2022/08/31 by Trisha Greenhalgh, Mustafa F. Özbilgin, David R. Tomlinson · 1 voice · 1 citation
Medicine · Mathematics · Economics, Econometrics and Finance · #Infection Control and Ventilation #COVID-19 epidemiological studies #COVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
paper · pdf · doi:10.1136/bmj-2022-069940
Copyright © 2022 The Authors. This paper offers a critique of UK government policy based on mode of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (which in turn followed misleading advice from the World Health Organisation) through the lens of policymaking as narrative. Two flawed narratives— “Covid is droplet- not airborne-spread” and “Covid is situationally airborne” (that is, airborne transmission is unusual but may occur during aerosol-generating medical procedures and severe indoor crowding)—quickly became dominant despite no evidence to support them. Two important counter-narratives—“Covid is unequivocally airborne” and “Everyone generates aerosols; everyone is vulnerable”— were sidelined despite strong evidence to support them. Tragic consequences of the flawed policy narrative unfolded as social dramas. For example, droplet precautions became ritualised; care home residents died in their thousands; public masking became a libertarian lightning rod; and healthcare settings became occupational health battlegrounds. In a discussion, we call for bold action to ensure that the science of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is freed from the shackles of historical errors, scientific vested interests, ideological manipulation and policy satisficing. \nOriginal article submitted to BMJ Analysis November 2021 (preprint to Authorea).