Here is a thread on an advisory issued by the Medical Advisory Committee on COVID-19 (MAC) co-chaired by Professor Koleka Mlisana (NHLS) and Professor Marian Jacobs (UCT). 🧵
For transparency this is the full advisory sent to the Minister of Health on December 16 2021.
Unfortunately there are malicious people who are still trying to destroy my life & career for having opinions on a pandemic. As such a disclaimer that these are my own views as a citizen of a country with free speech rights. This thread is fair comment & not advice in any way.
In my view this is arguably the most significant advisory from the MAC, and as such those with power to influence Government COVID policy, since close to the start of the lockdown in late March 2020. All of us on both sides of the argument have learnt a lot since then.
Everyone got things wrong along the way but some were far less mistaken because of a reliance on previous evidence as opposed to forward modeling. At a base level you either viewed this as a virus in the context of everything we already knew or as a totally brand new situation.
Those of us who advocated against many of the measures put in place over the past 22 months did so because we believed they were of greater overall harm than benefit. Almost universally those who disagreed and considered the measures advantageous held the power to act.
As such measures put in place to ‘flatten the curve’, ‘slow/stop the spread’, ‘protect the hospitals’ etc. include:
Others exist but the above were all commonplace globally.
The MAC advisory is proposing the abolition of quarantine (the isolation of well individuals who are believed to have come into contact with a person confirmed to have COVID-19) as well as the immediate cessation of contact tracing (finding all contacts of a positive case).
The wording, logic, and rationale used to arrive at said recommendation is very significant and deserves further analysis because it represents a potential sea change in the public health response to the pandemic, which may have far reaching effects on Government legislation.
The first rather stunning admission in her advisory is the statement that “the proportion of people with immunity to COVID-19 (from vaccination and/or infection) has risen”. This may seem obvious but it openly acknowledges the existence of natural immunity post infection.
Our MAC is therefore acknowledging that previous infection grants a level of protection against COVID-19. This is in line with pre-2020 understanding of viral immunology as well as published data during this pandemic, but has been a point of contention for various reasons.
The next statement of interest is an admission that “efforts to eliminate and/or contain the virus are not likely to be successful”. Such a disclosure places all measures which try to slow or stop the spread in question. This does not imply doing nothing but rather pragmatism.
The advisory further states that “quarantine is not an effective measure for containing [the virus]”. The reasoning behind this is again of great significance and value in potentially changing our approach to dealing with what is now an endemic pathogen.
Of note is an admission that the testing used is “suboptimal” with reference to the sensitivity. There may be disagreement here but it’s a rather rare criticism of the testing which has been used throughout this pandemic at great cost.
Furthermore the statement that “quarantining and contact tracing are of negligible public health benefit…” is yet another nail in the coffin with regards to much of the existing policy including lockdowns which are just quarantine at the level of an entire population.
Following on from this is a section dedicated to addressing “an outdated understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2”. This includes spread via aerosols which “can occur over distances greater than 1-1.5 meters”, negating social distancing amongst other measures.
The MAC further acknowledges the “substantial economic and social burden” of quarantining including the “loss of income, loss of employment, and loss of schooling time” all of which have been the major thrust of those pushing back against lockdowns over the past 2 years.
Their recommendations are that quarantining, i.e. of people not diagnosed as having COVID-19, “be discontinued with immediate effect”. Of note is the recommendation that vaccination status not be a point of discrimination suggesting an equivalent view of transmission risk.
A further recommendation is that a person need not test for COVID unless they “become[s] symptomatic”. This is simply massive because it signals the end of asymptomatic (asymptomatic spread) and a return to pre-pandemic processes of only testing sick people for disease.
Finally is the recommendation that contact tracing be stopped, with which I’ve already dealt but consider that countries like New Zealand amongst others are still attempting to employ this failed approach and you begin to understand the gravity of such a position.
In closing the MAC notes the unsuccessful nature of quarantining and contact tracing as well as the “costs to the individual and broader society”. Simply put this is mostly an excellent and very important advisory which reflects a reasonable and thoughtful scientific approach.
The real question is where to now? What’s done is done and unfortunately the mistakes which have been made along the way can not be taken back. The time for reflection will come but this should not preclude changing direction and doing the right thing even at this late stage.
We can only hope that the Minister of Health and others in Government take heed of this advisory in its full context and meaning, allowing them the serenity to accept the things they can not change, the courage to change the things they can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Rogan starts by asking JD what it’s like running for VP of the USA. Vance says that this is the first time in months he’s been in a “public spot without Secret Service in the room”.
Vance goes on to relate the story of how Trump asked him to be his running mate. Says he missed Trump’s first call and when he called back Trump said “JD you just missed a very important phonecall I’m going to have to pick someone else now…just kidding”.
Vance: “Trump hears my son in the background…and he says put him on the phone…and he reads the statement announcing that I’m the VP nominee…and he’s like what do you think about that Ewan…and my son Ewan is like oh that’s pretty good and he gives the phone back to me”
Joe starts by talking to Trump about his appearance on The View in 2015 where is he introduced as “our friend” and hugged by Whoopi Goldberg, and then mentions how Trump suddenly became an enemy when he started winning.
Trump responds by talking about the shift between his pre and post political life. Essentially goes into his popularity as host of The Apprentice (prompted by Rogan) and how he was loved by many on the Left including those at places like The View - “they loved me”.
Joe says that “the thing turned on you” when they found out you were going to be President and many are starting to realise that - cites Ackman and Musk. Asks what it was like being elevated to President.
What I would do as Minister of Health, a thread. 🧵
Usual disclaimer, I’m just a journalist and not a doctor so this is just my totally uninformed opinion.
I also expect Aaron Motsoaledi, the godfather of the doomed NHI to do exactly none of this.
Here goes:
1. Scrap NHI. Centralizing power over healthcare funding and management is a very bad idea. Instead the Ministry should actively seek out public private partnerships where the Department funds projects and the private sector brings their competencies to fulfill such contracts.
One example is that the management of clinics and hospitals should be put out to tender. Private management groups should be tasked with managing public sector health to a high quality and efficiency with clear KPIs. Government as the contractee would have an oversight role.
Part of the reason that younger people globally are so entitled is because they’ve been told that people who have nice things are “privileged” and that this has been given to them not earned.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
If you were a kid who grew up before the 90s then you understood privilege as something to aspire to.
‘That guy drives a really nice car, what a privilege’
‘This lady has such a beautiful home, she’s really privileged’
Privilege was known to be something you earned.
Equally it was understood that to achieve a position of privilege you had to work pretty hard to get there.
Those who didn’t earn their position of privilege were largely mocked e.g. trust fund kids who didn’t work hard but spent money like water.
I’ve had plenty of good faith engagement with my assertion that the outrage and amplification of Kiddie Amin merely plays into his hands and serves as a very effective marketing campaign for his interests.
I think it’s valuable to discuss what the reaction should look like. 🧵
Let’s deal with the most common objection;
“You can’t ignore this kind of behaviour cf. National Socialist Germany”
Yeah I agree. It’s not about ignoring but rather about moderating response and controlling narrative.
As things stand that idiot says one thing and the very people he’s painting as the enemy react exactly as an enemy would. Because he’s targeting a minority this sets up precisely the dynamic he’s attempting to create.
The result of this is quite the opposite of the ideal.