As a medical professional with over two decades of experience in laboratory science, I observed Governor Tim Walz’s handling of the 2020 COVID-19 crisis in Minnesota with increasing concern. What started as a reasonable two-week pause quickly evolved into a series of questionable policy decisions that contravened scientific reasoning, constitutional rights and fiscal responsibility.
The reliance on PCR test results was pivotal in Governor Walz’s decision-making process. With my background, I recognised that the high-cycle thresholds used could lead to false positives. Each cycle doubles the genetic material, potentially amplifying insignificant viral loads to misleadingly positive results. This issue could significantly skew the reliability of mass testing, especially among asymptomatic individuals — a strategy Governor Walz heavily depended on.
As the lockdowns dragged on from weeks into months, the haphazard nature of Governor Walz’s “essential” business classifications became glaringly apparent, showcasing blatant biases within his administration. Notably, while churches were compelled to close their doors, liquor stores and casinos were allowed to continue operations. This selective enforcement was not only illogical but a direct infringement on our First Amendment rights, particularly the freedom of religion.
Moreover, while small businesses were mandated to shutter, large retail chains remained open, highlighting a clear disparity in treatment with profound impacts on Minnesota small businesses. In the first year of the pandemic, these small businesses hemorrhaged over 72,000 jobs. Minnesota now finds itself trailing far behind in new business creation, a clear indicator of economic stagnation and leadership failure.
During the same period, Minnesota experienced a sharp increase in excess deaths. According to the Mayo Clinic, there was a 17% rise in “deaths of despair” — including suicides, drug overdoses and deaths from malnutrition. These deaths disproportionately affected ethnic minorities and were considered preventable.
The policies implemented during this time had negative consequences for all Minnesotans, but they were particularly harmful to the black community. This outcome stands in stark contrast to the Governor’s stated intentions of protecting citizens, which were used to justify the response to street protests in Minneapolis. These events and their consequences suggest a significant failure in leadership.
Perhaps the most detrimental policies were those concerning education. Governor Walz’s decision to shutter schools and mandate online learning disregarded the developmental needs of children. Personally, as a grandmother, I saw this firsthand. Fortunately, my kindergarten-aged grandson could attend a private Christian school that balanced safety with practicality, unlike most public school children under Walz’s policies. These closures ignored evidence that children were at minimal risk from COVID-19. Walz, a former teacher, faced embarrassment when Minnesota’s fourth graders’ reading scores fell below the national average in 2022, signalling the lasting impact of his policies.
Simultaneously, the Department of Education under Walz overlooked rampant fraud in federal COVID-19 nutrition aid. By September 2022, 48 Minnesotans from Feeding Our Future were charged in what U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland described as the nation’s largest pandemic-related fraud, involving $250 million. Governor Walz knew of these irregularities by November 2020 but continued reimbursements, claiming judicial mandate, though court records show otherwise.
A June 2024 audit criticised the Department of Education’s oversight, leading to Walz receiving a congressional subpoena for related communications. While 26 individuals from Feeding Our Future have been convicted, no state officials have been charged, highlighting another administrative failure.
In the 2024 legislative session, under the complete control of Democrats, Minnesota’s staggering $17.5 billion surplus was entirely depleted, coupled with an additional $10 billion in new taxes levied on its citizens. This financial strategy propelled a colossal 40% growth in government, placing an immense burden on the state’s small businesses which constitute 99% of Minnesota businesses, under the highest corporate tax rate in the U.S. at 9.8%.
Amidst these events, the local media have consistently overlooked the failings of Governor Walz, even as tens of thousands of residents choose to leave the state annually.
Governor Walz’s tenure during this crisis has been a stark lesson in governance overreach, lack of accountability and fiscal irresponsibility. It has led many Minnesotans to reassess their understanding of civic rights and the role of government, which is especially pertinent given the upcoming election. This legacy should serve as a cautionary tale for all.
As we move forward, it’s crucial that we remain vigilant. We must question narratives, scrutinise data, and hold elected officials like Governor Walz accountable. The pandemic revealed how fragile our liberties can be when fear takes hold and when leaders overstep their constitutional bounds by imposing emergency orders. Let this be a lesson: knowledge of our constitutional rights isn’t just academic — it’s our best defence against future encroachments on our freedoms.
The COVID-19 crisis may have tested our resolve, but it also reinforced a fundamental truth: an informed and engaged citizenry is the bedrock of a free society. As we navigate future challenges and elect our leaders, let’s carry this lesson forward, ensuring that our rights are never again so easily set aside by executive order overreach.
Anita Jader is a medical professional with over two decades of experience in medical technology and research at the University of Minnesota. This article was first published in Brownstone Journal.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“COVID 19 Crisis”
????
I understand the reason for criticising Walz at present, but the difficulties described are equally applicable to many senior politicians globally. They look as if they were all in the same club, as it were – with some exceptions in various USA states, and one or two others, such as Sweden.
I would never limit myself to “criticising” a Covidian politician – condemnation is the minimum. The “difficulties” were largely created by some initial malevolent conflation of various vested interests and then magnified by people along for the ride, all for their own selfish reasons. There was no “crisis” in the real world.
My first thought in these case is to listen carefully to the advice given by experts, and then make my plan to do something between nothing and the exact opposite of what they suggest.
Walz is just another know-nowt politician, given difficult scenarios to deal with, nudged by ‘experts’ into courses of action that are either poorly thought out or designed to benefit someone other than the citizens, and then left to explain the answers to questions they never understood.
A true leader a good manager is someone who, even if they have no technical knowledge themselves, can take technical knowledge into the equation but still come up with a rational logical approach which they can, with authority and conviction, carry through. Whilst he is some way from being Mr Perfect nonetheless Ron DeSantis in Florida came much closer to my ideal leader and manager than Mr Walz.
Speaking from the UK, and relating to my personal experience in a completely different matter, I find that the probability of a public sector employee being found to have committed a serious blunder is small, and the probability of a conviction is less than the probability of being awarded an honour. This comes about as a result of a combination of public ignorance and the bullying or deception by the state. In theory, in the UK, one can challenge the decision of any state-sector official by way of a judicial review, or by reporting a crime (if the allegation of an unlawful decision passes appropriate tests). In practice, few individuals can afford the risk of the cost of an unsuccessful civil action; an even more costly private prosecution will be “adopted” by the Crown Prosecution Service and then dropped; the police are therefore disinclined even to allow a report of a suspected crime to be filed, let alone investigated, because they know that the case will never result in a conviction, regardless of the evidential and public interest criteria.
Government in the UK is nowadays in the hands of whoever has the biggest wallet.
It appears to demonstrate a defensive attitude, if there is a risk of serious financial damage. Look at all the historic events that have crawled out of the woodwork in the Fayed case. While they can’t prosecute the deceased, on the other side of the coin the dead can’t sue.