Agreed. Particularly when the wildly inappropriate prejudice will lash out claiming one person is criminally liable for every pandemic death suffered in the US while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge other destruction caused not from the pandemic itself but our reaction to it.
Dogma? You got that right.
In the case of COVID-19, non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), although essential to halt transmission of the virus, have led to physical isolation, closure of schools (with untold effects on the development and wellbeing of children), and widespread job losses. Misuse of substances, particularly alcohol, is rising. Emerging evidence suggests that COVID-19 could even have direct neurological consequences. And as with many other features of this pandemic, not all people have been affected equally. Disruptions to MNS services, as reported by WHO, are disproportionately affecting people with pre-existing mental health conditions by limiting access to essential treatment and support services. People with salaried jobs are far less likely to be affected than those with informal, daily wage jobs, which include a substantial proportion of the workforce in lower-income countries. Frontline workers are experiencing increased workload and trauma, making them susceptible to stress, burnout, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30797-0/fulltext
Making the cure worse than the disease is nothing if not heresy, right? I mean, how dare some dude suggest as a Nation we try and balance response to a pandemic with other societal needs while at the same time leverage the power of the Federal taxpayer to seed big pharma (you know, another devil) to race for a vaccine.
Fauci did praise the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed program, particularly for its success in expediting the development of Covid-19 vaccines. Going from the discovery of a new pathogen to multiple vaccines reporting Phase 3 clinical trial data in less than a year, Fauci said, “is beyond historic.”
Yeah, bad man needs to go to prison.
And just to be clear, trotting out Fauci and Birx quotes from early on demonstrate those at the very top of their profession, you know, expert in their field, didn’t have all the correct answers and, like, still don’t. Anyone here think Tony Fauci is concerned with mental health issues created by what he‘s recommending until at least this time next year? Me neither.
Excerpts from a November 19 interview...
Q: People often think of shutdowns as binary. You’re open or you’re shut. Often, when you answer questions about how to live, you start with. ‘Well, I’m in a high-risk group. …” So I would love to hear Dr. Fauci’s hierarchy of “Safe and important to keep open with precautions” and “Things that aren’t safe under any circumstances.”
The reason I answer with some degree of trepidation is because the people who are the proprietors of these businesses start getting very, very upset with me.
There are some essential businesses that you want to keep open. You want to keep grocery stores open, supermarkets open, things that people need for their subsistence. You might, if it’s done properly, keep open some nonessential businesses, you know, things like clothing stores, department stores.
Q: We’re heading into the winter months. You could social distance in a restaurant or in an indoor gathering. But would you feel OK being in there without a mask?
If we’re in the hot zone the way we are now, where there’s so many infections around, I would feel quite uncomfortable even being in a restaurant. And particularly if it was at full capacity.
Q: I see you’ve been getting your hair cut. What do you think about hair salons?
I mean, again, it depends. I used to get a haircut every five weeks. I get a haircut every 12 weeks now — with a mask on me, as well as a mask on the person who’s cutting the hair, for sure.
Q: Transportation? Trains? Planes? Metro? Where are we at the moment?
It depends on your individual circumstances. If you are someone who is in the highest risk category, as best as possible, don’t travel anywhere. Or if you go someplace, you have a car, you’re in your car by yourself, not getting on a crowded subway, not getting on a crowded bus or even flying in an airplane. If you’re a 25-year-old who has no underlying conditions, that’s much different.
Q: Bars?
Bars are really problematic. I have to tell you, if you look at some of the outbreaks that we’ve seen, it’s when people go into bars, crowded bars. You know, I used to go to a bar. I used to like to sit at a bar and grab a hamburger and a beer. But when you’re at a bar, people are leaning over your shoulder to get a drink, people next to each other like this. It’s kind of fun because it’s social, but it’s not fun when this virus is in the air. So I would think that if there’s anything you want to clamp down on, for the time being, it’s bars.
Q: Some airlines and some states are telling people you have to get a coronavirus test before you get on the plane or visit another state. Does that make sense medically?
If you’re negative when you get on the plane — except in the rare circumstance that you’re in that little incubation window before you turn positive — that’s a good thing.
Q: If you had a national plan for testing, what would it be?
Surveillance testing. Literally flooding the system with tests. Getting a home test that you could do yourself, that’s highly sensitive and highly specific. And you know why that would be terrific? Because if you decided that you wanted to have a small gathering with your mother-in-law and father-in-law and a couple of children, and you had a test right there. It isn’t 100%. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. But the risk that you have — if everyone is tested before you get together to sit down for dinner — dramatically decreases. It might not ever be zero but, you know, we don’t live in a completely risk-free society.
Q: There are a number of vaccine candidates that are promising. But there’s also a lot of skepticism because we’ve seen the FDA come under both commercial and, increasingly, political pressure. When will we know it’s OK to take a vaccine? And which?
It’s pretty easy when you have vaccines that are 95% effective. Can’t get much better than that. I think what people need to appreciate — and that’s why I have said it like maybe 100 times in the last week or two — is the process by which a decision is made. The company looks at the data. I look at the data. Then the company puts the data to the FDA. The FDA will make the decision to do an emergency use authorization or a license application approval. And they have career scientists who are really independent. They’re not beholden to anybody. Then there’s another independent group, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The FDA commissioner has vowed publicly that he will go according to the opinion of the career scientists and the advisory board.
Q: You feel the career scientists will have the final say?
Yes, yes.
Q: And will the decisions that are being made in this transition period — like the vaccine distribution plan — in any way limit the options of a new administration?
No, I don’t think so. I think a new administration will have the choice of doing what they feel. But I can tell you what’s going to happen, regardless of the transition or not, is that we have people totally committed to doing it right that are going to be involved in this. So I have confidence in that.
Q: When do you think we’ll all be able to throw our masks away?
I think that we’re going to have some degree of public health measures together with the vaccine for a considerable period of time. But we’ll start approaching normal — if the overwhelming majority of people take the vaccine — as we get into the third or fourth quarter [of 2021].