It’s not about screaming, it’s about the enforceable law that was crafted with your profession’s consultation, a law that closes off all manner of human activity, except, apparently for causes you like.https://twitter.com/gregggonsalves/status/1269222577324666880 …
-
-
I think there is something to the current complaints, and there was an issue not always with what many public health people were saying, but perhaps what they weren't saying (or being heard) as loudly, that harm-reduction was a viable message, that it was always about trade-offs.
-
Then I agree that the argument that racial justice is a public health emergency, that outdoors is low-risk, followed by extensive discussion of harm-reduction (masks/drums) and call to limit/ban tear-gas, kettling, indoor detention etc. is valid. But that holds for other things.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I can hardly believe that people stood for this. I remember hearing about people being not being allowed to visit their parents & grandparents as they died and thinking, "I don't care what they say. If my parents or grandparents are dying, I'm going in. I'll quarantine after."
-
My biggest regret that I did not drop everything to campaign on this. I was busy working on where I thought I could make a difference and I had no personal example, nor am I a medical doctor. But the zero visit to the dying policy should never have been allowed to stand as is.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
The retrospectoscope has a powerful focus... I find it hard to fault safety decisions made in the context of a novel pathogen and a great deal of uncertainty. Practice changing information comes available all the time in medicine and public health, just not at this rate.
-
The retrospectoscope. Now my favorite new word.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.