Prof Devi Sridhar is chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh and wrote a balanced view yesterday
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/13/rise-covid-cases-what-we-know-so-far which includes medical-grade masks and ventilation as still important measures we can take [a small part of the larger piece, do read it all for context].
She's changed her minds several times on various issues.
I'd like to understand what she means by "beat this"; talk of "beating" a virus really is nonsense! If people are saying that vaccinating people will "beat" a pandemic through providing our immune systems with the means to fight the virus, then yes I can see it in that context.
But given we've vaccinated over 93% of the population, we are well past that stage; such language is unhelpful and misleading because the only way the pandemic can be deemed to "end" is by reaching endemic equilibrium. The only way to reach that equilibrium is for people to be exposed to the virus.
She talks of a "new wave" in a manner that suggests we should be fearful or that it is unexpected or can be avoided; these assertions are all false. Every year we get new "waves" of many common respiriatory viruses, which act as boosters when we are exposed to these common viruses to which we already have immunity. This is no longer a novel virus but a virus our immune systems are already familiar with to some extent. Our immunty to it needs to continue to increase, just as happened with many other viruses which previously jumped to humans.
Her reference to "herd immunity" is irrelevant; the endgame is endemic equilibrium. She chooses not to state this in her article; I wonder why?
She makes the claim that it would be "better" to "avoid getting Covid-19"; but as stated earlier, the original symptoms termed Covid 19 are no longer applicable except in an absolutely tiny proportion of cases and we have moved on. Furthermore, it is not possible to "avoid" exposure to Sars-CoV-2; the idea that we should wear masks in order to prevent exposure to Sars-CoV-2 (or "getting Covid 19 as she erroneously calls it) is absurd and deeply flawed.
When she refers to "medical grade masks" she must mean at least an FFP2/3 respirator, but by using language that is open to interpretation, people may think that flimsy, loose fitting masks will do the job, which they certainly won't. The article then improves when she argues reasons against using such masks; at least that's an improvement compared to her previous rants.
She then goes on to argue for boosters for all; has she done a cost benefit analysis? Why would a non vulnerable, non elderly person need a booster anyway? The data just isn't there to support it. xLeading virologists and immunologists that I've listened to are of the view that once you have 3 doses of vaccine, you should be good for some considerable time, and that natural exposure to the virus will act as a booster, just as is already the case for many other respiriatory viruses.
Having read the article, it really isn't advocating masks. It appears to be stating that FFP2/3 respirators can be effective (which is true) but then argues
against their widespread use, which I agree with. The article is very muddled and wooly and doesn't really have any substance. Does she get paid to write these articles?
