John Scrivener, Main Arm
Warren Kennedy’s letter seeks to assure us that the media-induced hysteria and government response to COVID-19 are worth the social and economic costs. Clearly an issue this complex and controversial does not lend itself to succinct and definitive explanation within the confines of a 200 word letter to the editor.
But Warren’s strongly held opinions and glib assurances and absent evidentiary sources are indicative of limited research and confirmation bias. Anyone could easily reach the conclusion offered by Warren if they simply accept the official narrative and avoid any countervailing evidence.
This is clearly the preferred approach for commentators like Victoria King (Letters, October 7), who was offended by the use of the word scamdemic to describe COVID policies. The opinions expressed by Warren and Victoria are not supported by relevant statistics, such as the infection fatality rates for COVID, which, I believe, are comparable with the flu.
Furthermore, their opinions are at odds with those of the infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists who authored the Great Barrington Declaration, (gbdeclaration.org) who are credentialed experts from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford universities who have ‘grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of prevailing covid policies’.
Special envoy to the World Health Organisation’s COVID-19 response, Dr David Nabarro, recently claimed that COVID lockdown policies could double world poverty rates and child malnutrition rates, calling the result ‘a terrible, ghastly global catastrophe’ (https://youtu.be/eNOxl6kH4QQ?t=660).