Hoping We Learned from COVID: Rethinking the Pandemic Response

The COVID-19 pandemic shook the world in ways none of us could have imagined. As a Certified Nurse Midwife (CNM) and Women’s Health Nurse Practitioner (WHNP), I experienced the disruptions it caused at work and home. To be clear, I am not a medical doctor, immunologist, economist, or political expert, but I am a concerned citizen who somewhat understands medicine. My goal here isn’t to point fingers but to share thoughts on how I think things could have been done differently—and how we can learn from the past.

When the pandemic hit, decisions were made quickly, some of which made sense given the fear and uncertainty. However, as time passed, it became clear that not all policies were helpful, and some were downright harmful. This article explores the lessons we’ve learned, examining vaccine safety, social and economic impacts, and the controversies around masking, distancing, mandates, and election changes.

Vaccine Development and Safety

The push to develop COVID-19 vaccines was nothing short of historic. The vaccines were rolled out faster than any in history, a major achievement. However, with that speed, some important compromises regarding testing and safety were made.

1. Rushed Development and Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)
   • The COVID-19 vaccines were developed in record time, with the first vaccines becoming available less than a year after the pandemic began. Under normal circumstances, vaccine development takes several years or even decades, allowing time for multiple phases of clinical trials, including long-term follow-up for safety and efficacy.
   • Because of the urgency, the vaccines were approved under EUA, allowing them to be distributed before completing the full process normally required for traditional approval. Phase III trials were shortened, and long-term safety data was unavailable at the time of release. As a result, there wasn’t enough time to fully understand how the vaccines might affect different groups, such as pregnant women, those with autoimmune conditions, or people taking certain medications.
2. Examples of Shortcuts Taken During Development
   • Shortened Clinical Trials: Clinical trials are usually conducted in three phases to test safety, dosage, and efficacy over several years. For COVID-19 vaccines, some phases were combined or conducted in parallel. For instance, Moderna and Pfizer began Phase III trials before completing Phase II trials. While this accelerated the process, it also meant less time to observe potential delayed side effects.
   • Limited Long-term Data: At the time of EUA, long-term safety and effectiveness data were limited to a few months of follow-up. Questions about the duration of immunity, potential long-term side effects, and the effectiveness against variants remained unanswered when the vaccines were first distributed.
   • Exclusion of Certain Populations from Early Trials: Pregnant women, people with autoimmune conditions, the very old, and children were not included in the initial trials, leaving gaps in safety data for these groups. Consequently, recommendations for these populations were based on limited information, creating confusion and hesitation.
   • Manufacturing and Quality Control Variability: The rapid scale-up of vaccine production raised concerns about manufacturing quality and consistency. Early batches, such as some from Johnson & Johnson, faced quality control issues that led to recalls and concerns about contamination.
3. A More Balanced Approach
   • While rapid vaccine development was necessary, a more cautious approach could have involved rolling out vaccines to the most vulnerable populations while continuing safety studies before expanding distribution to the general public. This would have allowed more time to identify rare side effects.
   • Using adaptive trial designs could have gathered more data on specific subpopulations early on, providing a clearer understanding of risks and benefits for different groups.
4. What We Know Today About Side Effects
   • As more people received the vaccines, reports of side effects emerged, some of which were not fully understood at the rollout. Vaccine Information Statements (VISs) and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) list several known side effects today.
   • Common Side Effects: The most frequently reported side effects include fatigue, headache, muscle pain, fever, and swelling at the injection site. While often mild, they can be severe and prolonged in some cases.
   • Serious Adverse Events: There have been many reports of serious side effects like myocarditis (especially in younger males after mRNA vaccines) and blood clotting disorders linked to viral vector vaccines. Though the official reporting lists these as rare, these conditions can be life-threatening and remain unexplained.
   • Long-term Effects Still Unknown: The rushed development left gaps in understanding long-term effects. Concerns remain about impacts on fertility, autoimmune conditions, and other health issues, although no definitive risks have been confirmed. Interestingly, the fertility rate has decreased significantly during this same period.
   • Underreporting and Data Limitations in VAERS: VAERS relies on voluntary reporting, leading to potential underreporting or overreporting due to heightened awareness. This calls for better systems to track vaccine-related side effects.
   • Transparency and Public Trust: The evolving information on side effects and the initial downplaying of risks have contributed to declining public trust. More transparent and regularly updated data sharing could have helped people make informed vaccination decisions.
5. Current Data on Vaccine Effectiveness and Limitations
   • Declining Effectiveness Over Time: Early claims of high efficacy (above 90%) were undermined by real-world data showing that protection against infection diminishes significantly within a few months. Breakthrough cases among the “fully vaccinated” became common, leading to frequent booster campaigns.
   • Short-Lived Booster Benefits: Booster doses temporarily increase antibody levels, but their effectiveness against infection often wanes within a few months. The pattern of diminishing returns has raised questions about the long-term strategy for repeated boosters.
   • Comparisons to Flu Vaccines: The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines has been more akin to annual flu shots, which typically range from 10% to 60% depending on the flu strain. The initial claims of 90-95% efficacy seem increasingly unrealistic.
   • Questions About Preventing Severe Outcomes: The claim that vaccines reduce severe illness, hospitalization, and death has been questioned, as pre-existing conditions, early treatments, or natural immunity can influence comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.
   • Impact of Variants: Variants like Delta and Omicron have shown the ability to evade vaccine-induced immunity, resulting in higher breakthrough infection rates. While vaccines may still provide some protection against severe illness, their ability to prevent infection is dubious.
   • Challenges With Transmission Control: Vaccines have not significantly reduced the spread of COVID-19, particularly with newer variants. This has shifted the focus from achieving herd immunity to exploring other strategies.
   • Natural Immunity and Hybrid Immunity: Natural immunity offers longer-lasting protection than vaccine-induced immunity. Some believe that hybrid (natural immunity from getting COVID-19 and being vaccinated) immunity may provide the strongest defense, but the benefits of additional doses for those previously infected are debated.
   • Concerns About Efficacy Metrics: The way vaccine efficacy has been measured has shifted from preventing symptomatic infection to preventing severe outcomes, which can be confusing and distort public understanding. Also, this has never been how we have measured vaccine effectiveness for other illnesses.

Social and Economic Impact

The “14 Days to Slow the Spread” effort was supposed to be a short-term plan to prevent hospitals from becoming overwhelmed. At first, I supported it and the one-time $1,400 payments because people were scared, and it seemed like a reasonable step. But then things dragged on, and the restrictions felt like overkill.

1. The Harm of Prolonged Lockdowns
   • The ongoing shutdowns took a serious toll. Businesses closed, schools became remote, and people were isolated for too long. Mental health problems skyrocketed, and the quality of education dropped, especially in lower-income communities.
   • The effectiveness of the restrictions was questionable. Studies showed that lockdowns didn’t always prevent the spread like they were supposed to. A more focused approach might have been a better option, such as protecting vulnerable groups while letting lower-risk individuals continue with life.
2. Hospital Restrictions and the Rise in Homebirths
   • Hospitals put strict rules in place to limit COVID-19 exposure. In some cases, partners weren’t even allowed to be present for births, and later, proof of vaccination was required for partners to attend. This drove many women to seek out alternatives like homebirths, where they could have more control over their environment and support.
   • My business saw a big increase during this time as more families chose homebirths to avoid the strict hospital policies. It was clear that people were looking for safer and less restrictive options during such an important moment in their lives.
3. Financial Consequences and Wealth Inequality
   • While some relief measures, like stimulus checks and PPP loans, were helpful, the extended shutdowns hit small businesses the hardest. Meanwhile, big corporations seemed to profit from the situation, and the wealth gap grew wider.
   • In the future, economic policies during a crisis must consider the long-term effects on everyday people. We should aim to support small businesses and families more effectively.

Masking, Distancing, and the Impact on Society

At the start, masking and social distancing were introduced as measures to give people a sense of taking action against the virus. While the intention was to do something proactive, it quickly became apparent that these policies were more about optics than science. The rules were applied inconsistently and arbitrarily, raising serious doubts about their effectiveness. For example, people were required to wear masks while walking to their tables in a restaurant but could remove them once seated, as if the virus somehow knew not to spread while eating. These guidelines provided more of a false sense of security than any real protection.

Masking

Cheap cloth masks, the most commonly used by the public, proved to be almost completely ineffective at preventing the spread of the virus. While properly fitted N95 masks may have some limited benefit in certain high-risk settings, such as healthcare environments, the broad masking mandates did little to curb transmission. Instead, the emphasis on masking diverted attention from more effective strategies, such as pre-entry screening in high-risk areas (e.g., asking people about symptoms or taking temperatures).

As more data emerged, it became clear that these measures were not only ineffective but also caused unintended harm. Masks disrupted communication, social development, and education, while social distancing measures isolated people and fueled mental health problems. Future policies must prioritize evidence-based strategies over symbolic gestures and adapt as we learn more about the virus.

Recommendations for Future Approaches:

• Screening Over Masking: Instead of broad mask mandates, focus on screening for symptoms in high-risk settings such as hospitals or nursing homes. Asking a few questions about symptoms or taking a person’s temperature could be a more effective way to identify and isolate potential cases early.
• N95 Masks for Specific High-Risk Situations: If masks are required, limit mandates to properly fitted N95 respirators in very specific high-risk situations. Cloth and surgical masks should not be relied upon for general public use, as they offer little to no protection against viral transmission.

Social Distancing

Social distancing took a couple of forms. The first was “The 6-Foot Rule,” where people were forced to stand or sit at least 6 feet away from each other. The 6-foot rule was based on older studies about how respiratory droplets travel. Later research indicated that viral particles could spread much further indoors. The second form of social distancing was being in completely different rooms or buildings.  This led to a vast increase in remote working and distance learning, even if you didn’t want to. These policies had the impact of:

• Disruption in Daily Life and Learning: Distancing measures disrupted social interactions, making it difficult for kids to form connections, work on group projects, or play sports. This negatively impacted their development and enjoyment of school.
• Impact on Mental Health: The isolation caused by distancing measures contributed to a surge in mental health issues, such as anxiety, depression, and feelings of loneliness.
• Inconsistent Application: The rules were applied inconsistently across different settings, leading to confusion and raising doubts about their effectiveness.
• Educational Setbacks: Remote learning proved to be an inadequate substitute for in-person education, and many students fell behind in key areas like math and reading.
• Delayed Social and Emotional Development: Children missed out on essential social experiences, such as playing with friends and learning to navigate social situations.
• Risk-Benefit Analysis for Kids: Since children faced a lower risk from COVID-19, a more flexible approach could have been taken. Policies could have been adjusted based on local risk levels.
• Long-term Psychological Impact: The stress and disruption from these measures may have lasting effects on mental health, with reports of increased anxiety and behavioral issues in children.

Alternatives to Blanket Social Distancing Measures

• More Targeted Interventions: Interventions could have focused on high-risk groups and settings, like better ventilation or targeted protection for vulnerable populations.
• Incorporating Flexibility Based on Data: Policies should have been adjusted more dynamically to reflect actual risk levels.
• Empowering Individuals with Informed Choices: Providing clear information about the limitations of masking and distancing could have allowed people to make informed decisions.

Political Agendas, Vaccine Mandates, and Voting Rules

The pandemic brought about significant changes to public policies, some raising concerns about legality, ethics, and the impact on individual freedoms. Vaccine mandates, in particular, became controversial, with the government requiring millions of people to get vaccinated under threat of losing their jobs. This situation forced many to choose between their livelihood and their concerns over taking an experimental, rushed vaccine—a choice no one should be compelled to make.

Vaccine mandates violated informed consent principles and set a dangerous precedent. The idea that individuals should be required to take medical treatment, especially a treatment developed so quickly, goes against fundamental medical ethics. In a free society, people should never be coerced into taking a vaccine, especially when long-term safety and effectiveness remain uncertain.

Recommendations for Future Approaches:

• No Forced Vaccination Policies: Vaccination should always be voluntary, and no one should face job loss or other forms of coercion for refusing a vaccine, particularly when it is newly developed or under emergency use authorization. Instead, offer alternative options, such as regular testing for those who opt out.
• Respect Medical Freedom and Informed Consent: Mandates that threaten individual freedoms undermine the core principle of medical ethics. Transparent communication about the risks and benefits of any medical treatment, including vaccines, should be the standard approach.
• Increased Oversight of Emergency Powers: The use of emergency powers to enforce mandates or change public policies must have clear limits. Any changes should undergo legislative review and include public input to prevent misuse or overreach.

1. The Impact of Vaccine Mandates
   • Mandates Enacted by President Biden: The Biden administration introduced vaccine mandates for federal employees, healthcare workers, and companies with over 100 employees. These mandates forced millions to get vaccinated or risk losing their jobs. Thousands of individuals were ultimately fired for refusing the vaccine, with very little (if any) evidence that the vaccine prevented infection or transmission effectively, especially as new variants emerged.
   • Harm to Individuals and the Economy: For many people, the mandates created an impossible situation where they had to choose between their job and their medical concerns. The loss of jobs disrupted countless lives, leading to financial instability and emotional stress. The economic impact was also significant, as businesses faced worker shortages and some industries struggled to fill essential roles.
   • Effects on the Military and National Preparedness: Military personnel were also subject to vaccine mandates, with many being discharged for refusing the vaccine. This has raised concerns about military readiness, as the loss of trained service members may have weakened our preparedness. The situation has not been fully resolved, with many former military members still seeking to regain their positions or receive compensation for wrongful termination.
   • A Question of Informed Consent: The mandates forced people to make medical decisions based on the threat of losing their livelihood. This approach undermined informed consent, a fundamental medical ethics principle. The use of coercion, rather than providing transparent information about the risks and benefits, left many feeling that their rights were being violated.
   • Calls for Reinstatement and Compensation: There is an ongoing debate about whether those fired for refusing the vaccine should be rehired or compensated for lost wages. With increasing evidence showing that vaccines may not have been as effective as initially claimed, the push for reinstating these individuals is growing stronger.
2. Mail-In Voting and Election Changes
   • Mail-in voting and changes to early voting procedures were rolled out to “keep people safe,” but the timing made it seem like other motives could be at play, especially during an election year.
   • The different rules across states caused confusion and mistrust. In future elections, changes to voting rules should be handled through the proper legal processes.
3. Emergency Powers and Government Overreach
   • The use of emergency powers during the pandemic led to some questionable decisions, like restricting freedoms, restricting speech, and imposing mandates. While these measures may have seemed necessary at the time, I think most people now feel they went too far.
   • We should have clear limits on what can be done under emergency powers and ensure that laws are changed through proper channels.

Media Influence and Public Perception

The media played a huge role in shaping public opinion during the pandemic. It’s no secret that many mainstream media outlets lean left, and that influenced how the pandemic was portrayed.

1. A One-Sided Narrative
   • There wasn’t much room for different perspectives. If a doctor suggested something other than vaccines, they were often dismissed as spreading misinformation. We need a more open dialogue where all viewpoints are considered.
   • The constant focus on worst-case scenarios drove a lot of fear and made it easier for people to accept extreme measures.
2. Bias in Reporting
   • The pandemic’s timing seemed to benefit certain political agendas, particularly during a presidential election. Future public health crises must be covered with a balanced view and a range of expert thoughts and opinions.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic was a learning experience for all of us, and there’s no denying that some things were done right while others were not. The most important lesson is that future responses must be balanced, considering health, social, economic, and political impacts. We must find ways to protect people without sacrificing personal freedoms or causing long-term harm.

Again, I want to reiterate that I’m not a medical doctor, immunologist, economist, or political expert.  However, as a midwife and women’s health advocate, I saw how the pandemic affected healthcare, birthing practices, and families’ well-being. My business saw a boom as more families turned to homebirths due to hospital restrictions. These experiences shaped my perspective on how things could have been handled better and more fairly. I hope sharing these thoughts helps y’all think more critically about preparing for future crises.

Here is a summary of the things I hope we learned and will do better next time:

• Balance Public Health Measures with Individual Freedoms: Restrictions like lockdowns, masking, and distancing should be based on clear scientific evidence and should be flexible enough to adapt to new information. Blanket mandates can cause more harm than targeted, evidence-based approaches.
• Avoid Rushed Medical Decisions: Rapid vaccine development is commendable, but proper testing and safety studies should not be compromised. Long-term monitoring and more inclusive trials for diverse populations are crucial.
• Respect Informed Consent and Medical Freedom: Mandates should not force people into medical decisions under the threat of losing their livelihood. Transparent communication about risks and benefits allows individuals to make informed choices.
• Protect the Most Vulnerable Without Disrupting Society: Focus on safeguarding high-risk groups rather than imposing one-size-fits-all measures that can harm children, small businesses, and mental health. Policies should prioritize those truly at risk.
• Implement Targeted and Data-Driven Interventions: Use dynamic approaches rather than rigid guidelines, which can change with evolving data. For example, school closure timing recommendations can be set based on current transmission rates and specific risks.
• Support Mental Health and Social Well-being: Consider the psychological effects of policies, especially on children. Ensure that strategies do not lead to prolonged isolation or educational setbacks that could affect long-term development.
• Prepare for Future Public Health Crises with Clear Limits on Emergency Powers: Clearly define what can be done under emergency powers, and involve legislative bodies in making significant changes. Emergency measures should have clear expiration dates.
• Promote Open Dialogue and Diverse Perspectives in the Media: The media should present a balanced range of expert opinions rather than focusing on worst-case scenarios. This approach fosters public trust and avoids unnecessary panic.
• Reevaluate Vaccine Strategies Based on Updated Evidence: As data evolves, vaccine policies should be revisited to reflect current understanding of effectiveness and limitations, particularly regarding boosters and natural immunity.
• Address the Social and Economic Fallout More Effectively: Provide better support for small businesses and individuals financially affected by restrictions. Focus economic relief on sustaining livelihoods without creating dependency or long-term economic damage.

— Stay Strong, Jaelin—-

Additional Reading

8 Lessons We Can Learn From the COVID-19 Pandemic– Yale Medicine

What has COVID-19 taught us? – Faith Forum

What Have You Learned From the Pandemic Year? – Psychology Today

About the Author:

Jaelin Stickels, CNM, WHNP, is a deeply passionate and highly skilled Certified Nurse Midwife, Women’s Health Nurse Practitioner, and the owner of Holistic Heritage Homebirth in Houston, Texas.  With over a decade of experience, Jaelin has had the privilege of helping several hundred women welcome their babies into the world. In addition to her advanced practice licensure training, she has additional advanced training in twin and breech births, making her one of only a few with these skills in her area.  Jaelin approaches every birth with expertise, compassion, and a deep respect for the birthing process. Jaelin is finishing her doctorate and looking forward to being Dr. Jaelin in early 2025.

Jaelin’s journey into midwifery began with a profound love for supporting women through the incredible experience of pregnancy, labor, and postpartum. Since 2010, she has been dedicated to walking alongside families during these transformative moments, offering guidance, support, and care tailored to each individual’s unique needs. She is a big believer in informed consent and ensures clients are given the best evidence-based information to make the best decisions for themselves and their families.

Married to her high school sweetheart Ted (aka Chef Ted) since 1984, Jaelin is the proud mother of three grown children and the delighted grandmother of one amazing granddaughter. When she’s not assisting in births, Jaelin finds joy in going to the movies with her husband, quilting, and cherishing time with her family. Known by the other midwives in her practice (Holistic Heritage Homebirth) affectionately as the “Birth Hog,” she brings an unmatched dedication and enthusiasm to her work—no one loves birth quite like she does.

Read Jaelin’s Bio Page

Find out more about Jaelin’s Homebirth Practice (Holistic Heritage Homebirth) in Houston, TX