The World Health Organization now warns against using lockdowns to fight the coronavirus, citing their harmful effects on poor people. Dr. David Nabarro, an envoy for the WHO, told the British Spectator magazine that governments should stop using prolonged lockdowns.
“We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as a primary means of control of this virus. The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to re-organize, re-group, re-balance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted. But by and large, we’d rather not do it”, he said.
“We really do have to learn how to co-exist with this virus, in a way that doesn’t require constant closing down of economies,” Nabarro told the Spectator’s Andrew Neil in a video interview.
While emphasizing the role of governments and the public in mitigating the spread of the disease, Nabarro addressed the negative effects that the shutdowns have had on businesses and people living in poverty. He also acknowledged that doctors and scientists should not make public policy.
“It’s right that there should be interplay between the public health doctors and government. In the end, government has to take responsibility for balancing what might be seen as the trade-off between health and the economy. Our line is to say: Let that be temporary. What we want you to do, because this virus is going to be around for quite a long time to come, is work out how you can keep the economy going and keep the numbers of disease cases down.”
Scott Adams—creator of Dilbert, economist, and early predictor of Trump’s 2016 victory—points out the humorous catch-22 this puts Democrats in. They always say ‘follow the science’ and they praise the WHO, but now those scientists say Trump’s early position against extended lockdowns is the best science.
It’s a conundrum for Democrats. Will Trump capitalize on this? Or will the mainstream media be able to ignore this significant development? Share your thoughts.