religion usually part of the top class, rulings took on a divine quality. Sacrifices, often human, were a preferred method for ending crises such as droughts. The church could dictate a solar system with Earth at its center. You accepted, because you lacked the means to object.

Starting with the century that changed everything, the 15th century, the long-established worldwide system started to show cracks, culminating in a revolution that established the first truly bottom-up government, 250 years ago. Rather than the Ruler proclaiming whatever, the now literate populace needed convincing. With ever-increasing access to information, anyone can marshal facts and data to enter the debate.

Today’s progressives, whether in their socialist, communist, fascist, or quasi-religious mode, seek to reestablish a superior ruling class that rules through its “expertise.”

The COVID experience illuminates how unsuitable this outdated societal organization is in the information age. Rather than adhering to existing plans that didn’t call for an extreme lockdown, the Trump administration, following the guidance of its “experts,” closed most of the nation down in March of 2020. All sorts of mandates, such as distancing, masking, and more, followed. Government experts took full control.

Unlike in ages past, people and organizations from diverse backgrounds immediately offered alternative views. I started what became my COVID-19 series at the same time. Rather than extreme lockdowns, we looked at the data and concluded that resources should be focused on older people and the infirm, while leaving the younger, healthy people to go on with their lives. All agreed that schools shouldn’t be closed. Most of us pointed to the Wuhan Lab as the most likely source of COVID.

Led by Dr. Fauci, the government’s COVID expert team derided their questioners. When close to a million people, including non-government experts such as Nobel Prize winners, signed the “The Great Barrington Declaration,” Dr. Fauci denounced it as “nonsense and very dangerous,” and would result in an unacceptable death toll.

Sweden, looking at the same data, refused to shut down. Its schools stayed open. That nation joined the Barrington signers in incurring not only Fauci’s and the government’s derision, but also that of the left-leaning media. ” Fauci claimed on Good Morning America in late 2020. “They are starting to see that their death rate is much higher than the surrounding countries of Norway, Denmark, and Finland.”

The truth is, “Sweden experienced relatively fewer deaths per population unit than most other high-income countries that implemented stricter lockdown measures. It is concerning that some scientists who advocated for stringent measures seem to disregard real-world data and cling to their version of reality,” according to the N I.H.

Other Scandinavian nations quickly saw the error of their ways and joined their neighbor in having open schools. Some American states also bucked the government “experts” and never shut down. Florida quickly reversed course and worked to reopen schools. People were allowed to walk on its famous beaches.

Like the declaration signers and Sweden, Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, incurred the wrath of Fauci and friends, including much of the media.

Why is all this important? COVID gave us a real-time test of Progressive government by “experts.” They knew best, and everyone must fall in line. As Dr. Fauci put it, “I represent science.” Sounds like the 14th century. In our information age, facts and data are available worldwide at our fingertips. Rather than being restricted to a small number of government bureaucrats, accomplished people worldwide can review the information and weigh in.

With COVID, we saw exactly this play out. The bureaucrats dictate their plan of action, while others around the world reach different conclusions and take a different direction.

With a diverse range of reactions to the same data, we could choose which action worked best. For example, seeing Sweden’s success in keeping its schools open prompted others to reopen their schools, thereby preventing further harm.

In the U.S., President Trump agreed with his new outside advisor, Dr. Scott Atlas, and called for schools to reopen. Red states moved to in-person learning much quicker than the progressive blue states, limiting the harm done to their children during the pandemic.

The progressive top-down approach to a major problem showed its limitations. One size fits all, even if it’s the wrong size. In closed groups, as in bureaucracies, the personal may intrude, as it did with Dr. Fauci’s connection to the Wuhan Lab. Notoriously slow-acting bureaucracies are at odds with our accelerating rate of change.

Today, with the advent of AI, we have even greater availability of information, allowing far more minds to work on solutions. They may not agree, but they can present us with choices. We can compare and follow success, as some did with schools during COVID. Interaction, rather than conflict, between government actors and knowledgeable outsiders could have produced better outcomes.

Milton Friedman showed how we’re much better off when we’re “Free to Choose.” Now is no time to go backward to a system that has never worked in the modern world. Schoolchildren in blue states who are still suffering from COVID-19 closures are a clear warning against progressive governance. COVID was a test, and it failed.

(Both the Covid 19 and the Long Journey to “More” series are available here)