I had an interesting conversation with a doctor friend of mine here. He felt they were inundated with information and expectations but that also meant they followed the protocols. He hadn’t thought about anything other than managing what did then too was a stressful period
but talking to him told me how strongly they operate within an expert model and are simply used to it. Yet at the same time he bemoans a focus on treating ill health, lack of proactive health promotion and illness prevention and a treatment regime which means you can’t have frank direct conversations with people when the problem has to do with lifestyle choices. (An example is body image and no fat shaming(
I think it was obvious from the start that there are factors at play that could have improve natural immunity and also recovery rates. There was a clear understanding that a significant element in the viral infection was inflammation yet little guidance on how that inflammation might be managed in the early stages of infection or in fact how an appropriate inflammatory response might be enabled prior to infection. These things are not new and reading the original sars analyses could have taught a lot. There was a lot of research from Asia that suggested some effective protocols but as time went on it was almost impossible to find these on the net. I think it’s fair to ask if they were effectively censored because they were not pharmaceutical models
i suspect however we will hear a lot about the importance of the expert - as we can already see here. I think the report shows clearly that relying on that is a sure way to create resistance. And that’s what happened
moreover I don’t think the experts really knew themselves. they were applying previous experience and knowledge and some educated guesswork. Under pressure they do the best they can but I think experience shows that when there is a complex or “wicked” problem a multidisciplinary approach is likely to be better
