The Dutch have explicitly altered key portions of the #JohnSnowMemorandum.

These changes are a rejection of and undermine the very scientific consensus that the memo supports and advocates.

(Use the translate button to read the linked thread in English.)
From the outset, there has been a 'Dutch version' of the science around Sars-CoV-2. The govt's science advisors have rejected the scientific consensus on important issues such as presymptomatic transmission, risks of indoor transmission, and the need for PPE in healthcare.>>
This rejection of science, by the very scientists charged with providing the advice that forms the basis of national policy, has been consistent and disastrous.>>
>>For example: to this day, hcw's do not wear masks during NonCovid care. Patients are not tested for Sars-CoV-2 upon admission for other care. Covid patients are transported on the elevators used by the public and nonCovid patients. Because 1.5 m + handwashing are sufficient. >>
>>In the Netherlands, it is not necessary for anyone younger than 18 to maintain physical distance from others. So all schools are fully open with essentially no precautions. Full classes, no ventilation, no distancing. Why? Because 'children don't spread Sars-CoV-2'.>>
>>In the Netherlands, wearing masks gives only a false sense of security. Masks are neither source control nor infection control. They cause people to become careless with other precautions.>>
>>In the Netherlands, gyms are open and may conduct group classes of up to 30 people indoors. Extra ventilation is not necessary. The pre-Covid era building code is sufficient. Because the risks of transmission are no greater indoors than outside.>>
>>It looks very much as though Dutch govt science advisors want to wrap themselves in the credibility of the #JohnSnowMemorandum while simultaneously rejecting the consensus that the memo supports and advocates.>>
>>The authors of and signatories to the #JohnSnowMemorandum should publicly reject this clumsy and dishonest attempt at sciencewashing the failed Covid policy response in the Netherlands.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Laura McCall

Laura McCall Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @equibotanica

15 Oct
Any pandemic management strategy relying upon immunity from natural infections for COVID-19 is
flawed; it is a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence.

This is the authoritative, consensus view.

Where do Dutch scientists and medical professionals stand?
"Uncontrolled transmission
in younger people risks significant
morbidity and mortality across the whole population. In addition to the human cost, this would impact the workforce as a whole and
overwhelm the ability of health-
care systems to provide acute and
routine care.>>
>>Furthermore, there is no evidence for lasting protective
immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following
natural infection, and the endemic
transmission that would be the
consequence of waning immunity
would present a risk to vulnerable
populations for the indefinite future."
Read 8 tweets
22 Aug
"Controlling this pandemic is difficult when the fundamental science determining the response is misunderstood. Accepting the importance of airborne transmission may prove a crucial breakthrough and should not be delayed further."

bmj.com/content/370/bm…
"The high viral loads present in the pharynx early in the course of covid-19 make these aerosols a plausible cause of both pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic transmission, which is so effective in fuelling outbreaks and yet difficult to control."
"...international guidance must acknowledge the weight of evidence supporting airborne transmission of covid-19 and include recommendations to promote effective preventive measures."
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!