What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

80+ UK Doctors: Failed COVID Policies Caused ‘Massive’ Harm, Especially to Children (1 Viewer)

Whack are inciting statements like this, in lieu of discussing and debating the subject matter of a thread.

And take in the irony this statement using misinformation to bemoan 'misinformation.' 
Disagree. People have been far too willing to discuss the claims of fake news sites, which has led to them spreading further.

 
But wait, if you don't consider every single source no matter how half baked and conspiracy laden then you're "censoring the information!" 
Consider the source, but then once you do, then also consider the actual underlying source. Too many of you stop at Epoch Times, because of their reputation, when in this case, they aren't the ones who wrote the letter.

Letter signed by medical professionals, not just doctors. Which if you count doctors (123.813) and nurses (301,491) in the UK, that would be 425,304 total. If you go with the 130 in the column and not the 80 in the title, that would be 0.03% of medical professionals in the UK. Wouldn't call that many.

And we are just assuming that Epoch Times is telling the truth...


Another example, where instead of reading what these 80+ doctors are saying, you just want to invalidate them. It's cheap, it's weak and it's lazy. And you are by far not the only one doing it around here.

 
Consider the source, but then once you do, then also consider the actual underlying source. Too many of you stop at Epoch Times, because of their reputation, when in this case, they aren't the ones who wrote the letter.

Another example, where instead of reading what these 80+ doctors are saying, you just want to invalidate them. It's cheap, it's weak and it's lazy. And you are by far not the only one doing it around here.
Explain to me how these 80 docs opinion matters while the 100k plus who've been advocating the vaxxs don't matter?

80 docs is nothing btw.  You can find 80 folks of anything to believe in a conspiracy theory. 

 
Explain to me how these 80 docs opinion matters while the 100k plus who've been advocating the vaxxs don't matter?


I never said the bolded. That's your inference and it's incorrect.

80 docs is nothing btw.  You can find 80 folks of anything to believe in a conspiracy theory


Why go here? Did you actually read the doctors' letter? Are you trying to derail this thread by inciting me? That's my inference.

 
I never said the bolded. That's your inference and it's incorrect.

Why go here? Did you actually read the doctors' letter? Are you trying to derail this thread by inciting me? That's my inference.
Bro, I'm not trying to incite you.  BUT when a tiny subset of folks raises issues that aren't backed up by anything observable we can pretty easily dismiss their claims. 

 
130,000 doctors in the UK, and they could only get 80 signatures?


1. Zero publicity given to this article so far from mainstream. ZERO.

2. Vast majority doctors (by far) won't know of this at all based on #1; of the very few that do, there's a huge swathe that is hardline pro-vax and have bought into the vax or nothing and pro-vax vs. anti-vax narratives. Then there's another huge contingent that fears retaliation and/or reputational risk and won't speak up.

3. How about reading what these 80 doctors had to say, instead of finding whatever other reason you can muster besides their actual message to denigrate them.

 
Another example, where instead of reading what these 80+ doctors are saying, you just want to invalidate them. It's cheap, it's weak and it's lazy. And you are by far not the only one doing it around here.


No, I did read the article, well at least what you posted, Epoch won't get past the companies' firewall here, and on the surface, it sounds like valuable information. I'm just saying you can get a small (fractional percentage) group of anyone to say anything. My Mom's doctor before she passed was a complete quack and unfit to take care of himself much less others, but they sure gave him a scrip pad to hand out drugs.

I'm more than willing to read about any subject from both side, but throwing up something that a small group may or may not have written, published by a site that has a history of being full of it, isn't worth a post, in my opinion. And it shouldn't be defended as the truth just because it fits a narrative that you want.

 
Can we merge all his threads into one? Maybe toss the pinkham ones in with them. Good god. 

I must say, that if I was the owner of a forum such as this I would most assuredly not allow anyone to continually spam the board with false information


Here's another one. Bet he didn't even bother reading the doctors' letter before posting this tripe.

I must say, that if I [were] the owner of a forum such as this I would most assuredly not allow anyone to continually be as uncool and stifling of conversation.

 
Well, I don’t want you to throw out a hip or anything, but can you find another source that has reported on this study?


Posted this for you the last time you made this same callout, upthread: https://www.covid19assembly.org/doctors-open-letter/

I'm more than willing to read about any subject from both side, but throwing up something that a small group may or may not have written, published by a site that has a history of being full of it, isn't worth a post, in my opinion. And it shouldn't be defended as the truth just because it fits a narrative that you want.


https://www.covid19assembly.org/doctors-open-letter/

And it shouldn't be so easily dismissed because it doesn't fit a narrative that you want.

 
1. Zero publicity given to this article so far from mainstream. ZERO.

2. Vast majority doctors (by far) won't know of this at all based on #1; of the very few that do, there's a huge swathe that is hardline pro-vax and have bought into the vax or nothing and pro-vax vs. anti-vax narratives. Then there's another huge contingent that fears retaliation and/or reputational risk and won't speak up.

3. How about reading what these 80 doctors had to say, instead of finding whatever other reason you can muster besides their actual message to denigrate them.
Do you think it's reasonable to assume that there would be 0 doctors who think covid policies are harmful?  I bet you can find some doctors who would argue that smoking isn't dangerous. 

 
Do you think it's reasonable to assume that there would be 0 doctors who think covid policies are harmful?  I bet you can find some doctors who would argue that smoking isn't dangerous. 


Dude, it's not just about how many doctors are saying this. It's about what they are saying.

 
Posted this for you the last time you made this same callout, upthread: https://www.covid19assembly.org/doctors-open-letter/

https://www.covid19assembly.org/doctors-open-letter/

And it shouldn't be so easily dismissed because it doesn't fit a narrative that you want.
That’s the study itself, right?

The source document for the Epoch Times, right?

I appreciate that, but if this study is an exclusive to the ET, then I’m afraid I’m not going to take it very seriously.

If it turns out to be a groundbreaking study, surely another outlet with more credibility will pick it up.

 
https://www.covid19assembly.org/doctors-open-letter/

And it shouldn't be so easily dismissed because it doesn't fit a narrative that you want.


Clicked on it and scrolled down, and I could "sign" it as a "doctor". Literally anyone can sign this thing. And you have to agree to get their emails when you sign.

Again, the information could be solid, but how anyone is confirming anything of scientific value, I'm not seeing it.

 
1. Zero publicity given to this article so far from mainstream. ZERO.

2. Vast majority doctors (by far) won't know of this at all based on #1; of the very few that do, there's a huge swathe that is hardline pro-vax and have bought into the vax or nothing and pro-vax vs. anti-vax narratives. Then there's another huge contingent that fears retaliation and/or reputational risk and won't speak up.

3. How about reading what these 80 doctors had to say, instead of finding whatever other reason you can muster besides their actual message to denigrate them.


So not on Fox?  Breitbart?  The Blaze? 

Huh.  It's almost like even if places for whose agenda it would PERFECTLY line up with won't broadcast it then maybe it's not very meaningful.

80 doctors is 0.003% of doctors in the UK.  That's 3 one thousandths of one percent.  You can find 0.003% of people from any field to say anything.

As to the substance of it, I read through some but some of it is over my head.  A lot of it is very much just broad points and general speculation though.  "Lockdown was psychologically harmful to children".  How harmful?  Based on what?  Is this a foot doctor saying this, or a psychologist?

Lots of other similar stuff too like "they dismissed the ivermectin study because it wasn't peer reviewed, but they didn't require a mask study or lockdown study to be peer reviewed".  As doctors, they obviously know there are very specific requirements before you can start just injecting stuff into people's bodies that are different from behavioral changes, so they're clearly acting in bad faith with statements like that.

I'm sure there are some fair points in there that are over my head.  Most of it is just broad generalized opinions though.  "They relied too heavily on modeling which isn't always accurate".  Okay.  Maybe?  I'm open to the idea but that's just a statement.

Ultimately their broader point seems to be that the psychological damage done to children via masks/lockdowns outweights the physical damage they prevented to the mostly elderly people that suffered at the hands of the disease.  But that's purely conjecture.  They don't even reference one single psychologist among the group.  It's just an idea, floated out there, like any idea anyone could come up with.

I'm open to hearing about some of the points, but the broader speculation is just that.  And like I mentioned above, it's 0.003% of the country's doctors speculating it.  You can probably find just as many doctors that think covid is a punishment sent by Cthulhu and the proper way to stop it was to get in a spaceship and fly to the house of Cthulhu and beg forgiveness.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dude, it's not just about how many doctors are saying this. It's about what they are saying.
It is about how many doctors are saying it.  You've shown us that it's possible to find small numbers of doctors who will say anything.

 
Clicked on it and scrolled down, and I could "sign" it as a "doctor". Literally anyone can sign this thing. And you have to agree to get their emails when you sign.

Again, the information could be solid, but how anyone is confirming anything of scientific value, I'm not seeing it.
“If you wish to add your name to the letter, please fill in the form below.

For more information about “Speak Out”, the Covid19 Assembly’s whistleblowing service, click here.”

Did anyone click there?

 
Aren't you the same guys that didn't say a damn word about the "1000+ doctors wrote a letter to Spotify about misinformation" in the Joe Rogan/Spotify thread?  No one questioned those "doctors" when it turned out that, yeah, not all of them were infectious disease experts either.

You see the problem here?  


I did not even know there was such a letter...let alone comment on it.  Rogan/Spotify thread is simply not that interesting for me.

 
Epoch Times is just the portal. The doctors penned that letter.
It's their standard 1st reply. These people are brainwashed to the point where if fauci, the CDC, msm and the biden administration do not say it, then its obviously lies. They have mass formation psychosis.

Johns Hopkins also did a study on the harms of lockdowns.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/johns-hopkins-study-lockdowns-had-little-to-no-effect-on-covid-19-mortality-but-had-devastating-effects-on-society

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So this letter was published 6 months ago and no mainstream media from ANY country has pushed it's validity?  So the whole world is brainwashed into thinking it's a hoax?  Really makes me want to go out on a limb and believe it.  Or not.  

 
It's their standard 1st reply. These people are brainwashed to the point where if fauci, the CDC, msm and the biden administration do not say it, then its obviously lies. They have mass formation psychosis.

Johns Hopkins also did a study on the harms of lockdowns.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/johns-hopkins-study-lockdowns-had-little-to-no-effect-on-covid-19-mortality-but-had-devastating-effects-on-society
We have a thread on that already…once that “study” didn’t hold up to scrutiny, things got quiet.

But yes…lets claim others are brainwashed…thats a good way to have a conversation.

 
Questioning the effect of lockdowns and school closures seems appropriate.   The reason this letter got pushed into the dusty corners of the internet is the ivermectin garbage and the fact that the lawsuit that this organization brought that this letter was supposed to support was an utter failure.

 
So this letter was published 6 months ago and no mainstream media from ANY country has pushed it's validity?  So the whole world is brainwashed into thinking it's a hoax?  Really makes me want to go out on a limb and believe it.  Or not.  
Maybe you could look at it a different way.....a tiny percentage of "medical professionals" (general practice doctors, nurses, midwives, etc.) raised some potentially important points / discussion topics that to a layman might merit further discussion.

Since that time, there has not been a growth from this tiny percentage to a significant percentage of medical professionals (including those specializing in infectious disease, etc.).  Why is that? 

Unless you insert the tortured hypothetical that lack of mainstream media prevented the medical community at large from "learning the truth", you are left with the Occam's Razor conclusion that the opinions expressed by this vocal community remain what they are: a fringe collection of beliefs that conflicts with the science-backed consensus.  I'm not talking about the consensus of the general population....I'm talking about the consensus of the scientific community.

Call me back when 10,000 medical professionals in the UK have signed this letter.  130 midwives with Joe Rogan fetishes ain't gonna get it done son.

 
Unless you insert the tortured hypothetical that lack of mainstream media prevented the medical community at large from "learning the truth about this letter", you are left with the Occam's Razor conclusion that the opinions expressed by this vocal community remain what they are: a fringe collection of beliefs that conflicts with the science-backed consensus.  I'm not talking about the consensus of the general population....I'm talking about the consensus of the scientific community.


1. Zero publicity given to this article so far from mainstream. ZERO.

2. Vast majority doctors (by far) won't know of this at all based on #1; of the very few that do, there's a huge swathe that is hardline pro-vax and have bought into the vax or nothing and pro-vax vs. anti-vax narratives. Then there's another huge contingent that fears retaliation and/or reputational risk and won't speak up.

3. How about reading what these 80 doctors had to say, instead of finding whatever other reason you can muster besides their actual message to denigrate them.

 
I’m not sure why that’s not a reasonable question. You said you want Reasonable debate yet when a reasonable question gets asked you don’t answer and act like it’s an attack.  


It's a reasonable question in and of itself, within proper context. But proper context wasn't at play. Too much weight constantly on 'who,' and not nearly enough on 'what.' Instead of considering whether or not the message makes sense, instead it's a complete and utter focus on how/why to dismiss the messengers.

 
1. Zero publicity given to this article so far from mainstream. ZERO.

2. Vast majority doctors (by far) won't know of this at all based on #1; of the very few that do, there's a huge swathe that is hardline pro-vax and have bought into the vax or nothing and pro-vax vs. anti-vax narratives. Then there's another huge contingent that fears retaliation and/or reputational risk and won't speak up.

3. How about reading what these 80 doctors had to say, instead of finding whatever other reason you can muster besides their actual message to denigrate them.
You seem to be saying doctors need this kind of letter to be delivered to them by the mainstream media, and then that effectively all doctors are either blindly pro-fax or afraid of retaliation.  If that's what you are saying, I'm saying both claims are patently false.

I suppose it comes down to whether or not you believe the medical professional community includes three or four groups:

1. the group that signed the letter

2. the hardline pro-vax group you mention

3. the afraid of retaliation group you mention

4. a fourth group who does not blindly follow the pro-vax group and does not base their actions on fear of retaliation.  lets call the group the professionals we can trust.

Consciously or sub-consciously, Aaron Rodgers, Joe Rogan and the midwives who signed this letter posit that group 4 does not exist and further that they are qualified and capable to sort out the right answers by listening to podcasts.  I call this group arrogant, ignorant and dangerous.

 
It's a reasonable question in and of itself, within proper context. But proper context wasn't at play. Too much weight constantly on 'who,' and not nearly enough on 'what.' Instead of considering whether or not the message makes sense, instead it's a complete and utter focus on how/why to dismiss the messengers.
Yeah I fundamentally disagree.  When asking questions like this (incredibly complex, complicated and detailed) the who is an very important variable.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's a reasonable question in and of itself, within proper context. But proper context wasn't at play. Too much weight constantly on 'who,' and not nearly enough on 'what.' Instead of considering whether or not the message makes sense, instead it's a complete and utter focus on how/why to dismiss the messengers.
The "who" is also very important though.   I bet even Alex Jones gets some stuff right or has good points, but when 98% of what he says is b.s.  it's probably pretty safe to err on the side of skipping over his info.    Same concept with these sites you use and link.  Then put in context that it seems to be the only type of sources that you gravitate to and... the constant push back.  

 
1. Zero publicity given to this article so far from mainstream. ZERO.
What this typically means is that the story can't be verified, corroborated, or testified to by anyone that carries much credibility. 

Also, doctors aren't typically going to get information from the media, mainstream or otherwise, that will inform their clinical practices to any degree whatsoever.  They get it from their colleagues, fellows, journals, conferences,  continuing education,  etc. A doctor basing any professional opinion-making from media wouldn't be one that I would want treatment from.

It would be like me basing parental decisions on episodes of the Simpsons.

Both would be considered derelict malpractice. 

 
What this typically means is that the story can't be verified, corroborated, or testified to by anyone that carries much credibility. 

Also, doctors aren't typically going to get information from the media, mainstream or otherwise, that will inform their clinical practices to any degree whatsoever.  They get it from their colleagues, fellows, journals, conferences,  continuing education,  etc. A doctor basing any professional opinion-making from media wouldn't be one that I would want treatment from.

It would be like me basing parental decisions on episodes of the Simpsons.

Both would be considered derelict malpractice. 
And yet, we had the dossier and pee tapes blared all over media 24/7 for 4 years.  Not to mention any twitter posts no matter how absurd, any story with Anonymous sources, any story with sources close to X, anytime Adam Schiff open his mouth no matter how ridiculous it was, etcetera etcetera.

You guys and your side believed all of that with zero doubt. No verification just simply someone saying it was enough for your side.

You seriously going to question The credibility of this article? Get out of here.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And yet, we had the dossier and pee tapes blared all over media 24/7 for 4 years.  Not to mention any twitter posts no matter how absurd, any story with Anonymous sources, any story with sources close to X, anytime Adam Schiff open his mouth no matter how ridiculous it was, etcetera etcetera.

You guys and your side believed all of that with zero doubt. No verification just simply someone saying it was enough for your side.

You seriously going to question The credibility of this article? Get out of here.
This is just flat out not an accurate description of how the dossier was reported nor how it was posted about.  Its an awful  gotcha/whatabout attempt.

 
This is just flat out not an accurate description of how the dossier was reported nor how it was posted about.  Its an awful  gotcha/whatabout attempt.
oh that's a bunch of BS and you know it. You guys and your revisionist history is simply ridiculous.

You can sit here all you want and guffaw and act all indignant but everybody knows what went on during the Trump years.  There was not a story you guys did not believe as long as it was anti Trump.

You may not want to face the truth but the truth don't need revision unless you're trying to hide something.  So you can stop with the fake moral High Ground nonsense from your high horse because you have no moral High Ground.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
oh that's a bunch of BS and you know it. You guys and your revisionist history is simply ridiculous.

You can sit here all you want and guffaw and act all indignant but everybody knows what went on during the Trump years.  There was not a story you guys did not believe as long as it was anti Trump.

You may not want to face the truth, which is why you keep trying to revise history. But the truth don't need revision unless you're trying to hide something.

So you can stop with the fake trying to take the moral High Ground because you have no moral High Ground.
A.  The dossier was reported as unverified. Several sources were hesitant to publish it.  
B.  Posters here talked about if true and mostly discussed the salacious parts in a joking manner.

Im not taking any moral high ground.  Im correcting your very clearly inaccurate portrayal of what happened with the dossier.

 
So this letter was published 6 months ago and no mainstream media from ANY country has pushed it's validity?  So the whole world is brainwashed into thinking it's a hoax?  Really makes me want to go out on a limb and believe it.  Or not.  


It was such an important letter that the Epoch Times didn't see the need to report on it for 6 months, either.

And they never really did report on it.  It is on their opinion page, with the opinion piece written and submitted by Children's Health Defense, the anti-vax group headed by Robert F. Kennedy, one of the Disinformation Dozen of COVID misinformation.  

I'm not signing up for an account on ET just to read their opinion pieces, but a quick look at their main Opinion page shows it's rife with pieces from the other top dog on that Disinformation Dozen, Joseph Mercola.

So yeah, this all doesn't reject the actual positions expressed in the letter itself, but it's important to understand the context and manner in which it's being presented.

 
oh that's a bunch of BS and you know it. You guys and your revisionist history is simply ridiculous.

You can sit here all you want and guffaw and act all indignant but everybody knows what went on during the Trump years.  There was not a story you guys did not believe as long as it was anti Trump.

You may not want to face the truth but the truth don't need revision unless you're trying to hide something.  So you can stop with the fake moral High Ground nonsense from your high horse because you have no moral High Ground.
Ok. So following this line of logic why are you falling into the same honey trap now?

 
I’m my opinion, There’s  a lot of  truth to many of those concepts. Some of it is right on if not a bit of mmqb. I’m sorry but I’m fine with an approach that has been in many ways over cautious. And giving a lot of leeway for public health to try, get it wrong and keep trying.

But my exposure to practicing docs is that they’re not like a bunch of hoodwinked bozos afraid of the medical industrial complex. They’re searching for answers too. They’re learning from each other and largely working as a hive. If #### is working, no one is thinking about big pharma. Vaccines are widely accepted as the biggest tool in the toolbelt but not remotely to the exclusion of other treatments. 

Most of the stuff I was reading really early on was about buying time for the vaccine and other treatments to be able to minimize deaths and hospitalization. No one knew ffs exactly what to do. The pivot is slow because people are still dying and no one wants blood on their hands.

 You seem stuck on the idea that there’s a nefarious intention by the public health infrastructure to shut down any dissent. The opposing perspective is that most of the counsel being offered by this conspiratorial mindset is making it harder to keep people alive and out of the hospital. Is it broadly lazy to quit wanting to respond to being challenged? Yeah kinda. We all understand that there’s no truth without challenges to what’s been accepted. So in some ways thank you. But at the same time the spin and angst is annoying when it’s probably doing more harm than good.

So thank you for posting and keeping me questioning my beliefs. But please be open to the more plausible and generous reasons for why certain things are accepted by others. 

 
I’m my opinion, There’s  a lot of  truth to many of those concepts. Some of it is right on if not a bit of mmqb. I’m sorry but I’m fine with an approach that has been in many ways over cautious. And giving a lot of leeway for public health to try, get it wrong and keep trying.

But my exposure to practicing docs is that they’re not like a bunch of hoodwinked bozos afraid of the medical industrial complex. They’re searching for answers too. They’re learning from each other and largely working as a hive. If #### is working, no one is thinking about big pharma. Vaccines are widely accepted as the biggest tool in the toolbelt but not remotely to the exclusion of other treatments. 

Most of the stuff I was reading really early on was about buying time for the vaccine and other treatments to be able to minimize deaths and hospitalization. No one knew ffs exactly what to do. The pivot is slow because people are still dying and no one wants blood on their hands.

 You seem stuck on the idea that there’s a nefarious intention by the public health infrastructure to shut down any dissent. The opposing perspective is that most of the counsel being offered by this conspiratorial mindset is making it harder to keep people alive and out of the hospital. Is it broadly lazy to quit wanting to respond to being challenged? Yeah kinda. We all understand that there’s no truth without challenges to what’s been accepted. So in some ways thank you. But at the same time the spin and angst is annoying when it’s probably doing more harm than good.

So thank you for posting and keeping me questioning my beliefs. But please be open to the more plausible and generous reasons for why certain things are accepted by others. 


Appreciate you and the conversation. I am open to the widely held explanations, despite my reservations. May not seem like that, but it is like that. I just still have a lot more questions than answers, as I navigate this Covidian landscape with and for my family.

Sincerely, I apologize for angst I cause. My intent is forthrightly, ferreting answers to my own (and by extension, others') concerns. We have to stay on our toes about our beliefs. Right now, especially. **This letter makes a lot of great points, and triggers many important, if uncomfortable questions.**

Please take five minutes to read (and consider). The letter is in the OP, in its entirety, broken by section - each of their ten points plus intro and conclusion. Considering it was written 6 mos ago, it still feels timely. Weird feeling when problems identified six months ago are still problems today.

 
So yeah, this all doesn't reject the actual positions expressed in the letter itself, but it's important to understand the context and manner in which it's being presented.


Cool. Now may we consider the ten points made by these doctors?

 
You seem to be obsessed with this subject. 

If you don’t trust the MSM you can read the findings and recommendations from reputable sources like the Mayo Clinic, and the New England Journal of Medicine and others.
 

Alternatively you can ask your family physician on the safety and effectiveness of the Covid vaccines.  
 

Then again they’re just in on the conspiracy I suppose.  Better to get medical advice from reports published by the gateway pundit and epoch times.

 
First, let me state that Covid was awful and even though I am going to speak positive of the Covid lockdowns that does not mean that I think Covid was good.

The lockdowns are directly responsible for the remote working/schooling that was implemented in much of the country. In the fall of 2020 and in early 2021 there was a point that we were responsibly vacationing for a total of 6 out of 12 months. It was great.

This year, now that returned to normal, i still get the benefit of longer vacations. I can extend a vacation for my family by simply staying back at the hotel/cabin, etc and putting in 8 hours of work.

The lockdowns will benefit my kids further when they hit the workforce, by then more companies will have the awesome policy that my company currently implements.

I would argue with anyone that says that lockdowns were bad for our kids future, I see it as the largest positive change to society that we have had in the last 50+years.
This is an extremely interesting take that is probably going to get buried in a dumpster-fire thread.  

I'm kind of like you in the sense that I really enjoyed our WFH period.  Ours didn't last nearly as long as yours -- we all went back to the office in mid-June 2020 -- but admittedly it was pretty great to be able to shift my work around however I wanted.  I can definitely see some potential for this screwing up a person's work-life balance over time, but that's never been a problem for me personally.  Our little group didn't operate quite as efficiently as it did when we were all together because you lose out of informal channels of communication, but that's a totally worthwhile tradeoff IMO.  We're running a little corner of a regional university, not coordinating an amphibious invasion of Europe.  

I don't know that I would really have wanted my whole career to be structured that way, but now that I can see retirement on the horizon and my kids are away, it's pretty attractive.  Of course it's no long an option at my institution, but oh well.  Like I said, retirement is on the horizon anyway so whatever.  

I do think that the long-run social implications from WFH arrangements are interesting.  If this were to catch on more permanently -- big if IMO -- I'm not sure it's all positive.  Our political parties are already realigning along working-class vs. professional-managerial-types lines.  I don't know that's good to have one tribe lounging around in their PJs and going on semi-permanent vacations while the other tribe is placebound.  One doesn't need a strong sense of imagination to see that going badly.  

This could be one of those social trends that's hard to predict, and we look back on it in 20 years realizing that we opened up a lot of side effects that we can't walk back.  Kind of like social media.

 
Maybe you could look at it a different way.....a tiny percentage of "medical professionals" (general practice doctors, nurses, midwives, etc.) raised some potentially important points / discussion topics that to a layman might merit further discussion.

Since that time, there has not been a growth from this tiny percentage to a significant percentage of medical professionals (including those specializing in infectious disease, etc.).  Why is that? 

Unless you insert the tortured hypothetical that lack of mainstream media prevented the medical community at large from "learning the truth", you are left with the Occam's Razor conclusion that the opinions expressed by this vocal community remain what they are: a fringe collection of beliefs that conflicts with the science-backed consensus.  I'm not talking about the consensus of the general population....I'm talking about the consensus of the scientific community.

Call me back when 10,000 medical professionals in the UK have signed this letter.  130 midwives with Joe Rogan fetishes ain't gonna get it done son.
Yep.  Nothing more to say.  130 out of 300,000.  Compelling!! 

 
Do you think it's reasonable to assume that there would be 0 doctors who think covid policies are harmful?  I bet you can find some doctors who would argue that smoking isn't dangerous. 
This has always been the case, but the internet amplifies the voice of fringe groups, and makes it easy to appeal to authority, even when no real expertise exists. While there are a few salient arguments in the letter, many others have been debunked, multiple times, to the point it isn’t really worth the effort to rehash the opposing, mainstream stance. Thankfully, policy makers and clinicians who care for covid patients aren’t so easily duped.

I thought this was interesting as a historical reference:

The first cigarette company to use physicians in their ads was American Tobacco, maker of Lucky Strikes. In 1930, it published an ad claiming “20,679 Physicians say ‘LUCKIES are less irritating’” to the throat. To get this number, the company’s ad agency had sent physicians cartons of Lucky Strike cigarettes and a letter asking if they thought Lucky Strikes were “less irritating to sensitive and tender throats than other cigarettes,” while noting “a good many people” had already said they were.

Unsurprisingly, many doctors responded positively to this biased, leading question, and Lucky Strike ads used their answers to imply their cigarettes must be medically better for your throat. In 1937, the Philip Morris company took that one step forward with a Saturday Evening Post ad claiming doctors had conducted a study showing “when smokers changed to Philip Morris, every case of irritation cleared completely and definitely improved.” What it didn’t mention was that Philip Morris had sponsored those doctors.
Other than a few titles, what do we really know about the people who penned this letter? How do they overlap with the 46K “medical practitioners” who signed The Great Barrington Declaration?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top