From the article: "based on the costly lessons learnt during the COVID-19 pandemic".
Funny how they always refer to costly lessons learnt but then never state what those lessons were, what was actually learnt from them and what that cost entailed. Just a couple of loose statements and well, it's "The Lancet" so people believe it anyways. Those are smart people and if they say they've learnt costly lessons, it must be true right? Trust the science!
They should be discontinued for all the lies and disinformation regaring Covid, vaccinations, the human immune system etc they spouted in the past two years.
Not to mention helping to bury the lab leak hypothesis.
We've come out of COVID and are staring down the barrel of WWIII. There is a land war in Europe with US guns shooting Russian soldiers. A senior fellow in the US Air Force just predicted war with China in the next 2 years [0]. If that sort of war breaks out, all of this focus on COVID will look like small biscuits compared to what the world might be facing. We should certainly do something differently next time.
And we really should have a full cost-benefit analysis of the wins from the lockdowns vs doing nothing. I'm still on board with 2 weeks to flatten the curve, but I don't think anyone has done the work to prove that the 18 month lockdown regime that Australia did was worth it. I think the Australian government assessed around 30k lives saved which, sorry to say, isn't enough to justify throwing away 18 months of everyone's social lives. The rate of change of our death rate 2020-2021 is around 10,000 deaths. These numbers are not impressive enough to justify doing that again.
Because they invaded Ukraine and are comiting the genocide there. Ukraine keeps asking for help and US did actually provided them guns. US are the good guys here.
I wonder if we can say that collapse is self-inflicted. Would it have happened if Russia went to be a more open and democratic society instead? Would it be more like the east European countries where a lot of labour is nearsourced?
No, they did not. Russia is aggressor here and they did attacked here.
USA made mistake when they pressured Ukraine to give up atomic bombs and when it prioritized Russian interest over interest of other Eastern European nations. But that is history now.
Just to be clear, the coup was triggered when the leader of Ukraine reneged on prior commitments and overwhelming public and parliamentary support to align with the EU.
The current leader of Ukraine was elected in a landslide victory that the Russian-aligned opposition himself called completely fair.
“Attacks on DPR and LPR” are hard to disaggregate from the various Russian military forces that “volunteered” to go occupy neighboring territory on the basis of their shared language (like Mexico sending cartels to the US southwest to protect Spanish-speakers and those of Hispanic descent).
No, you are just lying about what happened in Ukraine. Russia is quiet unambiguously the worst here.
Maidan was valid thing to do and made Ukraine better. Ukrainians have right to reject being Russian puppet state. Russia broke Minsk agreements and entered into bad faith agreements, that part if rifht.
DPR and LPR were under Russian government despite pretending to be separatists. And even if this was not the case, it does not excuses genocide and attempt to annex Ukraine.
The editor at The Lancet Richard Horton was extremely vocal in his views over Covid and skewed quite political.
He wasn’t arguing from specific research, just using his platform for ask for more of what he wanted. If anything, he should have been publicising what the actual science said.
Now when I see the name The Lancet, I just see how science can also be politicised and operate at the whims of big business.
Covid times destroyed trust in so many institutions.
> Covid times destroyed trust in so many institutions.
I don’t dispute the negative impact of the pandemic on trust in many institutions. And I won’t speak to the broader world, but Americans’ trust in our institutions has been taking a beaten since long before the pandemic.
Pew Research Center has written about trust in government over time. We seem to be asymptotically approaching some lower bound rather than seeing a sharp drop. [1]
I remember reading about declining trust of Americans in our institutions more broadly but without digging through my notebooks I’m not certain precisely where. My guesses would be either Watt’s “Mortal Republic”, Lukianoff’s “The Coddling of the American Mind”, or maybe Putnam’s “Bowling Alone”. Someone with better recall than I have would probably know.
I think the pandemic is more of a “straw that broke the camel’s back” rather than a fundamental driver of mistrust.
I mostly bring this up because I don’t think focusing on the side effects of public policy with regard to the pandemic will solve the broader and more deep-seated issues about our trust in our institutions.
The pandemic (in terms of public health institutions) and recent apparent scandals demonstrating an apparent political bend in the justice system have really accelerated the distrust IMO. Strangely, I think a small segment has grown more and more trusting of government because of the pandemic and some of the institutional scandals. Those now trusting the government seem to have risen to the level of being apologists…almost zealots…and that is really odd to me being on the other side of that coin.
I didn’t say he was anti-science, but I don’t believe he should be saying stuff like this as the editor of a prestigious scientific journal:
“ Horton’s The Covid-19 Catastrophe: What’s Gone Wrong and How to Stop it Happening Again (2020) has managed to stand out for its sharp polemic (Knight 2020). Horton denounces Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw funding from the World Health Organization (WHO) as a crime against humanity and accuses Boris Johnson of misconduct in public office.”
"No, no, the science backs him; he's actually totally right, I just think that prominent people shouldn't say things that are politically controversial. What? Yeah, I know that it's only controversial because one of the two major political parties has decided its primary platform will be to deny reality, so what?"
Top medical journal editor, eh? Why not ask the man himself what he thinks about that?
"We know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong." -- Richard Horton
"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue." -- Richard Horton
When a man who runs a scientific journal estimates that maybe half of what he publishes "may simply be untrue", it seems reasonable to conclude that maybe that journal isn't (or shouldn't be) a top journal. You could also ask how he allowed that situation to develop, because that would be a worse track record than even the dodgiest of newspapers.
In case you think he's really far out on that self-judgement:
"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine." -- Marcia Angell
By the way, Horton's justification for why leaving the WHO would be bad was nothing to do with science. He said:
"President Trump’s decision to defund WHO is simply this—a crime against humanity. Every scientist, every health worker, every citizen must resist and rebel against this appalling betrayal of global solidarity."
Betraying global solidarity is not a part of the scientific process, it's a political concept.
Nobody ever advocated injecting bleach. Blowing up one off-the-cuff remark is all fun and games in politics, but it was never a policy. The policy was lockdowns, restrictions and Operation Warp Speed.
The man did enough that was actually objectionable, people shouldn't feel a need to make up silly stuff.
"So supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it's ultraviolet or just a very powerful light — and I think you said that hasn't been checked because of the testing, And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or some other way, and I think you said you're going to test that, too. I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning? As you see, it gets in the lungs, it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that."
Step 0 needs to be rebuilding trust in scientists. Anyone with half a brain and a memory that can go all the way back to 2020 remembers the lies told to the world.
When major health officials tell you that a covid vaccine will stop you catching covid and stop transmission, then to find out we were lied to. We might not have known back then, but we shouldn't have been told that unless we knew it to be true.
This was likely out of naivety, but it came from trusted professionals. To me, this highlighted the fact that science is a great process for finding truth, but the weak points will always be the humans.
> When major health officials tell you that a covid vaccine will stop you catching covid and stop transmission, then to find out we were lied to.
The mRNA vaccines did protect more than 90% of the vaccinated against symptomatic infections with the original strain. Then we got new Covid variants where that wasn't the case anymore (Delta and later), but that doesn't mean we were lied to. The situation simply changed.
Everything that happened was so obviously going to happen that the entire show made me sick to my stomach. The situation never changed, we just responded to everything at the speed of the government.
In Jan 2020 I used HN to get my covid information and used it to preempt the toilet paper shortage(by 2 weeks) with: a 3 month supply of basic foods(stuff we eat anyway so no waste), any type of masks or sanitizers that were wanted, and the same for my vulnerable family members.
My mum is alive today because of my distrust of authority. Which I painfully earned starting at age 8.
Yes, the situation changed, but at least in the US the vaccine push from health and political authorities stayed on the taking point regarding the vaccine would stop you from catching and spreading the disease continued for at least three weeks until the talking point changed to “less severe disease”…which at the time was more speculation than a scientific proven result (It’s even a dubious claim today).
So, at points, there were definite lies (including a few well known ones, not related to vaccines), the lies were exposed, and the end result was distrust.
This post is a perfect example how some political groups have weaponized the messy way science works.
When the vaccines were originally rolled out, they did a great job at preventing infections and transmission. This was clearly seen in the original clinical trials and in early epidemiological data and was reported that way by officials and media outlets. However, it later turned out that COVID is much better at mutating to evade immunity than was originally assumed. While the vaccines stayed highly effective at reducing mortality, vaccinated people could get infected by and transmit the new variants. There was then a concerted effort to re-frame our lack of knowledge about coronaviruses as a deliberate lie by scientists and authorities. The insidious thing is that this strategy is quite hard to defend against. Many people are much more willing to believe in a grand conspiracy, than that we simply didn't know that much about this type of virus.
Are you suggesting that flu-like viruses are a new phenomenon? We've probably had flu-like viruses for longer than we've had the word virus! Flu vaccines are an annual event! The scientists knew exactly what would happen and were surely saying "this is what is going to happen...".
The issue is the authoritarians pushing the COVID measures had no time for actual science and didn't care about the opinions of the scientists. That was what was so galling about the follow-the-science types - they weren't listening to scientists. They were often actively obstructing any debate where scientists could argue things out in public.
Yes, pandemic coronavirus are a very new phenomenon. Only a single one (SARS) has been observed before. However, its spread was contained early enough such that its adaption to a large population was not observed. Even two of the four "common cold" coronaviruses (HKU1 and NL63) were discovered as late as 2004. Note that coronaviruses are completely unrelated to "the flu" (influenza).
And we're at the tip of the iceberg. Even the mainstream media is now covering that the mRNA shots increase the risk of stroke substantially. What else are we going to find out?
(and I'm vaccinated, but it's extremely eye opening how all this information is coming out, exactly what the REASONABLE anti vaxxers were warning about. We just don't know the side effects of a new vaccine technology, used on a new virus. It's impossible to declare it to be SAFE (which implies harmless over a long period of time) at day 0. (I'm just quoting Bret Weinstein who definitely isn't an unscientific untrained anti vaxxer).
We made it through the worst of COVID-19 without such a strategy, so "required" seems like an overstatement. Lack of political unity also appears to make a coherent international response strategy difficult and unlikely at best. This problem is well illustrated by this thread of comments. Fragmentation and finger pointing will likely result in a dynamic range of changing approaches. For all of the problems of fragmentation it does have some advantages when dealing with unknowns.
Some people really put all their effort trying to make the worst conspiracy theorists nightmare come true. It's as if they're doing it on purpose, it's just crazy..
There are a group of people who will use any excuse to centralise control. You can call this a conspiracy, or the illuminati or the WEF or whatever. It doesn't matter what you call them. Right now there's more of these people in positions of power than the ones who resist this.
The world is definitely moving in the more centralisation direction, and has done for a while.
> Some people really put all their effort trying to make the worst conspiracy theorists nightmare come true
This is like some weird Schrödinger’s cat kind of logic applied to conspiracies to me. A conspiracy doesn’t exist until you look in the box and see it?
They had a coherent response strategy, this in itself was and still is an ongoing failure by multiple metrics. One thing that saved us was the few areas that bucked the "coherence", yet achieving similar or better results.
"Quick! Everyone do the same thing in a big rush!" is about the dumbest strategy to handle anything. Thankfully cooler heads always prevail, and the panicking hot-heads hyperbolising us into a blind conformity; take notice.
I would recommend first to negate the opinions of any the people who got everything wrong, specifically Neil Ferguson. His predictions were so wrong that in the future no one should take him seriously.
> We recommend that WHO, as part of the PHEIC assessment process, also decides on an optimal response strategy, for example elimination [e.g. Zero Covid], suppression [e.g. mobility restrictions], or mitigation.
This would give WHO the power to unilaterally declare an emergency and a response that must be enforced by all countries globally, without regard to local context. This is the same WHO that ignored its own experts and declared a monkeypox PHEIC anyway, https://www.science.org/content/article/declaring-monkeypox-...
> The World Health Organization (WHO) today declared the global spread of monkeypox a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), even though a special advisory committee again declined to recommend the action. This is the first time since the PHEIC system was created in 2005 that the agency has made such a declaration without the panel’s endorsement. “This is big, unprecedented decision-making by the director general,” says Clare Wenham, a global health expert at the London School of Economics who has studied the history of PHEICs.
If the Lancet recommendations were followed, countries would have spent 2022 responding to a "monkeypox emergency", including possible travel restrictions, lockdowns, etc.
> We declare no competing interests.
Other than advocating for W.H.O to override the elected officials and medical professionals of every nation-state?
The Lancet neglected to mention WHO negotiations in progress: (a) modification of existing (2005) international health regulations, and (b) new treaty to grant expanded powers to WHO. More details at http://StopTheWho.com, which is obviously biased, but objective coverage of this important topic is almost non-existent.
> The WHO is currently overseeing negotiations that are designed to convince its 194 member nations to adopt amendments to the International Health Regulations as well as to adopt a legally-binding “Pandemic Treaty.” These agreements, if adopted, would surrender health related sovereignty over to the WHO ... Agreement by a simple majority of the 194 member nations is all that is needed to adopt the amendments .. to an existing agreement.
The best primary sources are WHO videos on the treaty negotiations, which include testimony from the health ministers of every country. WHO site for new pandemic treaty: https://inb.who.int/
> If WHO’s powers are extended in this way, is there a need to also answer the question quis custodiet ipsos custodes (who guards the guards?), and to thus set up mechanisms ensuring that WHO complies with its obligations under the IHR and its Constitution, as well as its responsibilities for human rights deriving from customary international human rights law?
China has policies based on coherent response strategy, but I think most of us would still have chosen our policies that are based on less coherent response strategies.
If there would be a single authority that can mandate policies around the world, that authority would have so much power that it would necessarily be politized, and would not make decisions based on scientific consensus.
You mean not prioritizing the at-risk demographics, or projecting the economic consequences of printing Trillions, or using the populace as a test case for subsidized drugs is not a coherent response strategy?
I do not mean to sound flippant here, but what businesses does Mr. Fauci operate/own in his capacity as a businessman? I admittedly have very little knowledge of his private life and was under the impression that he was a public employee.
That article says he’s invested in mutual funds. He’s a businessman invested in business? Why isn’t he more anti-lockdown if they are bad for business?
Don’t affiliate marketers have to provide individualized links to make sure they get a cut of a particular sale? Does he operate a blog that does that?
Funny how they always refer to costly lessons learnt but then never state what those lessons were, what was actually learnt from them and what that cost entailed. Just a couple of loose statements and well, it's "The Lancet" so people believe it anyways. Those are smart people and if they say they've learnt costly lessons, it must be true right? Trust the science!
They should be discontinued for all the lies and disinformation regaring Covid, vaccinations, the human immune system etc they spouted in the past two years.
Not to mention helping to bury the lab leak hypothesis.