Jonah S. Rubin (he/him)Dec 30, 2022
Gregg Gonsalves

Please read this consensus statement in Nature from last month. Lately, these common-sense recommendations are being framed as "hardline," "zero-COVID," "fringe," in the popular media and even by some from our own communities, but there is remarkable consensus among scientists on what we need to do, even if we do not want to listen. As a benchmark for our aspirations, this is a fine document. #COVID #publichealth

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05398-2

A multinational Delphi consensus to end the COVID-19 public health threat - Nature

A diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries provides health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end.

Nature
Dec 30, 2022 at 11:13amWeb
Show threadHat. AuDHD cat 😷🌺🍉🌻🔻Dec 30, 2022
@gregggonsalves they aren't fringe but the people labeling them so wish for a world where vulnerable people dying isn't important. Cull the already unwell
And they have mostly succeeded. Ableism runs directly into eugenics when preserving human life is regarded as intolerable limitation on the healthy.
Show threadHat. AuDHD cat 😷🌺🍉🌻🔻Dec 30, 2022
@gregggonsalves this isn't going away. The debate of "when do we get to infect people without pushback" is squarely based on eugenics.
The idea that they are being asked to do something EXTRA so the vulnerable are not eliminated as a result of selfish actions.
Show threadbansDec 30, 2022

@gregggonsalves I’m not sure which of the recommendations you’re referring to because none of the top 10 fit the description you’ve given.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05398-2/tables/8

Table 8 Ten highest ranked recommendations

Show threadGregg GonsalvesDec 30, 2022
@bans You'll have to explain because I think the top 10 are commonsense, sound ideas, and 400 scientists when allowed to vote in the privacy of their own offices came up with this. What are you issues here?
Show threadbansDec 30, 2022

@gregggonsalves I wasn’t disputing that they are good policies recommendations. They certainly are common sense, sound recommendations.

I just don’t see anyone calling them fringe or covid-zero. They don’t seem controversial.

Maybe I’m missing something? Not trying to be argumentative, I promise!

Show threadbansDec 30, 2022
@gregggonsalves because I haven’t had my coffee yet, I’m being clear as mud - I meant I don’t see these recommendations (again, sound and common sense) getting the reception you said they are.
Show threadIdealistic Pragmatist Dec 30, 2022
@bans @gregggonsalves Gregg is alluding to a "thinkpiece" trend over the past week or so that have appeared in highly regarded US-based journalism institutions (like the New Yorker and the New York Times) that have painted people who think these things still need to be done as "the last holdouts" and such. They've all been well-written but completely disingenuous.
Show threadbansDec 30, 2022
@gregggonsalves @IPEdmonton I, thankfully, missed that nonsense. Thanks for the info.
Show threadJonathan Kamens 86 47Dec 30, 2022
@gregggonsalves I wish Emma Green were on the Fediverse so we could all share this with her.
Show threadLes LoreDec 30, 2022

@gregggonsalves

yes - excellent piece

it would be awesome if a broad group of journalists like Andrew Nikiforuk or @pennydaflos or @edyong209 could distill it for average joe like me

as scientists have banded in some jurisdictions into ad hoc modeling/comms groups, it might be powerful if indie journos did likewise

Show threadFinal Round Player 😷🇪🇺🍸Jan 8, 2023

@leslore @gregggonsalves @pennydaflos @edyong209

This. The paper is extraordinarily dense. Journalists, commentators and politics needs to distil this and turn it into comprehensible messages and actions. Without diluting the core messages.

And aimed at the three levels. Personal, Institutional / Corporate, Governmental

Show threadlaurey19Dec 30, 2022
@gregggonsalves #publichealth Recommendations for solid public health and communication seem so common sense. This pandemic didn’t have to become havoc. Suppose we can learn from our mistakes and be better prepared for the next one?
Show threadAlecska 🏳️‍🌈🏴‍☠️♾️🍀🦄Dec 30, 2022
@gregggonsalves could someone summarize it in plain language?
Show threadCaptain ObservantDec 30, 2022
@gregggonsalves I think the problem is that the harms of COVID have been successfully minimized by misinformation (often propagated by PH / govts) that *any* effort to prevent it is now regarded as excessive, unnecessary, and probably harmful in itself.
Show threadBenedicteCallanDec 30, 2022
@gregggonsalves
More importantly it represents where there is broad scientific consensus and identifies what policies have more or less support amongst experts. Very different from the manufactured “public opinion” that some journalists are trying to peddle as the guide for policy…
Show threadLHamiltonDec 30, 2022
@gregggonsalves Good article! Thanks for sharing
Show threadNibsyDec 30, 2022
@gregggonsalves It’s interesting that three of the top ten recommendations are in “communication,” acknowledging that misinformation undermines every other science-based effort to protect society.
Show threadMikeDunnAuthorDec 30, 2022
@gregggonsalves " At the core of this consensus is the solidarity statement: "No one is safe until we all are safe"
Show threadMikeDunnAuthorJan 8, 2023
@gregggonsalves That's part of what's so great about the consensus statement.
Show threadGraydonJan 8, 2023

@gregggonsalves Any civil power able to make and enforce effective public health policy can tax anybody, even billionaires.

That's what the COVID policy debacle is about; if the government can make and enforce effective public health policy, it can tax. (And decarbonize. And change the status quo in other lasting ways.)