Latest PHE Data Shows Vaccine Effectiveness Down to Just 15% in the Over-50s, 37% in the Under-50s. Deaths Cut by 76% in Over-50s, But Just 12% in Under-50s
New Zealand Covid Response Minister Concedes Zero-Covid Policy No Longer Viable Following Delta Outbreak
Government’s Response to Pandemic is Based on Flawed Assumptions, According to 133 Healthcare Professionals
Covid19 Assembly, an anti-lockdown lobby group, has pulled together a powerful letter signed by 133 doctors, nurses, paramedics and midwives challenging the thinking behind the Government’s response to the coronavirus crisis. The signatories list 10 flawed assumptions, starting with the failure to carry out any sort of cost-benefit analysis of the lockdown policy before deciding to implement it.
1. No attempt to measure the harms of lockdown policies.
The evidence of disastrous effects of lockdowns on the physical and mental health of the population is there for all to see. The harms are massive, widespread, and long lasting. In particular, the psychological impact on a generation of developing children could be lifelong.
It is for this reason that lockdown policies were never part of any pandemic preparedness plans prior to 2020. In fact, they were expressly not recommended in WHO documents, even for severe respiratory viral pathogens and for that matter neither were border closures, face coverings, and testing of asymptomatic individuals. There has been such an inexplicable absence of consideration of the harms caused by lockdown policy it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that this is willful avoidance.
The introduction of such policies was never accompanied by any sort of risk/benefit analysis. As bad as that is, it is even worse that after the event when plenty of data became available by which the harms could be measured, only perfunctory attention to this aspect of pandemic planning has been afforded. Eminent professionals have repeatedly called for discourse on these health impacts in press-conferences but have been universally ignored.
What is so odd, is that the policies being pursued before mid-March 2020 (self-isolation of the ill and protection of the vulnerable, while otherwise society continued close to normality) were balanced, sensible and reflected the approach established by consensus prior to 2020. No cogent reason was given then for the abrupt change of direction from mid-March 2020 and strikingly none has been put forward at any time since.
Worth reading in full.
Full disclosure: I am on the Advisory Board of Covid19 Assembly.
