Reclaiming Science: A truth to come?

Link: https://youtu.be/-64NQSkUhu8Briefing Document: Review of COVID-19 Lockdowns and the Future of Science and Health PolicyThis briefing document summarizes the main themes and most important ideas presented in the interview with Jay Bhattacharya, Emeritus Professor of Medicine, Economics, and Health Research and Policy at Stanford University, and current Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of the United States. The discussion critically reviews the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly the implementation of lockdowns, and outlines a vision for the future of science and public health.Jay Bhattacharya held reservations about lockdowns "almost from the very beginning," citing an immediate understanding of the "tremendous harms, especially the poor, especially children." He viewed lockdowns as "irresponsible" and "essentially a policy aimed at protecting the laptop class" – those with the financial stability and living conditions to isolate without significant job loss or disruption. For the "vast swaths of especially children," lockdowns were predicted to be "deeply harmful."Key anticipated harms included:Increased Domestic Violence and Child Abuse: Bhattacharya predicted a rise in these issues, noting that schools are primary places where child abuse is identified in the United States.Economic Disruption: Lockdowns were seen as having "collateral harms... especially on the poor [and] on children."Fear and Inability to Reopen: The initial "2 weeks" of lockdown were seen as a signal to the world "that you must be scared," leading to a self-perpetuating fear that "made it impossible to reopen."Devaluation of Well-being: The policy "devalued the well-being of vast numbers of people who were not vulnerable to COVID but were vulnerable to lockdown."Bhattacharya asserts that the initial mortality rates reported (e.g., 3-4% by the WHO) were "exaggeration[s]" and "overestimation[s]." His research in California found that for every identified case, "there were 50 people walking around that already had COVID and recovered," indicating a much lower death rate of "two out of a thousand, three out of a thousand." This led to the conclusion that "it wasn't based on a real acknowledgement of the scientific evidence about who was highest risk; it was older people as highest risk from the disease."I. Critique of COVID-19 Lockdowns and Pandemic ResponseA. Initial Reservations and Predicted Harms of LockdownsB. Miscalculation of Mortality Rate and Misunderstanding of RiskHosted by Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.