If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]


  • 06-04-2021 9:11am
    Posts: 0

    Why has there been so little debate on the various approaches adopted to covid? There have been hardly any debates between policy makers or scientists and doctors on the various measures introduced and implemented in different countries.

    Here we have an article by Dr John Lee in which he writes the following:

    "The Government's announcement yesterday of twice-weekly testing for everybody in the country who wants it could hardly be more perverse. It flies in the face of both good public health policy and official assurances about the most effective way to combat the virus.

    Just as normality appears to beckon, the goalposts have been moved again.

    This colossal exercise will cost untold billions and lead to new bouts of fear-mongering and anxiety. It will do nothing for Britain's already-battered public finances, with national debt and annual deficit already at record peacetime levels because of ministers' financially cavalier responses to Covid."

    In the same paper yesterday there was an article by Dr Jenny Harries in which she argues the opposite:

    "Twice-weekly testing using lateral flow devices, commonly known as LFDs, has already protected millions of people who need to leave home for work, including frontline NHS workers, care home staff and residents, and schoolchildren and their families.

    Regular testing in the months ahead can help us all get back to normal, and from this Friday we will make twice-weekly LFD testing available to every person in England."

    Dr Anders Tegnell, State Epidemiologist of Sweden, has said again and again that the evidence for the effectiveness of masks is extremely weak. He says that they might have some benefit on public transport at certain times, which is why they are recommended on public transport at certain times in Sweden. But in Spain masks are required everywhere, including when sunbathing on the beach, or when walking alone in the countryside. How can one country think they're basically unnecessary, and another country say they're essential? Why is there never a debate on the issue? Imagine a debate between Dr Tegnell and Dr Fernando Simón, Director of the Coordination Centre for Health Alerts and Emergencies of the Ministry of Health in Spain, and who appears to be Dr Tegnell's equivalent in Spain. It would be fascinating.

    Professor Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University has said again and again that PCR testing of healthy people is a terrible way to decide on policy. And yet in Ireland Professor Philip Nolan is always extremely concerned by any increase, however small, in positive PCR tests. But we never hear any debate.

    One could think of many other examples similar to the above, but just never seems to be any debate.