In everyday life, it only makes sense to initiate a new action if we are reasonably confident it will not result in more harms than benefits. The importance of this notion is amplified manyfold when it is powerful actors – politicians and their public health experts – forcing the change on their citizens. The precautionary principle (PP) in its original form endorsed this important rule and complemented the Hippocratic oath of our medical doctors to ‘first do no harm’. Yet throughout the Covid event we have witnessed a total disregard for this principle with the imposition of a series of non-evidenced restrictions, driven more by ideology than science, where the resulting collateral damage has dwarfed any benefits. One stark example – the focus of this article – has been the forced masking of people in community settings, a practice that continues in many areas of healthcare today.
The precautionary principle initially emerged in the 1970s primarily in response to growing concerns about industrial pollution from toxic chemicals. The central premise was a reasonable one: in situations of uncertainty, innovation – such as the introduction of a novel process or intervention – should only proceed if there was no reasonable likelihood of serious unforeseen harms. In effect, in situations where traditional science had not yet investigated the potential for collateral damage from a new way of doing things, the PP put the burden of proof on the innovators to demonstrate that their novel project would not cause harm. If applied to the specific issue of mass-masking during the Covid era, the experts at SAGE (and all the other multi-disciplinary groups, such as the Royal Society, Independent SAGE and DELVE, who pushed for legislation to compel us all to cover our faces) should have produced persuasive evidence that masks do no harm before making their recommendations.
Instead, those pushing the pro-mask narrative often resorted to tropes and appeals to common sense: “It’s only a mask”; “It’s not much to ask, a small inconvenience”; “If it helps a little at the margins, it’s worth it”; “What harm can it do?”
In early summer 2020, our public health experts would have recognised the validity of two assertions. First, that the scientific evidence that masks significantly reduce viral transmission was – at best – weak and contradictory. Second, that the mass-masking of healthy people across the Western world had never before been undertaken and, therefore, the potential unintended harms of such a policy were largely unknown. Under these circumstances, the original PP would have emphatically advised, “when in doubt, do nothing“: do not encourage or recommend the wearing of masks, and – most definitely – do not even contemplate mandating them.
If only, if only.
If only our public health experts had heeded this sensible precautionary message:
- We would not have stunted the social and emotional development of countless numbers of our young children, many being rendered unable to recognise facial expressions;
- We would not have contributed to the inflated levels of fear in the population, fear that discouraged hospital attendances, exacerbated loneliness, and thereby increased the number of non-Covid excess deaths;
- We would not have re-traumatised many victims of historical physical and sexual abuse, for whom the sight and feel of masks triggered disturbing flashbacks;
- We would not have excluded the hard-of-hearing (one in six of the population) from full social engagement with their fellow humans;
- We would not have polluted our environment with swathes of non-recyclable plastic and contaminated our waterways with potentially poisonous chemicals.
So why did Professor Chris Whitty (the Chief Medical Officer) and his band of academic advisors disregard the precautionary principle?
Paradoxically, the experts who pushed the pro-mask narrative often deployed a corrupted version of the PP to justify their stance. Over the past three decades, the PP concept has evolved – some might suggest it has been hijacked – and is now commonly taken to mean something very different. The re-writing of the PP gained impetus in 1992 at a United Nations General Assembly meeting where global leaders asserted (Principle 15) that: “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” Further re-interpretations of the PP followed, culminating in the European Commission, in 2022, espousing the benefits of adopting the “Innovation Principle” in which “the regulatory framework supports and enables the implementation of new out-of-the-box solutions to societal problems”. This revision of the original PP has – inevitably – encroached into the public health sphere, where large pharmaceutical companies welcome the freedom to deliver their ‘innovative’ new drugs to the general population unencumbered by a pre-requisite to demonstrate that their products will lead to more benefits than harms.
The major consequence of this corruption of the PP is this: if powerful, state-funded world ‘experts’ assert that we are facing an existential threat – be it from climate change, environmental pollution or a novel virus – their recommended interventions should be implemented unless opponents of the proposed actions can prove that the likely collateral damage will significantly outweigh the claimed positive outcomes. The burden of proof no longer resides with the innovators. World governments can now impose top-down restrictions on their citizens and (so long as they claim to be acting for ‘the greater good’ or be doing the ‘socially responsible’ thing) the onus is on others to prove beyond doubt that their policies are counterproductive.
Throughout the Covid event those experts beseeching us all to wear face coverings have often relied, to various degrees, upon this warped version of the PP to support their stance. Arguably the most extreme example of an ideologically-driven imposition is pro-mask crusader Professor Trish Greenhalgh, who not only pre-emptively assumes no harms of mass-masking, but also believes that the search for evidence may be “the enemy of good policy”.
So rather than the obligation to carry out a thorough cost-benefit analysis prior to compelling us all to wear masks in community settings, our paternalistic policymakers were – with the help of the corrupted precautionary principle – allowed to fob us off with dubious claims of an existential threat, appeals to altruism and meaningless platitudes like “it’s better to be safe than sorry”.
Dr. Gary Sidley is a retired NHS Consultant Clinical Psychologist and a co-founder of Smile Free, a campaign group opposed to mask mandates.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
All attempts to control viral spread outside sterile clinical settings such as surgeries are entirely moronic.
That’s all that needs to be said.
Of course, if your actual intention is not to control viral spread but to control people and make money, it’s far from moronic – it worked very well, for a while, in controlling people, and continues to make £££££s.
The lesson from China is that even with a regime like that, there are limits to what people will tolerate. If our fellow citizens had simply not complied from the start, this crap would have been over much sooner. The timelines of rolling back restrictions seemed suspiciously to run just behind the curve of compliance reducing to a point that was getting embarrassing for the authorities.
Yes but since when are surgeries ‘sterile clinical settings’ This has been used by NHS trusts to re-mandate moronic masks and social distancing. Such virtue signalling is now seen by maybe 50% of the much to the employees as utterly ineffective and possibly injurious. Even in N Wales, most of the customers ignore the requirement as do I.
I mean an actual surgery where ppl are operated on. Not offices where GPs toss out big pharma pills.
Indeed. Stephen Petty, a real expert in this field, has given presentations to US government representatives on why masks don’t work. He was asked how long this information has been available. He responded ‘Over 80 years’.
Don’t you mean outside hermetically sealed rooms with specialised ventilation and airlocks, and specially suited staff?*
There is no such thing as a sterile clinical setting. In clinical settings – they should be clean – sterile equipment is used together with aseptic technique to reduce the risk of cross-infection staff to patient; patient to staff; patient to patient and mostly concerns bacteria which are easily transferred by contact and which can reproduce on surfaces, in liquids, on the skin.
An operating theatre is not ‘sterile’. It can be sealed and gassed to kill a specific suspected pathogen, but thereafter will become invaded by whatever pathogens are carried in the air or brought in on equipment or people.
Trying to control aerosol spread of viruses other than described at * above is a fools errand.
“hermetically sealed rooms with specialised ventilation and airlocks, and specially suited staff”
Sounds a bit like a lab where they do research into viruses
Of course nothing bad could escape from one of those
During the most-recent Ebola epidemic, a serious attempt at preventing the spread of Ebola in hospitals was being made. That looked very much different from the COVID gymnastics of 2020/21 and even this didn’t really work: Hospital staff still got infected in rare cases.
I’d go further than that — I’d say that for respiratory viruses anything less than a BSL-3 laboratory is futile.
By associating the CCPs ‘relaxing’ of Wuhan Flu rules with the ‘spread’ of a virus elsewhere keeps the narrative alive that all the controls work.
With all the information and data we’ve digested over the past few years, culminating into dissenting studies (against the narrative) which are now increasingly postulating the theory the jabs are neither safe, nor effective – I’m a firm believer the shots are causing, have caused a huge increase in the spread & infection of the rona (not to mention untold misery of those suffering adverse reactions.. or worse).
I know it’s been said countless times but from the get-go, our UKHSA (PHE) surveillance reports were showing ominous signs even in the early days that those vaccinated (therapied) were testing positive two times, three times, up to four times more compared to the unvaccinated (per 100k so a fair comparison) which had progressively increased during the main rollout and boostered beyond. Yes this sounds absurd but so is the suggestion they’ve “saved” countless lives. Where is the definitive data for this outside of anecdotal evidence? Either could as easily be concluded as the reality as there’s little definitive data to otherwise confirm it.. and both conclusions are under the assumption the tests are more use than not – which is highly debatable in itself. I’d wager they’re about as useful as a test for bad breath. How bad is your breath today?
As far as China’s potential release of a multitude of new variants, those with natural immunity (and we’ve now herd immunity) will recognise any “new” variant since they’re still only ~20 – 30% unfamiliar to the original strain[s] we built said immunity from. There’s nothing to fear but fear itself!
I fail to see the point of testing for the latest variety of the ‘flu bug.
Particularly when the testing procedure uses a wholly discredited and inappropriate PCR process.
Sorted.
Xi’s attempt to “save face”, perhaps? In the meantime, there have been reports that a well known American firm is attempting to transfer manufacturing to elsewhere – Vietnam in their case (ironic, maybe, but money talks).
“Hong Kong’s omicron wave showed that these Chinese vaccines reduced short-term COVID-19 mortality among the over-80s compared with the unvaccinated…”
How? Is this more ‘The Science’ which relies on anecdote, claim, assumption but eschews actual falsifiable evidence?
What would the point be of testing arrivals from China? Then what – isolation to keep out a mild virus producing Cold symptoms that has been in circulation here for probably about 3.5 years to which most of the population has had multiple exposures and mostly immune.
Viruses evolve in a manner that results in the increasingly mild variants being more successful at reproduction and thereby dominant.
Why would variants from China be of more concern than our home produced ones or those from France or Canada for example?
Will this madness ever end?
Doesn’t this article assume that such a measure would be done to protect public health? Does anyone seriously believe that’s the motivation? The government and their advisors know very well it’s pointless from a public health point of view. It’s entirely political – either as part of a desire to revive the covid narrative, score points against China, or placate the loonies in media cheerleading for this.
As I have stated many times on here every single measure that has been introduced as an alleged means of safeguarding public health has been anything BUT.
‘Safeguarding public health’ or similar warm and caring phrases, is simply a euphemism for ‘this will hurt you.’
This is all about control.
Everything that has happened in China has proved:
Mask don’t work
Jabs don’t work
PCR tests don’t work
Lockdowns don’t work
But you won’t hear that in the media
If anyone needs someone to talk to we meet every Sunday.
Stand in the Park Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am From 1st January 2023
Make friends & keep sane
Elms Field (near Everyman Cinema and play area)
Wokingham RG40 2FE
Amazing isn’t it , just a few short months from celebrity chunt wan cock detailing 10 year , yes 10 YEAR , prison sentences for uk citizens coming back from holiday & filling a form in wrong we get this – that it’s ok to charge in on a prevailing wind of foreign sneezes with no checks whatsoever ! Well I never
The population of the world minus China is 4.6 times the population of China. Hence, it’s China which is attaching to large reservoir for COVID and not the world outside of China. And this is based on the assumption that the Chinese nonsense ever worked for virus control which it didn’t.
It is odd that trying to contain Covid in early 2020, allegedly before it had spread anywhere (at least we thought this at the time) was racist, whereas testing travellers now, when pretty much everyone in the western world has already had Covid is sensible.
Also, the point about ‘variants’ is correct. While it is true that new variants could well come from China (they have 1/3rd of the World’s population, after all), they’re going to have lower selective pressure to create variants that escape vaccine protection which is dependent only on an immune response to the spike protein. That said, I anticipate that we’ll see new variants come along shortly (as has been happening for about 18 months now), and these will be blamed on China (this is stupid, but it conforms to the narrative so that’s what we’ll be told).
I still maintain that the B.S 24.7 will end up being the dominant strain that will become endemic.
Wink
“It is odd that…”
Not odd at all. Entirely consistent with every step, aspect and part of this pandemic of evil lies.
I hope that they’re checked at the border for health insurance. I don’t want to hear of any of them taking up an NHS bed.
Then it seems the UK government are indeed “foolish”. What a bunch of clown world imbeciles!
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64130655
It proves they have learned absolutely nothing from the last two years.
It also proves that they know their beloved Injections of Doom are useless, they’re well aware that the jabbed people’s immune systems are knackered and they’re worried about what will happen when there’s no more lies to hide behind. They’re beyond pathetic.
I doubt they give two hoots about the “vaccines”
It’s purely a political decision
Au contraire they have learnt they can lie with impunity and use fear as a weapon
Top story on the BBC news app
They must be cock a hoop
Hello, here we go again judging by this morning’s panic inducing headline in The Telegraph. Rushi (the man who says he stopped Boris from imposing a lockdown this time last year) is now thinking of reintroducing one. These people are totally and utterly bonkers. When are they going to learn lockdowns, masks (anti) social distancing DOESN’T WORK. Just look at Sweden or Florida.
A reminder of the folly:-
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-fat-emperor-podcast/id1453181214?i=1000591708937
Not the first time I’ve read that “as a result” of lifting restrictions in China the outbreak has accelerated. I thought we’d worked out by now that little we do in the way of NPIs makes a significant difference.
NPI’s are intended to degrade public health which is why they are pushed constantly.
This article assumes that covid is a serious and deadly thing. We can look back now and see that there is no evidence of any pandemic anywhere in the world in the last few years. I am extremely sceptical of the unduly busy crematoria in China being because of deaths from Covid-19.
I initially thought that the UK government might brush off this silly-season “information”. However, following their announcement of no action two days ago, it appears that the UK government is now demanding tests from travellers from China.
Though this may appear to be a small, insignificant measure, it is a clear example of how self-reinforcing panic sets in and can become impossible to stop: by pandering to laughably distorted claims and applying “solutions” which do not remotely bear upon the problem, if problem there is. I thought we’d finally seen the last of this nonsense, in the UK at least.
Worse, the scaremongering figure of “9000 deaths per day in China” has as its sole basis some UK “modelling” outfit calling themselves “Airfinity”. Never heard of them. Can we see their workings? Are they peer-reviewed scientists, or do they just have a lust for media mentions and a very effective PR department? Have we actually learned nothing from the utter failure of “models” – from Fergusons’s Imperial College models onwards – throughout the spread of COVID?
Headlines such as this in the Independent (and this is only one example of a PR blizzard by “Airfinity”, whoever they are) insult the intelligence. There is no relation whatsoever between the number of people dying of COVID in China and travel restrictions. If 9000 people are actually dying there, travel restrictions will not make the blindest bit of difference to their fate. And though this is often forgotten, every national and global pandemic plan prior to 2020 stated, on the basis of careful thought, that travel restrictions are pointless in restricting the spread of an infectious disease. The only positive news is that some prominent UK scientists seem to now be remembering this.
But concern for the fate of the putative 9000 Chinese people dying daily is obviously not the motivation for headlines such as this. The intent is quite simply fear-mongering. If we don’t impose travel restrictions, then we too in the UK will be “seeing” 9000 deaths per day, is the implied conclusion the reader is supposed to draw.
This idiocy must be nipped in the bud. Even 9000 / 1.453bn represents a daily Chinese death rate of 0.0006%. The UK’s daily death rate from all causes is 1600 / 69m: 0.0023%. Four times higher than this supposedly-terrifying Chinese figure, which is already deeply dubious itself. Airfinity, and an all-too gullible press and Government, are exploiting the manipulative power of large numbers without context.
I am as far from being an apologist for the Chinese government as it’s possible to be. Yet, with regard to COVID, Beijing seem to be damned if they do (attempt to control COVID through brutal, excessive measures) and damned if they don’t (give up this attempt). I have no idea what the UK government is trying to do in their relations with China, and don’t particularly want to know. I would just ask them to get on with whatever it is they’re doing, through diplomatic and other channels, without attempting to terrify the UK population in the process. We’ve had enough of scaremongering.
The article in today’s Telegraph has a little snippet of a quote from a “senior Tory MP” which just says it all:
“The politics is that if we are not seen to be doing anything it doesn’t look very good when other countries like Italy, Spain and the US are taking action.”
Right…..
Can I suggest that someone look into this “Airfinity” outfit, find out more about who the hell they are, where they sprang from?
https://www.airfinity.com/about
They struggle to write English but definitely full of BS. Probably funded by Billy.
The author, David Livermore has authored over 500 papers and regularly appears on Clarivate’s ‘Most Cited’ list. He’s a world expert who earned his expertise from mentors, at the lab bench and in dialog with other microbiologists. Direct knowledge, in other words.
But when he writes about China, he apparently relies on Fox News. How else to explain statments this?
There is no such thing as ‘the CCP,’ though there is a CPC. But the CPC has nothing to do with Covid. Its 100 million volunteers set policy and the country’s general direction and delegates the running of the country to a professional civil service.
However, Dr. Livermore should know from his professional reading that a full course of Sinovac’s attenuated vaccine is more effective than Pfizer– without its side effects. See How China’s Sinovac compares with… | The Economist
As to his contention, “China has helpfully stopped publishing daily figures for infections and deaths. The only useful signal is that crematoria are unduly busy. Even with a mortality rate of 0.1%, 250 million cases translates to 250,000 deaths. The West is, or should be, a spectator at this fiasco. We should merely hope that the long-suffering Chinese recognise the futility of what that has been inflicted upon them”, what can one say?
Meanwhile, the Omicron wave has peaked in Beijing, Wuhan, Chengdu, Chongqing, Kunming, Tianjin, Zhengzhou, Shenyan, Changchun, Guangzhou, Ji’nan, and is peaking in Shenzen today.
Hospitals are operating normally. No fiasco. Thanks to three years of meticulous preparation, 95% of people are fully vaxed, and healthier and better informed than they’ve ever been.
China will maintain its 200:1 advantage over us in Covid mortality and long Covid.