We’re publishing a new piece today by Dr. Alan Mordue, a retired Consultant in Public Health Medicine, who is alarmed and disappointed that longstanding and important principles of public health have been jettisoned in the pandemic. Alan worked as a Public Health Consultant in England and then in Scotland for 28 years, retiring in 2016. He has extensive experience of teaching and training in public health and was an Honorary Clinical Senior Lecturer at the University of Edinburgh for many years.
Here is the introduction, where Dr. Mordue highlights the difference between what the media often mean by a ‘public health expert’ and an actual trained and accredited Public Health Specialist.
During this Covid pandemic I have heard much in the media from ‘public health experts’ and ‘public health officials’, but rarely from colleagues in my own specialty – Public Health! This is very surprising since the specialty, which I practised for 28 years as a Consultant in England and Scotland before my retirement in 2016, usually leads the management of all outbreaks of infectious diseases in the U.K., and also has had the responsibility for leading the production of pandemic plans in the U.K.
But is there any difference between a Public Health (PH) official, expert and specialist? Certainly you wouldn’t think so listening to most broadcast media. Here are my definitions:
So these three groups are very different. Only one group has undertaken an in-depth specialist training and has theoretical and practical experience in outbreak control and management (as well as other areas of PH specialist practice).
When a PH ‘expert’ expresses views in the media about the management of the Covid pandemic it is therefore essential to know a little about their background training and experience. Even if they have an exalted title like ‘professor’, their chair may be in anthropology or their main experience in nutrition or dentistry. This is not to dismiss the contributions of diverse disciplines – given the inevitable complexity of a national response to a pandemic we certainly need to draw upon a wide range of expertise. However, over the last 18 months I have kept asking myself whether PH Specialist knowledge, skills and experience have had sufficient influence during the Covid pandemic. I will attempt to answer my question by referring to some of the key principles of Public Health and considering whether they have been followed or not during the pandemic response.
Among other things, Dr. Mordue criticises the redefinition of ‘case’ in the pandemic, where for the first time a positive PCR test alone in the absence of clinical symptoms has been counted as a case of the disease, causing big problems with false positives and over-diagnosis.
Either symptoms or a positive test alone is insufficient, both must be present to be counted as a confirmed case. It follows that there is no such thing as an asymptomatic case.
This standard definition was not adopted at the start of the pandemic. Because of this we don’t know how many real cases of COVID-19 we have had or have currently – the numbers recorded include real cases of people with relevant symptoms and a positive PCR test for viral RNA, but also include people with no symptoms of COVID-19 and only a positive PCR test. This has been further complicated by mass population testing in the community and hospitals of those without COVID-19 symptoms, the use of high cycle thresholds in the PCR test, and inevitably large numbers of false positive tests.
The piece is worth reading in full.
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.
Well yes, but what about the billions spent on furlough that damaged the economy and people’s work ethic, the billions spent on poisonous “vaccines”, the billions spent on paper “masks”, the hundreds of millions spent on covid propaganda, the billions spent on “track and trace” and “covid testing” etc etc
All for a “pandemic” that did not in fact exist, for an entirely fictitious “public health emergency”.
Absolutely spot on..
Now now tof, you and I both know that the real purpose of throwing billions of pounds about was to increase public debt and further screw the economy. It worked a treat didn’t it? And all under the cover of “help.”
Yes indeed I should have written “all supposedly for a pandemic that did not in fact exist”
Well said Sir!
Why Was £125M Given to Domestic Abuse Agencies During Lockdown Despite Data Suggesting a Decrease in Domestic Violence Incidents?
Probably because someone was in the right place at the right time to make a nice little earner out of it. Just like the billions spewed on Covid..
Same as it ever was.. insider criminality..
Interesting article and, like probably most people, I never thought to question the received wisdom. However, a couple of issues spring to mind: 1) on scanning the figures by region, I’m not entirely sure I’m seeing huge statistical differences year on year (showing a marked fall) although I’m definitely no numbers person, and 2) what does that additional £125 mill represent as a percentage of the dosh already received? Is it big, small, middling? Finally 3) didn’t just about everyone – including the WHOs pre-existing pandemic plan – point out that domestic violence and child abuse were known side effects of lockdown, that’s why it wasn’t recommended to begin with? While I don’t want to play down any egregious claims these organisations may have made, TOF points out the much bigger fish fried to perfection in the plandemic scam.
“We submit that you should look into the payments that the U.K. Government handed over to domestic violence agencies during Covid lockdowns. In our view, those hand-outs are among the most unwarranted of that period.” A mere drop in the ocean. Chicken feed. What about the £37,000,000,000, yes that’s £37 billion of taxpayers’ money, or more likely debt for their children and grandchildren to pay off spaffed up against the wall for the track and trace projects. For no good reason. And then there’s the £10,000,000,000 or so of lockdown support payments that Rishi mislaid.
Blimey, of all the “gravy trains” you could have pointed the finger at it’s kind of strange to point the finger at this. Just to say if I was a victim of domestic violence, I might not have antagonised my abuser (particularly if I had children) by getting the police round only to find that they’re not interested because “it’s just a domestic” and all at a time when my other escape routes had been shut down. The data may not reflect what actually happened here.
This article shows a lack of awareness both of how the police respond (recently failing to come out when a young man was threatening passers by with a baseball bat in the sleepy neighbourhood I live in) and a real lack of understanding of domestic violence and the psychology of victims and abusers (both of which can be men or women).
I know, right? Sounds like something that controlled opposition would say. Especially since it makes lockdowns somehow look good.
Are you sure you want to concede that domestic violence went down during lockdown? With the implication that it was not only in spite of, but possibly even *because* of lockdown? Because that would only give ammunition to the pro-lockdown zealots.
Most domestic violence is nonlethal though, albeit grossly underreported. And the best evidence shows a significant NET increase during lockdown in many countries, including the USA. If the UK really did see a net decrease, then the UK would truly be an anomaly.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/06/shadow-pandemic-of-domestic-violence/
https://counciloncj.org/new-analysis-shows-8-increase-in-u-s-domestic-violence-incidents-following-pandemic-stay-at-home-orders/
Don’t fall into the trap of inadvertently shilling for lockdowns as a good thing.
Oh, and child abuse likely increased as well:
https://bmjpaedsopen.bmj.com/content/6/1/e001553
And yet infanticide involving abuse increased by 20% between 2020 and 2021? Someone make it make sense. https://dailysceptic.org/2023/08/05/covid-lockdowns-used-as-cover-by-abusers-to-inflict-tragic-child-abuse-experts-warn/
As someone who has worked in the field of child and adult abuse for 40 + years I find it hard to understand the motivation behind this article.
whilst I would agree with the need to criticise the waste of money on needless lockdowns test and trace and vaccines I do not think that spending money on trying to ameliorate the impact of enforced social isolation was all a waste although better they had not created the situation in the first place.
I continued working during the lockdown remotely offering telephone counselling to those who have been abused and suffered domestic violence during the lockdowns. One example of a single mother who had been subjected to 5 years of all types of abuse including gaslighting to the point of illegal sectioning was struggling to work through the aftermath of that experience some 2 years after having eventually summoned the strength to leave the abusive partner.
She was confined to a small flat with no garden and a 5 year old who had just started school who had to adjust to ‘zoom’ teaching.
The pressure of that those restrictions is difficult to describe let alone have any real idea as to its effect. How she did not murder her child is testimony to the tenacity of mothers and their sometimes innate instinct to care.
Thus was just one example of the unique pressures that were put upon those who had already been abused – there are countless others.
The agency I work with operates with a small number of paid staff approx 15 and 30+ volunteers.
The demand for the service increased at one point when there was a two year waiting list, (currently down to about 12 months.)
the implication of this article that money was wasted on an unnecessary service and somehow fed some greedy fat cats is so far from the truth. As a result of some grants received, I did receive payment in order to increase my caseload to help meet the demand. I know of private counsellors who charge £120 per session – I was paid £15 per hour.
other comments have pointed out the use of statistics quoted is over simplified and does not present a true picture. Increased surveillance by controlling partners may well have reduced the opportunity for the most abused, to report or seek refuge. The draconian restrictions on movement adding to their difficulties.
I whole heartedly agree the reaction to Covid has probably generated the biggest waste of money in my lifetime but this was not.
I thought child abuse went up?