Bill Maher has spent years turning the COVID era into a recurring case study in how institutions, media and experts can lose public trust. His latest broadside, arguing that critics of strict lockdowns “were right” and that early talk of a Wuhan lab leak was not inherently crazy, pushes that critique further into the political mainstream. The comments sharpen a debate that has simmered since the first stay-at-home orders, over what officials got wrong and how much dissent was unfairly dismissed.
By revisiting lockdowns, natural immunity and the Wuhan question in one sweep, Maher is not just relitigating old fights. He is pressing a larger claim that the country still has not fully reckoned with its pandemic choices, from school closures to social media censorship, and that this unfinished accounting is warping how Americans will respond to the next crisis.
Maher’s latest claim that anti-lockdown critics “were right”
In his recent remarks, Maher framed the early opposition to sweeping shutdowns as a position that was caricatured at the time but has since been vindicated by experience. He argued that anti-COVID lockdown advocates “were right” about the social and economic costs of prolonged closures, and that the people who drove the most aggressive restrictions “do not seem to want to acknowledge that now.” In that critique, he cast himself on the side of those who warned that closing schools, small businesses and public life indefinitely would create harms that were never fully weighed against the benefits, a stance he linked to the broader political argument over how the United States handled the first waves of COVID.
Maher’s comments, reported by Jan and writer Marc Tamasco, were not limited to lockdowns. He also revisited the once-taboo suggestion that the virus might have emerged from a Wuhan laboratory, saying that treating the lab leak idea as a fringe conspiracy was itself a mistake. By pairing his defense of lockdown skeptics with a defense of those who raised questions about Wuhan, he suggested that the same reflex to delegitimize dissent shaped both debates, and he pointed to the way critics were mocked or deplatformed as evidence that the culture around COVID had become hostile to open inquiry in the name of public health orthodoxy, a pattern highlighted in coverage of his anti-COVID critique.
From “stupid things” to calls for a COVID commission
Maher’s latest comments build on a line he has been developing for years, that the United States did “a lot of stupid things” in its pandemic response. On his show, he has repeatedly argued that the country lurched into symbolic gestures, such as rigid outdoor masking rules and arbitrary business closures, while neglecting more practical fixes. He has pointed to the way debates over masks, school reopenings and travel rules hardened into tribal markers, and he has accused prominent COVID experts of overreaction that fueled an inflationary spiral and long-term social damage, a critique captured in reports on his roasting of the official pandemic response.
Earlier in the debate, Maher went further and suggested that the country needs a formal COVID commission to catalogue those missteps. He has argued that “maybe the number one lesson” from the crisis was the importance of proper air ventilation, and he has joked that the second lesson was to avoid going on a Zoom with Jeffrey, a reference he used to underline how quickly remote work and video calls took over daily life. In his view, the fact that the United States is not systematically reviewing its mistakes, from ventilation to school closures, shows that the political system is more interested in moving on than in learning, a point he underscored when he said the country is not “learning anything,” as reported in coverage of his proposed COVID commission.
Natural immunity, vaccines and the shifting science narrative
When Maher revisits the pandemic, he often zeroes in on how public health messaging treated natural immunity. In his latest comments, he criticized what he described as an unwillingness at the time to acknowledge that prior infection could provide effective protection against COVID. He argued that officials and commentators pushed a one-size-fits-all narrative that “you need a shot” regardless of individual risk or previous illness, and he suggested that this rigidity fed skepticism about vaccines themselves. By his account, the refusal to integrate natural immunity into policy discussions made it easier for critics to portray the system as driven by politics or pharmaceutical interests rather than by evolving evidence.
That argument fits with Maher’s broader claim that the science narrative around COVID was too often presented as settled when it was still in flux. He has contrasted the early insistence on strict distancing and universal masking with later recognition of the importance of ventilation and targeted protection, and he has suggested that acknowledging uncertainty would have built more trust. In reporting on his recent remarks, Jan noted that Maher closed his thoughts by questioning whether the country ever got a clear, honest accounting of what worked and what did not, and he tied that frustration to his criticism of how natural immunity was sidelined in favor of a rigid vaccine script, a theme highlighted in coverage of his comments on natural immunity.
The Wuhan lab leak debate and social media censorship
Maher’s insistence that the Wuhan lab leak idea was not inherently a conspiracy theory reflects a frustration that dates back to the earliest months of the pandemic. He has argued that asking whether a virus that emerged in Wuhan might be linked to a Wuhan laboratory was a reasonable line of inquiry, and that branding it as racist or unscientific shut down legitimate questions. In his recent comments, he folded that argument into his broader claim that dissenting views on COVID were too quickly dismissed, and he suggested that the lab leak debate became a proxy for partisan identity rather than a straightforward question of origin that should have been investigated without stigma, a point echoed in coverage of his defense of the Wuhan lab leak discussion.
His criticism has not been limited to public health officials. As early as Jun, Maher used HBO’s Real Time to slam Facebook and Google for what he called “outrageous” efforts to filter out COVID-19 Wuhan lab theories. He argued that social media companies overstepped by treating certain hypotheses as misinformation before the evidence was fully in, and he warned that this kind of gatekeeping would backfire by convincing skeptics that powerful platforms were hiding inconvenient truths. On that episode, Maher said that “last night on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher” he had to point out that these companies were wrong to shut down debate about “a lot of s—,” a moment that has since been cited as an early example of his pushback against tech moderation of the Wuhan conversation, as detailed in reporting on his criticism of Facebook and Google.
What Maher’s COVID crusade reveals about trust and expertise
Across these episodes, Maher has tried to position himself as a kind of heterodox referee of the COVID era, someone willing to say that both public health leaders and their loudest critics got important things wrong. In one segment, he mocked how debates over masks and distancing became culture-war litmus tests, even as evidence shifted and some early assumptions were revised. He has argued that the country’s fixation on surface cleaning and outdoor closures distracted from more effective measures like improving indoor air systems, and he has warned that the next crisis will meet a more cynical public if leaders do not admit where they overreached, a theme that surfaced again when he said the United States did “a lot of stupid things” in its pandemic response.
More from Morning Overview