Siouxsie Wiles: They say, ‘learn to live with Covid-19’. Here’s what I say back | The Spinoff

India

English

coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Link28 Aug, 2020

The Spinoff

New Zealand has opted for an elimination strategy, but a vocal minority is calling for an alternative approach that would see an end to lockdowns and...

Colin Watson

@ColinWatson

5comments

Michael Taylor

@maplekiwi

Commented 29 Aug, 2020

It is a well written article, however it is a good example of why medical specialists should not set policy. She has certainly gone deeply into her medical concerns, however that has left her only examining one side of the issue. Several of the experts that the Covid Plan B team brought in for their event made the point that this is not a question of economy vs lives (https://youtu.be/JBIJaWAGOo4). It is a case of lives vs lives. Where there are lockdowns we see deaths of despair from isolation, domestic violence and job loss. Watch the above video for the full argument, which I think is much more balanced view point (from a front-line doctor who worked in hospitals handling covid cases).

I will also point out that the "vocal minority" saying that lockdowns do not work now includes the WHO. The FDA in the US is now willing to approve vaccines that do not even prevent transmission (only acting to prevent the worst symptoms). People have been working on corona virus vaccines for 30 years. It is a hard problem. We should not base our strategy on an uncertain technological development.

My whole family had SARS in the 2004 outbreak. It was unpleasant, but the general public has mostly forgotten SARS. The reality is most people will survive multiple epidemics over the course of their life. In our old age, once we are more frail and susceptible, yes, it may be an epidemic (or regular seasonal flu) that ushers us out of this life. This has been a common pattern in our world for a long time, but we've never stopped society from functioning normally because of it. Maybe we need more public debate on whether we should be doing so now. Even if I was an octogenarian right now, I would be saying, "sure I'll take extra protection, but forget these extreme measures."

Colin Watson

@ColinWatson

Replied 29 Aug, 2020

Counter point why should a specialist in sugar be used ?
More to the point encouraging people to break public health orders is boarding on criminally irresponsible.
Suicide stats have been released to show this is not occurring enmass possibly this would be due to mitigation by government with vast amounts of cash being pumped into various sectors
The WHO have said it's not a sustainable solution locking down note the key term of sustainability.
You have seen the article about cormorbities ?
Plan B puts over 1 million people at risk how many times does it need to debunked
General public not remembering Sars is a broad statement I worked in a rest home and they took it very seriously sorry to hear about your family contracting it.

Michael Taylor

@maplekiwi

Replied 30 Aug, 2020

I have been amazed, during the covid-19 crisis, by the way anyone who has questioned the government's public policy as being irresponsible or traitorous. Robust debate is at the root of all democracy and is not any less important during a crisis. Public debate around the covid-19 response is not the same as encouraging people to break public health orders.

I can understand the level of concern and even fear around the current situation. It is a charged situation. However, we shouldn't let ourselves be divided into factions.

I think that you are correct that the government's subsidies have fended off some of the deaths of despair that we might have seen. My wife works as a mental health professional and she is certainly seeing a rise in domestic violence (including domestic violence death) and we are aware of suicides related to lockdown. The arguments go much deeper than suicides and DV though. If you watch the link I posted, there are stats saying that unemployed people do not live as long. So, years are lost there too. You would need to watch the presentation to take in the whole argument.

The question is, how long can the government provide those subsidies? We are waiting for two unlikely things to chain together. The first is that we manage to absolutely control the transmission of a virus in 5 million people. The second is that we develop a corona virus vaccine faster than a vaccine has ever been developed before. Neither has ever been done before. Look up Peter Hotez talking about the difficulties of developing a corona virus vaccine.

The term debunked is not appropriate in this debate. It is condescending and inaccurate. If you watch NZ media, you might think that elimination is the only sensible solution. However, there are many high profile epidemiologists and other experts outside of New Zealand that are very critical of plan A. I am not aware of any that are in favour of it. So, to imply that the elimination is the only reasonable approach is disingenuous.

https://unherd.com/thepost/oxford-epidemiologists-suppression-strategy-is-not-viable/
https://www.covidplanb.co.nz/international/covid19-its-nz-vs-the-world/

I am not sure which study you mean in reference to co-morbidities. I am familiar with the issue and my daughter has a significant one.

I certainly expect that those who worked with the vulnerable during SARS will remember it, I did not mean to imply otherwise. However, I don't think it left a permanent impression on the general public.