With the publishing of the diary Dr. Anthony Fauci kept on a government computer, many people who are still struggling with economic setbacks, their kids’ learning loss, mental problems, and the failure to see loved ones before they passed away, among other things, are calling for the Doctor’s head. While I share their dismay at the unnecessary detrimental actions Fauci favored that cost so many so much, I think we need to look at how these failures came about so we never repeat them.

Pandemics have occurred throughout history and likely will continue in the future. It stands to reason that institutions such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and our Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) should create guidance on how to proceed when one raises its ugly head. By developing their responses before a crisis and coolly analyzing the data during calm times, we could avoid hasty, even panic-driven actions likely to make matters worse. Maybe much worse.

So why didn’t these esteemed organizations have a plan when COVID hit? It may come as a surprise to many, but both WHO and the CDC did have well-developed, thoughtful guidance. It was the Trump administration that decided to appoint a new board to guide our response, rather than follow the CDC plan already in place. It’s as if a school had a well-developed fire plan, but at the first sign of smoke the principal appointed a committee to work out a new plan rather than just following the existing one. Makes no sense and is likely dangerous, but that’s what we did.

Vice President Mike Pence, Alex Azar, the Health and Human Services Secretary, Dr. Deborah Birx, coordinator, Dr. Antony Fauci, infectious diseases; Dr. Robert Redfield, CDC director; and Jerome Adams, Surgeon General, made up the board. Maybe impressive on paper, but why would any plan this bunch came up with be as well thought out as the existing CDC plan? If Redfield had the CDC plan, and he did, why did he go along with this ad hoc committee?

The answer is Donald Trump didn’t trust or care for the CDC. He chose to bring the COVID response into the White House, making it impossible not to be political. In a sharply divided nation, this made certain the partisan backbiting that followed.

Like all committees or boards, someone becomes the spokesperson. The Committee face. After reading Fauci’s diary, is it any wonder this publicity-seeking narcissist grabbed the limelight? If Birx was supposed to be the coordinator, does anybody remember her other than her scarves?

We know how the board’s product turned out, and we’re still suffering from its many missteps. How would things have differed if we had adhered to the gist of the CDC and WHO guidelines? Both were against any widespread lockdowns, favoring targeted responses. The enormous costs of widespread lockdowns, they calculated, couldn’t be justified or maintained. Protect the most at-risk, but let most life continue. Adjust the response to the data.

So why didn’t anyone follow the in-place plans? Sweden’s response pretty much did that—a targeted response rather than massive lockdowns. Schools never closed because the data showed little risk, against possible massive learning loss. A greater benefit vs. very high cost. For its efforts, Sweden was vilified. Of course, it had the last laugh, with much better outcomes.

Most of Europe woke up and followed Sweden, quickly reopening schools, then ending the lockdowns. Unfortunately, many of our states didn’t. According to his diary, Fauci remained in the keep-schools-closed camp. In the blue states where he was hailed as “science,” the teachers’ union got their wish to keep the schools closed. Lockdowns stayed in place much longer, adding to the damage.

You might be thinking, with hindsight, you can always do better, but everyone was in a fog at the time. Unfortunately, that isn’t true. As soon as the lockdowns were announced, plenty of people with clear knowledge of the problem and the alternative WHO and CDC approaches spoke up.

Even I, with no medical expertise, took notice on March 20 and 26, publishing an alternative plan on March 29 and April 25, 2020, that mirrored the CDC and WHO approach, even though I wasn’t aware of them at the time. I just followed the known data. (My entire COVID-19 series is available here)

Dissenting medical professionals, economists, public health policy professionals, scientists, and researchers made their way into some media such as Fox News and The Wall Street Journal. Still, they were shunned by most of the legacy media. Frustrated at being ignored or vilified, close to a million lockdown objectors in September of ’20 signed the “Great Barrington Declaration,” setting forth their alternative. Again, this plan echoed the principles of the CDC and WHO plans.

Fauci was at the forefront of the attacks on the Declaration. Of course, he was supported by most of the media. Social networks were pressured to ban it and its signers. The dissenters were labeled as dangerous. Somehow things got turned on their heads. Those who wanted to follow the existing fire drill were labeled as pedaling perilous, unscientific nonsense by those running around yelling fire.

This outcome is exactly what the CDC and WHO, along with many others, knew would happen without a standing plan. At some point, President Trump became aware he and his board’s results were a mess. Maybe he watched Fox News, which presented well-qualified dissenters who made no bones about the errors.

In August, Trump appointed one of the most prominent dissenters, Stanford doctor Scott Atlas, as a special COVID advisor. While much of the media dismissed the Doctor as a neurologist with no infectious disease background, he was in fact a well-known medical policy expert who advised the Romney campaign, among others, on the cost-benefit analysis of medical policies.

He was exactly what was needed. The Doctor presented solid data that the president and, more importantly, many states needed to reopen their schools. This action was followed by reopening their economies. Those who listened benefited, but unfortunately, many states followed board members, Fauci, and Birx and stayed locked down. Any fair-minded person must admit Dr. Atlas was right all along.

Of course, his positions had the benefit of the example of states that either never shut down or quickly reopened, such as South Dakota and Florida. Rather than the disasters Fauci and his supporters predicted, they thrived.

Rather than beating up on an already disgraced 85-year-old narcissist, whose appalling judgment and place in the cover-up of the origins of COVID-19 are widely known, and putting him in prison, we need to zoom in on preventing a recurrence of our COVID errors. Those in the media standing by the Doctor have no choice but to stick with him. Having lauded him as “science ” personified, admitting they were horrible at their jobs isn’t in the cards.

Who at the New York Times or CNN even asked why the CDC plan was ignored? The Chris Cuomos of the world won’t change. His program on CNN doted on the Doctor while either ignoring or denigrating the opposition. Now he’s on News Nation still extolling Fauci’s virtues. People like him will never admit their ignorance. Having a plan in place hopefully will blunt their mischief.

What’s important is to update and reinstate the CDC pandemic plan and publicize it widely. Make sure every newsroom is familiar with it at the first sign of an outbreak. Like with the school fire, we take the action we drilled for. Don’t let political leaders like Trump panic, grab control, and botch our response. By all means, point to our horrible COVID experience when we didn’t adhere to the program.

Having a medical policy expert on staff or on call to coordinate the data and determine the cost-benefit of any actions is a necessity. Many won’t like to hear this, but a Scott Atlas guiding the application of the CDC plan would’ve avoided most of our COVID errors.

As soon as the danger is identified, the medical policy expert gathers the data to identify the targets in the most effective method—resources sent to needed areas. As more data is received, the responses are updated. Everyone is aware that we’re managing the pandemic in the best and most transparent way possible. We avert panic-induced actions.

Just because you’re an infectious disease expert doesn’tmean you can see the bigger picture. As I said at the time, Dr. Fauci was the perfect example of Laurence J. Peter’s “Peter Principle” in action; he was promoted at least one step above his abilities. What’s needed is people with a wider scope. Just because you might be great at researching infectious diseases doesn’t qualify you to run our response to a pandemic.

This Fauci failing was crystal clear when Trump economic advisor Steven Moore brought up cost-benefit analysis of Fauci’s prescriptions; the Doctor not only dismissed the idea, but was hostile to the concept and to Moore. I don’t know any responsible person who wants someone who didn’t care about costs and benefits determining your policies and strategy in any endeavor, including medical.

Our COVID-19 response will make a great case study of how not to handle pandemics, but will the institutions and media involved do it honestly?