Simon Wessely on Covid-19

They are probably massaging his ego as he will become very useful to them over the coming months/years when he becomes an 'expert' on all the people who fail to recover fully from Covid-19.

 

Anyone see that homophobic preacher who said God would protect him from COVID-19, then died of it? This may be tempting fate.

 

And on the terrorism bit, no mention that he dismissed the 9/11 WTC health problems as mass hysteria. He's basically the right person to ask for those things, as long as you generally do the opposite of what he thinks is a good idea. That's his talent: he is a genius at being wrong. No idea how being wrong turned into a respectable career as a medical reverse seer. I guess that's the persuasion bit. Dude would have made a killing selling timeshares or hyping MLMs.

 

Multi-level marketing. Good old pyramid schemes in new bottles.

 

Interesting article: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...navirus-trigger-post-viral-fatigue-syndromes/

Simon says:

 

“There is a long history of infections as a trigger but other factors contributing to longer term disability,” adds Wessely. “If the virus is found to enter the brain, this might increase the risk.”

A nice example of a completely groundless piece of personal opinion.

 

I didn't know about the WTC victims! Didn't that cause a major backlash from Americans scientists?

If he got away with this on such an emotional and traumatizing issue, I don't see why he wouldn't in post covid patiens.

 

To clarify, he meant this about the subsequent health problems, mostly cancers, that the survivors still experience to this day. It took years until those problems were accepted, in part because of people like him dismissing them, so having made those claims in 2003 was not super controversial. Now it's old history I guess. Being wrong about pushing stuff like mass hysteria somehow never gets anyone in trouble, even though people and institutions do act on this advice and so it has real-world consequences but never on those making the extraordinary claims.

Psychosomatics is like the eternal loser favorite kid that always gets in trouble but never faces consequences. Much harm, zero foul. It's extremely broken but people just can't quit it, it's like a drug.

 

Only distancing works. If only we had that option.

 

I guess megalomania is sort of vertical social distancing.

 

It has seemed to me that some BPS-type commentators have done their utmost to get out ahead of the Coronavirus situation by saying exactly what is most convenient for 'experts' to have said, from the position of politicians who wish to claim no responsibility.

Which is to imply that the traumatizing effect of social distancing and immediate-term economic fear and strain is roughly morally equivalent to the potential casualties of more or less allowing the virus to spread. So this just helps them justify acting in a half-assed manner, taking credit for any benefits and hedging against any shortcomings or negative consequences. Anybody who complains is irrational and uncaring somehow.

This seems par for the course for the BPS career. Their whole bit is designed to remove responsibility from health systems and insurers, directly onto patients. If you disagree with them, you're some anti-mental-health bigot crazy. This course of action has been strongly incentivized for decades so why not keep on the gravy train.

 

Tomorrow https://www.rsm.ac.uk/resources/rsm-live/

https://www.rsm.ac.uk/events/rsm-studios/2019-20/pen65/

We invite you to join us as we continue the COVID-19 series. Tune into our free, interactive webinars to keep informed and stay connected with health professionals, leading experts and decision makers, wherever you are.
Episode 6 - Policymaking on masks for the general public: evidence-based or eminence-based medicine?
Date: Tuesday 21 April 2020
Time: 12:30pm - 1:00pm

Professor Trish Greenhalgh, Professor of Primary Care Health Sciences, joins Professor Sir Simon Wessely to explore the impact of COVID-19 on primary care services, now and in the future. They will also discuss the evidence surrounding face masks, policy, innovation and change in the response to COVID-19.
Professor Trish Greenhalgh
Professor of Primary Care Health Sciences, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford

Free to watch on Zoom, join us at 12:30pm tomorrow.

 

Don't bother- lightweight...

 

The Greenhalgh one had some stuff about covid being so complex that it's difficult to run useful RCTs, which are much more useful for testing drugs.

Maybe if she thought about the complexity of testing forms of biopsychosocial rehabilitation on condition like 'CFS' she might realise that was pretty complex too?

Youtube's dodgy transcript (anyone interested is probably better off heading to 4:40 in the video (though there is the usual shudder of Simon chatting with his old friend Trisha):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WuPLfTua2k

 

Apologies for cross-posting, but what I posted on the coronavirus - worldwide spread and control thread probably belongs here:

Wessely’s name appears on a number of publications that have been used as evidence for “SPI-B” who are the SAGE subcommittee on behavioural and social interventions. Rubin’s name crops too.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...t_data/file/873741/09-spi-b-evidence-list.pdf

I found out about this in the following article in the The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...wing-the-science-coronavirus-advice-political

https://www.s4me.info/threads/coronavirus-worldwide-spread-and-control.13287/page-137#post-256819

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1255448598252269570

 

I wish someone would ask him whether he believes that Imboden et al's conclusions as to the factors leading to perpetuation of symptoms after Asian flu will hold good for Covid 19, and, if not, why he thought them relevant to ME, and how he distinguishes them.