video
Thư viện
Tài trợ
Thất bại lớn
30 Nov, 2023
các tác giả đã để những chuyên gia y tế khác được cất tiếng nói, những người trước đây bị gạt ra bên lề trong các cuộc tranh luận, về đeo khẩu trang, về phong tỏa... bị dán nhãn là phản khoa học...
-----
The Big Fail, Joe Nocera and Bethany McLean’s new book about the pandemic (đại dịch), is an angry (giận dữ) book. Rightly so. It decries (chê bai, nói xấu, gièm pha) the way the bien pensant (thái độ, quan điểm truyền thống/ chính thống), the self-righteously conventional, were able to sideline (gạt ra bên lề), suppress (đàn áp, chặn) and belittle (coi nhẹ, xem thường) other voices as unscientific, fraudulent (không trung thực, lừa dối) purveyors (người cung cấp hàng hóa, dịch vụ) of misinformation (sự báo tin tức sai, làm cho đi sai hướng). The Big Fail gives the other voices their hearing— Martin Kulldorff, Sunetra Gupta, Jay Bhattacharya and Emily Oster are recast not as villains but as heroes; as is Ron DeSantis who is given credit for bucking the conventional during the pandemic (Nocera and McLean wonder what happened to the data-driven DeSantis, as do I.)
Amazingly, even as highly-qualified epidemiologists (khoa nghiên cứu bệnh dịch, dịch tễ học) and economists were labelled “anti-science” (phản khoa học) for not following the party line (chủ trương của đảng), the biggest policy of them all, lockdowns (phong tỏa), had little to no scientific backing:
…[lockdowns] became the default strategy (chiến lược mặc định) for most of the rest of the world. Even though they had never been used before to fight a pandemic, even though their effectiveness had never been studied, and even though they were criticized as authoritarian overreach—despite all that, the entire world, with a few notable exceptions, was soon locking down its citizens with varying degrees of severity.
In the United States, lockdowns became equated (ngang với) with “following the science.” It was anything but. Yes, there were computer models suggesting lockdowns would be effective, but there were never any actual scientific studies (nghiên cứu khoa học thực sự) supporting the strategy. It was a giant experiment (cuộc thử nghiệm vĩ đại), one that would bring devastating social and economic consequences (hậu quả kinh tế, xã hội thảm khốc).
The narrative lined up “scientific experts” against “deniers, fauxers, and herders” with the scientific experts united on the pro-lockdown side (the following has no indent but draws from an earlier post). But let’s consider. In Europe one country above all others followed the “ideal” of an expert-led pandemic response. A country where the public health authority was free from interference from politicians (sự can thiệp của chính trị gia). A country where the public had tremendous trust (niềm tin lớn lao) in the state. A country where the public were committed to collective solidarity (tình đoàn kết) and public welfare. That country, of course, was Sweden. Yet in Sweden the highly regarded Public Health Agency, led by state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell, an expert in infectious diseases (bệnh truyền nhiễm), opposed lockdowns (phản đối phong tỏa), travel restrictions (hạn chế di chuyển), and the general use of masks (đeo khẩu trang tràn lan).
It’s important to understand that Tegnell wasn’t an outsider marching to his own drummer, anti-lockdown was probably the dominant expert opinion prior to COVID. In a 2006 review of pandemic policy, for example, four highly-regarded experts argued:
It is difficult to identify circumstances in the past half-century when large-scale quarantine (cách ly) has been effectively used in the control of any disease. The negative consequences of large-scale quarantine are so extreme (forced confinement (cưỡng ép giam cầm) of sick people with the well; complete restriction of movement of large populations; difficulty in getting critical supplies (vật tư quan trọng), medicines, and food to people inside the quarantine zone) that this mitigation measure (biện pháp giảm thiểu) should be eliminated from serious consideration.
Travel restrictions, such as closing airports and screening travelers at borders, have historically been ineffective.
….a policy calling for communitywide cancellation of public events seems inadvisable.
The authors included Thomas V. Inglesby, the Director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, one of the most highly respected centers for infectious diseases in the world, and D.A. Henderson, the legendary epidemiologist widely credited with eliminating smallpox from the planet.
Nocera and McLean also remind us of the insanity of the mask debate, especially in the later years of the pandemic.
source: marginal revolution,
Post a Comment