3 ms·
This has nothing to do with hindsight. We've known for decades that hand sanitizer (and antibiotic soap) kills off the beneficial bacteria on your hands, and a
by hedora 3y ago
This has nothing to do with hindsight.
We've known for decades that hand sanitizer (and antibiotic soap) kills off the beneficial bacteria on your hands, and also dries out skin, increasing the percentage of pathogens that survive contact with skin, and also increasing the percentage that manage to get past skins' protective barriers.
We also knew that coronavirus was airborne well before 2019.
The medical and microbiology/virology communities provided advice that was the exact opposite of what the epidemiologists suggested, and were ignored.
Epidemiologies are closer to being historians or sociologists than doctors, so letting them run the show made no sense, and, in hindsight, what was obvious at the time turned out to be correct. The lockdowns were absurdly expensive, created massive secondary public health problems, and didn't save as many people as the approach dictated by conventional wisdom would have.
Conventional wisdom said we should figure out which people were most vulnerable (the elderly, obese and people with chronic medical conditions), and aggressively quarantine just them. That would allow covid to spread through the rest of the population in a month or two, and wouldn't require the entire economy to shut down. Instead, something like 5% of the workforce would call in sick for a month or two.
At this point, the excess mortality from the pandemic is above the expected mortality rate for low risk groups, so, in hindsight, we now know for sure that we should have listened to the medical community, and the findings of the (now retired) epidemiologists that studied the last pandemic.
Having more supporting evidence now doesn't change the fact that all of this was obvious at the beginning of the pandemic, but that it was ignored / actively censored by our leaders.
Anyway, at the end of the day, covid is a strain of the common cold, not some crazy alien pathogen that we have zero experience with. Also, humans have dealt with dozens of pandemics during recorded history. The whole "this was a brand new thing we had no experience with" argument just doesn't hold water.
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoIf the people identified to deal with pandemics, are mere 'historians', then maybe the terms are wrong, or where you studied Epidemiology had a different take on it. Right from wiki, this sure sounds like Epidemiologist are the ones to make the call. : Epidemiology is the study and analysis of the distribution (who, when, and where), patterns and determinants of health and disease conditions in a defined population. It is a cornerstone of public health, and shapes policy decisions and evidence-based practice by identifying risk factors for disease and targets for preventive healthcare. Epidemiologists help with study design, collection, and statistical analysis of data, amend interpretation and dissemination of results (including peer review and occasional systematic review). Epidemiology has helped develop methodology used in clinical research, public health studies, and, to a lesser extent, basic research in the biological sciences.[1]
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoSounds like you also have a 'loose' interpretation of a 'cold'.
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoSo, am I re-reading your post correctly. That since we dealt with dozens of pandemics, we should what? Do nothing? or Wait to 'figure out which people' get sick, then react? But wouldn't people then already be getting sick and thus already too late to quarantine? This whole line of reasoning is based on 'hindsight', you're fantasizing about past decisions with current knowledge.
- junofan 3y agoWe should plan better for the next mild respiratory pandemic instead of listening again to people making ridiculous shit up on the spot.