The World Health Organization declared that COVID-19 is no longer a public health emergency. It appears that the pandemic gradually is coming to an end. That does not put a stop to the concerns and controversy surrounding public health policy. Considerable debate continues about the origins of the virus. The origin was either zoonotic or the result of gain of function research. Bats and pangolins were cited as the origin of COVID-19. However, the Wuhan Lab that was doing viral research might have been the source. The lab leak theory gains more credibility when viral research has been done for a number of years internationally. A definite answer or conclusion cannot be made without an investigation. Speculation is not conspiracy theory. Notions that COVID-19 was a Chinese bioweapon or part of a depopulation program would be deemed conspiracy theories. The accusation of disinformation and conspiracy theory has been designed to deflect major failures during the crisis. Public health policy was handled poorly and caused more damage. Lockdowns were neither effective or helpful in stopping the virus. The negative impacts will be seen for years to come. Education, the economy, and personal health suffered due to the lockdowns imposed. Social distancing, vaccination, viral testing, use of masks, and quarantines were far more effective methods than lockdowns. Few questioned the policy or acknowledged the devastation it caused. Anti-lockdown protests occurred, because the policy was causing psychological and economic harm to citizens. The more restrictions that came, the greater the possibility of basic human rights to violated. The COVID-19 pandemic ushered in an era of biosecurity policing state apparatus. When the next pandemic emerges methods might become more draconian. Lockdowns should not be part of public health policy.
Education was effected. Children were experiencing learning loss. Locking down schools had no scientific basis given the data. Children were at the lowest risk of death from COVID-19. Risk factors increased based on age and health condition. A person with comorbidities would ne more likely to die from the virus. Healthy children would be safe. The lockdown of schools put struggling students at a disadvantage. Those with learning disabilities or students having difficulty with a particular subject need in person instruction. Students who had high academic performance also experienced learning loss. Reading and mathematics must be taught in a certain way. Online instruction is not enough to fully master these subjects. The digital divide demonstrated the disparities among students. Every child does not have internet access. Students of lower socioeconomic status were put at a disadvantage. While primary and secondary school students were negatively impacted, university students were as well. COVID-19 made most classes online. Considering that students are paying high tuition, this becomes more egregious. Students come to class to get a full lecture and instruction. The fact in person learning was not part of students 2020 semester deprived them of the educational experience. Learning loss is not a temporary mishap. Children who do not learn the essential skills needed will struggle to get employment in the future. As technology and the process of automation advances higher education will be needed for the majority of the workforce. Disruptions such lockdowns jeopardized children's education.
The economic devastation from lockdowns can still be felt. Small businesses struggled, unemployment increased, and the world's population lost financial security. Governments did not supply an adequate amount of funds for people to sustain themselves under lockdown. While major corporations were protected, small businesses failed. Working from home was an option for some. Certain jobs cannot operate this way. Construction, retail, and public transportation need employees to present. Some financial aid did come, but did account for cost of living. Rent, utilities, mortgages, food, and fuel still had to be paid. Lockdowns made it impossible to conduct basic commerce. The result was a rapid growth electronic commerce. Seeing as shops, stores, and shopping centers were not open due to lockdown restrictions an uneven shift occurred. Microsoft , Amazon , and streaming services did not have competition. The stores that did remain open began doing price gouging. Those who were employed as essential workers were praised, but did not get the proper amount of hazard pay. Nurses and grocery store workers were made into heroic figures, yet not treated as such. The economy was made worse by lockdowns and exacerbated class division. The poor suffered more in comparison to the upper class elite. Those who who were middle class were getting closer to falling into poverty. Unless a person could get remote work, finding a job was more difficult during the pandemic. Staying home would not be possible unless a person had enough income to cover living expenses. The years between 2021 to 2022 did not see a recovery. People did not return to jobs, because the pay was to low . When the lockdowns ended all the businesses did not return. The use of masks and social distancing would have been a more practical solution . Instead lockdowns and erroneous supply-side economic policies were implemented.
The well being of the public was harmed by lockdowns. Reports of mental health concerns and a rise of domestic violence became common. Loneliness and depression rates were directly connected to the lockdowns. These mental health conditions existed before lockdowns, it just caused more people to suffer from them. The anxiety was also induced by a media and government that promoted fear rather than rational solutions. Panic and concerns about getting sick made some withdraw from social contact. People could not see friends or family. To some this a critical support system. Those with a stable relationships in their social circles discovered for the first time how it feels to be isolated. The lockdowns had an disparity between men and women in terms of well being. Domestic violence became a bigger threat to women under lockdowns. Women who experienced this abuse had limited options during the pandemic. Women's shelters might not have been available. The freedom of movement was restricted and women attempting to escape violence was made harder. Little consideration was given to the horrid condition in which victims of violence live. Mental health was not only effected, but a physical condition can be too. People require some exposure to sunlight. Being sedentary during lockdown can alter circulatory system health. The feeling of being trapped caused a sense of hopelessness. Some were even speculating that the lockdown was going to be a "new normal ." People who were financially secure felt lockdowns were an extended vacation. Others were stressed, losing their housing, and in state of constant anguish. The decline in mental health predates the pandemic. The public health crisis made it worse.
Lockdowns were presented as the only solution. When the pandemic started vaccines were not available. Those who challenged the position were either ignored or accused of spreading disinformation. When it became apparent that a zero COVID-19 policy was not possible, more people objected to lockdowns. Anti-lockdown protests emerged in Germany, China, the US, Spain, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Hungary, and Austria. Canada, Israel, and Lebanon also saw anti-lockdown protests. The demonstrations were not a far-right plot, but a reaction to strict stay at home orders. Citizens were almost forced to protest due to governments not giving sufficient funds to survive. When it came to China's zero COVID-19 policy it meant food insecurity for the people of Shanghai. Those who refused to get vaccinated in Austria were subjected to lockdown. The irrational fear and demonization of the unvaccinated was just another case of panic influencing behavior. The vaccinated can still spread the virus, so the vaccine mandates did not matter. Lockdowns did not contribute to stopping the pandemic. What got the crisis under control was reaching a point of hybrid immunity and vaccines.COVID-19 will not disappear or be eliminated by lockdowns. Quarantines and viral testing are better approaches. Quarantines take individuals who were sick or exposed and separates them. The term should not be confused with lockdown, which stops daily operations or activities. Efficient viral testing would have prevented much of the disturbances that followed. Social distancing in public accommodations made more sense than shutting down various public places. Instead certain nations chose a lockdown policy when studies have show they were not effective. John Hopkins University concluded in 2022 that lockdowns did not reduce COVID-19 mortality. The spread of the disease was only minimally reduced. Lockdowns were evidence of failed public health policy. The unfortunate fact is that governments and the biomedical establishment will not learn from their mistakes. The world remains unequipped to fight the next pandemic.
No comments:
Post a Comment