Disclaimer
The following article examines alternative theories about the COVID-19 pandemic purely for informational and analytical purposes. I do not subscribe to or endorse these theories. Indeed, I counter-argue each of them. The article is intended solely as an intellectual exercise to examine the perspectives that emerged during the pandemic, encouraging readers to critically evaluate claims and rely on credible scientific and public health sources. The content is not intended to promote misinformation or undermine the efforts of healthcare professionals, scientists and policymakers who worked tirelessly to address the crisis.
The COVID-19 pandemic was one of the most disruptive events of the 21st century, affecting how societies around the world lived, worked and interacted. For billions, it was a time of fear, uncertainty and loss. During this period, conspiracy theories emerged that attempted to cast doubt on the official narrative. This article explores three of these theories: The Exercise Theory, The Financial Motivation Theory and The Hijack theory, while considering counterpoints to these perspectives.
1. The Exercise Theory
The central idea of The Exercise Theory is that the virus itself was real but not as deadly as claimed, and that the pandemic was, in fact, a meticulously planned global observation exercise designed to study how individuals and societies react to extreme measures such as lockdowns, quarantines and social distancing. The idea was to collect data on mass behaviour, social compliance and the long-term impacts of these interventions, doing so without alerting the public to the fact that this was, in essence, a dress rehearsal for any genuinely deadly virus that would emerge in the future.
Proponents of this theory point out the seemingly contradictory actions of government officials and medical experts during the pandemic as evidence of this agenda. For example, when public health authorities in the UK were seen wearing masks in public spaces, only to remove them as soon as they were inside private buildings like 10 Downing Street, it raised questions about the authenticity of the pandemic’s perceived threat. Such behaviours, combined with inconsistent rules regarding social distancing and mask-wearing, led many to speculate that these actions were part of a controlled experiment and not a direct response to a genuine health crisis.
Critique of the Exercise Theory
While The Exercise Theory raises interesting points about inconsistencies and anomalous behaviours during the pandemic, it faces significant challenges. For example, the scale of coordination required to involve governments, health organisations and media outlets worldwide in such a covert operation is virtually unprecedented and highly implausible. The sheer number of people who would need to be complicit, combined with the difficulty of maintaining secrecy, casts doubt on the feasibility of such an exercise. Also, the substantial global death toll and severe economic disruptions undermine the notion that this was a controlled simulation, as these outcomes are unlikely to be acceptable risks for an orchestrated exercise.
2. The Financial Motivation Theory
While The Exercise Theory offers an “explanation” for why the pandemic unfolded in the way it did, The Financial Motivation Theory posits that the COVID-19 crisis was not a global observation exercise but rather a financially motivated scheme designed to benefit large companies in the fields of pharmaceuticals, medical supplies and tracking technologies.
In the months following the arrival of the pandemic, these companies stood to profit immensely from the pandemic. Vaccine developers like Pfizer and Moderna, manufacturers of personal protective equipment (PPE) and contact-tracing software, all capitalised (no pun intended) on the situation. And that these companies, along with governments and health organisations, could have engineered the crisis to maximise profits. That these profits were not merely a side effect of an unfortunate global health crisis, but rather part of a deliberate plan to boost the fortunes of these companies. The speed with which these companies received government subsidies and procurement contracts raised suspicions that they were well-prepared for such an event, as if they were waiting for the pandemic to happen.
Critique of the Financial Motivation Theory
The Financial Motivation Theory does highlights valid concerns about corporate profiteering during crises, but it overestimates the ability of corporations and governments to orchestrate such an event purely for profit. The massive global disruptions—ranging from collapsing economies to overwhelmed healthcare systems—were just too chaotic and damaging to align with a profit-driven agenda. And while some companies thrived, many industries, particularly small businesses and those sectors considered non-essential to the pandemic effort, suffered greatly. This suggests that the pandemic's economic outcomes were more a byproduct of a global emergency rather than a deliberate financial scheme.
3. The Hijack Theory
A third theory, The Hijack Theory, is a hybrid of the first two, and posits that the pandemic started out as a global observation exercise but was soon hijacked by the companies mentioned in The Financial Motivation Theory section above, so that they could financially profit from the situation. This would explain the inconsistencies in pandemic management, where certain interventions were implemented not solely for public health reasons but also to benefit these companies.
Critique of the Hijack Theory
The Hijack Theory presents a nuanced explanation by acknowledging the potential for opportunism during a global crisis. However, it assumes that these companies intentionally exploited the situation to an undue extent. While these companies undoubtedly profited, this was more likely a reflection of capitalism’s inevitable reach into all areas rather than an indication that these companies were Machiavellian. While lobbying and financial interests do exist, the chaotic and fragmented responses of many governments suggest a lack of a unified strategy, making it less likely that these companies could effectively "hijack" the situation on a global scale.
Ultimately, whether these theories hold merit or not, they reflect the profound impact of the pandemic on the ways in which individuals try to make sense of unprecedented events.
