[ad_1]
Professor Robert Dingwall said the closing rules were drawn up by well-paid professionals who could afford to continue working safely in comfortable homes. But such a company can only function if “essential workers” – including delivery drivers and shopkeepers – continue their roles in the very areas that academics have deemed risky, said Prof. Dingwall. He said the pandemic policy was made on the basis that the public was incapable of making decisions on their own and needed to be led by an “elite” of experts.
The approach was based on the view that “empty heads must be filled with the rationality of science,” with fines in place if they don’t comply, he said.
But this led to a hierarchical system that favored the professional classes.
Prof Dingwall, a leading public health expert who is part of several UK government advisory groups, said: “The blocks are based on a hierarchy in which well-paid professionals working from home set rules for the people of the working class who have to go out and face the actual risks of Covid infection.
“Groceries and other supplies can be delivered to the gates of the middle class as the people behind them wait for the infection rate to drop to a level where they believe it is safe to go out.”
Professor Dingwall, speaking in a personal capacity, continued: “Many of the people designated as ‘essential workers’ who must continue to work under lockdown conditions are among the least paid.
“They work in factories, nursing homes, warehouses, fields and packaging plants and are forced to adhere to patrician policies drawn up by people who live in large houses, have large gardens and have little understanding of their life.
“These are the same people that the professional classes rely on to carry food, provide care for their loved ones, remove their waste and deliver their packages, allowing them to remain closed without taking the same risks.”
He said “science had forgotten society” in the current blockade restrictions and called for “public dialogue and commitment” to develop future policy in ways that were “sustainable and equitable”.
Professor Dingwall of Nottingham Trent University spoke as it was suggested that each day of Christmas freedom could result in five more days of stricter restrictions.
Interviewed by a German website, he pointed out that the consultants were highly qualified experts in their fields.
But he wondered if the decisions made were taking into account the bigger picture.
He said: “Sage was directed to focus on controlling Covid-19 to the exclusion of any other concerns for health and society in general. Independent Sage followed suit.
“The scientists involved are leaders in their fields – men and women with great experience and compassion – but they are not invited to think beyond the immediate task.
“This is not a conspiracy of individuals crazed by power, but of people working within a narrow framework.
“They have fallen back on a traditional scientific approach of assuming that the ordinary public is ignorant and should be led by an elite.
“Empty heads must be filled with the rationality of science. If that doesn’t work, the rules must be written and enforced with penalties.
“Sociological studies on the relationship between science and society, dating back more than 30 years, have however shown that heads are not empty.
“Ordinary people have their own knowledge and logic, their own ideas and beliefs. After the March emergency was over, there should have been much more than a national dialogue. The lack of this has become more and more problematic with the passage of time “.
Professor Dingwall noted that there had been no significant investment in evaluating the restrictions used in blocks or tiers, such as in researching effective drugs or developing vaccines.
This made it difficult to know which restrictions worked and to be able to explain to people why they should accept them.
“Many of the rules have been inconsistent and lack valid evidence. For example, you can walk on a golf course with another person, but if you bring a set of clubs, you could be fined.
“Even Sage accepts that the evidence on the value of face coverings in reducing transmission is both weak and uncertain. A recent Danish study failed to find any significant benefits, despite using good quality masks and training people to use them. “
He said future rules should only be in place if they are demonstrably effective and that the public must play a bigger role in what happens while we wait for a vaccine.
“We only need to consider maintaining measures that have an adequate evidence base,” he said.
“Our first preference should be for people to manage their contacts voluntarily rather than applying one size fits all rules that will inevitably seem arbitrary, numb and irrelevant.
“We need to stop relying on fear and punishment. People must be partners in the phasing out of controls as vaccination spreads through the population. “
[ad_2]
Source link
