WASHINGTON – Today, the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic concluded its two-year investigation into the COVID-19 pandemic and released a final report titled “After Action Review of the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Lessons Learned and a Path Forward.” The final report will serve as a road map for Congress, the Executive Branch, and the private sector to prepare for and respond to future pandemics. Since February 2023, the Select Subcommittee has sent more than 100 investigative letters, conducted more than 30 transcribed interviews and depositions, held 25 hearings and meetings, and reviewed more than one million pages of documents. Members and staff have exposed high-level corruption in America’s public health system, confirmed the most likely origin of the pandemic, held COVID-19 bad actors publicly accountable, fostered bipartisan consensus on consequential pandemic-era issues, and more. This 520-page final report details all findings of the Select Subcommittee’s investigation.

Governments at every level and private entities implemented social distancing nationwide in manner that adversely impacted nearly every person in the country...

Six feet of social distancing was a phrase and rule known by every single American during the pandemic. Amazingly, social distancing guidance was not revised until August 2022.765 Even though it was CDC guidance and not a mandate, it was forcefully implemented by state and local governments and caused lots of strife amongst Americans.766 Social distancing requirements were largely responsible for closing businesses, heightening a sense in loss of community, and were part of the reasoning schools could not reopen for so long.

While six feet of social distancing was a cornerstone policy associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, like many others that were implemented, public health leadership did not articulate or explain the science behind the decision...

In June 2024, at a public hearing, Dr. Fauci continued to articulate that the six-foot rule for social distancing was not supported by quality scientific standards. He additionally attempted to further distance himself from the issue by stating the decision making of this policy implementation was the responsibility of the CDC...

At the hearing, Dr. Fauci discussed that he did not want to appear to push back against another scientific institution. He again placed the blame on the CDC, even though he noted the CDC was part of the COVID-19 response team.

Even though Dr. Fauci was arguably one of the most notable, recognizable faces and names of the COVID-19 response team, and a strong advocate for the six-foot of separation rule, he continuously stated the policy was blindly accepted, without any further discussion as to possible consequences or alternative routes.

The justification for one of the most impactful COVID-19 policies, that arguable affected the most Americans in their day-to-day lives, was “it sort of just appeared.” There were no scientific trials or studies conducted before this policy was implemented, there appeared to be no pushback or internal discussion amongst the highest level of leadership, and more importantly there appears to be no acceptance of responsibility. That is an unacceptable answer from public health leadership. Decisions of this magnitude must have scientific backing that can be explained to the American public.

Ultimately, a systematic review carried out by Cochrane Collaboration—one of the most highly regarded methodologies in evidence-based healthcare—found that the pooled randomized control trials they analyzed “did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks” and that “[t]here were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection.” These results appear to directly contradict public health agencies’ and local governments’ support for broadly requiring masking throughout much of the pandemic.

In late January 2023, the most rigorous and comprehensive review of the scientific literature on masks during the COVID-19 pandemic was published by Cochrane. Cochrane is considered the worlds most respected organization for evaluating health interventions, is known for being the single best resource for methodologic research, and is recognized as having the highest standard of evidence-based healthcare. The January 2023 publication found that wearing any kind of face covering “probably makes little or no difference” in reducing the spread of respiratory illness. The study reviewed 15 trials comparing outcomes of wearing surgical masks versus no mask and also versus N95 masks, in hospital and community settings during the pandemic. The conclusion was that the value of wearing masks was approximately zero. “There is just no evidence that they make any difference. Full stop.”

It is apparent that the CDC and the Biden Administration cherry-picked observational data to fit their narrative that masks are fully effective. Yet, that is not the role of the CDC. The CDC is an agency meant to protect the American people, and part of that responsibility includes conducting, sponsoring, or at the very least examining clinical trials to actually have the best available research before formulating its guidance.

Ignoring the science and facts of COVID-19 and the harms of masking young children was profoundly immoral on behalf of the leadership of the country’s public health officials. The future consequences of these types of draconian policies are not yet known, but public health leaders in the future should remember that all policy must be decided in a balanced manner.

The COVID-19 pandemic proved to be one of the most consequential events in modern American history. Yet, the virus itself may not have the same lasting effects to health, culture, and the economy as the government’s policy response. From the local to the federal level, policies aimed at fighting COVID-19 had tremendous unintended consequences and side-effects that we will likely be dealing with for generations to come. One of the most controversial and consequential of these pandemic-era policies were the stay-at-home orders and other social distancing policies generally referred to as “lockdowns.” Later in the pandemic a new de facto lockdown emerged for unvaccinated Americans in many parts of the country with mandatory vaccination policies often referred to as “vaccine passports.” Most federal lockdown policies were nonbinding guidelines for states to use to inform their own policy, though they directly led to stringent lockdowns which were executed with the force of law in many states.

On March 16, 2020, the Trump Administration announced “15 days to slow the spread” guidelines. Subsequent to these guidelines, states and localities took it a step further and began to issue strict lockdown orders.

Ultimately, the promised 15 days evolved into years, which caused incredibly damaging consequences for the American people. Rather than prioritizing the protection of the most vulnerable, federal and state government policies encouraged or forced millions of Americans to forego critical elements of a healthy, happy, productive, and fulfilling life. This appears to be a fundamental problem with the public health approach favored by American institutions during the pandemic.

Potentially the most severe consequence of COVID-19 lockdowns was the damage they caused to the economy. In the wake of COVID-19 lockdowns, businesses closed, workers were laid off, and inflation soared. The lockdowns also disproportionately disrupted service industry jobs, thereby doubly punishing lower wage earners across the country while professional and business sectors shifted to remote work. Meanwhile, shifting consumer habits and disrupted supply chains helped to pump up the stock market and drive-up profits for large corporations and wealthy individuals. As a result of lockdowns, millions of Americans experienced new and painful economic hardship.

Enduring COVID-19 lockdowns had drastic consequences on the mental health of many Americans, including elevated substance abuse, overdoses, and suicide. The full picture of these consequences is not yet knowable as it will take years to collect and analyze the data, however currently available data already indicates incredibly troubling trends. For example, a March 2024 Nature study found a 22 percent increase in mental health disorders between 2019 and 2020. The study also found a causal relationship between lockdowns and mental health disorders.

The COVID-19 vaccines are arguably more akin to treatments than the traditional vaccines the American public is used to receiving in early childhood. The mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 did not prevent human-to-human transmission nor prevent COVID-19 infection in the way that traditional vaccines have been able to do. Not fully and honestly explaining this dynamic was a critical public health messaging failure. It is likely that COVID-19 vaccine passport policies and related divisive political rhetoric will have continued impact on Americans’ perception of public health and may be a hurdle for future pandemic preparedness.

Not only did COVID-19 vaccine mandates cause many unintended consequences, but they were also not based in science... However, it was already evident then and is now commonly known that the vaccines do not prevent you from getting infected or transmitting the virus. This seems to invalidate the most basic logic of a vaccine mandate.

Relatedly, the COVID-19 vaccine mandates applied a one-size-fits-all approach to medicine which seriously undermined the patient-physician relationship. The mandates decreased the doctor’s decision-space to make individualized risk-based assessments to determine the proper course of action.

Possibly the most alarming figures are the comparisons between COVID-19 vaccines, which have only been widely available since early 2021, and all other vaccines combined since 1990. The charts below illustrate this comparison.