i think you found yourself somewhat at odds with other big data companies like twitter. what conclusions can or cannot be drawn from big data don't you find this ironic. yes mary a strange thing i think is troubling for for for science and society for a couple of decades been doing research on. infectious disease are bracing to take them quickly now to monitor them as well as on their you know as you know vaccines embracing safety. story sort of strange that some pieces of the companies are censoring out some scientists but no others. and i think that's a good thing we need to have. public discourse and scientists i don't agree with i do want them to be able to state their views because there is a very important thing about this act of censorship you recently found yourself in

hot water splits where well good luck so i told or penalized your wait on the weather everybody including children needs to get at sea an arrant before we even talk about the science that behind the ip and i want to ask you about this whole practice all steamy air and other social media companies inserting themselves into the public discourse in such a way. do you think it's warranted ever not noir if not then is dangerous and if if that continues feel see the end of 300 years on light in months i have been that i was censored will be a platform and at least temporarily from both twitter and google go and. facebook i have in me or the great barrington declaration which i'm one of the 3 authors of and it is very troubling and it traces of distrust both in science and in public health because if people see of that these things cannot

be debated freely why would they trust. scientists at all of the if they if you don't let everybody speak up and not have a frank discussion about these things now. i've personally seen no problem with where i said jacinth that some of your views may not be in line with the official governmental advice but what i see it as very problematic as far as labeling it would as misleading beach assumes that the current applies is final and solid to be no government actually at this point of time. claims and the 2nd no fly to preclude any further debate it may be irritating to all of us or specially to people who subscribe to the enlightenment values but do you think if it actually results in a real damage to public health because we are after all a delicate issue that is not yet fully explored and it's not the government that is

actually exploring call it 90 yes and i think it already has generated damage because we haven't had an open debate about the pandemic and i don't really care if they sound so one of my trees or so on so personally i don't mind but when you have the censoring and i'm not so slander where will the rare journalist or scientists slander other scientists that means that there are many people in the scientific community who do not dare to speak out and among the officials to cease ethnologist that i know personally and that i discuss things personally with the majority have the same views with me that you need to do is focus protection on better protecting older hires people while letting for samples fools to be open and the young people live near normal lives but that's not just life it's in the journalism because there are many of my folly screwed do not want to speak up because they have seen what's happened to those who do speak up and there are many of your colleagues who

have been speaking out and have been absent look at it from last reading as their views not only on literal but also on you tube and other social media platforms do you see that as an example of those media companies. trying to enforce that own rules as a statute it scientifically or arbitrary as they may be or do you think they're acting as waves of let's say governments a lot of interest groups who's in charge here i don't know what their rationale is because i'm just a simple scientist i'm not you know lizzie an official diseases but i don't know what it is so that's more like i think as a journalist i think you understand those things much for them i do now you said your a simple scientist and this is you're being modest if you're actually a pretty big name in the field off infectious diseases you have more than 25000 academic citations you teach at harmer if you work at

a respectable hospital do you think. there should have taken your credentials or any other person's can actually into account when mulling over at that weeds or would you be more comfortable with them applying that policy blindly. i don't think they should take my parental into account i think that. if most of it will taste press their views freely society with whoever they are and there's actually a lot of people who are not scientists who have very insightful. thoughts about the fandom me now one of the principles of public health many of it always have been thrown out there into the ring this year but rather principals in public office if you will have to listen to the public they have the ones who are living through the consequences of their lot on for example. where they have family members with

mental health issues that they have to deal with where you know where they couldn't get to the doctor to deal with their car your vascular disease problems so it's very into right important in public like other aspirational signs like they're all of you and you know as your way of sort of are focused on the lavender science in public health you always have to listen to the public and have interaction with the public and you have to do it if everybody in the public they have to be open to speak to everybody you mentioned before that you were a lot of the callers of the great banks and declaration of which advocates a more discriminately focused on high risk groups approach to the background to this blanket shelter in place policy i doubt it in many countries and. together if you call things as ballast namely thousands of best materials you suggested that. lockdowns have cost more harm than good do you think these

may have something to do or where that sound of the of us being sacked shared activity but is thought a controversial or shouldn't be a controversial views because they're all in the great part of a vacation is very much in line with the various condemning preparedness plans that many countries have prepared their last few years before before this panic started so the basic idea is that while anybody can get infected and people do get a fake to fall in all ages the risk of dying on there is the severe disease but the risk of dying from korea 19 is more than a 1000 fold difference between the oldest and the youngest and that is an enormous difference because in. a science the if we find for such a sample a 2 fold difference that's a major breakthrough usually in terms of the disease prevention and control and

here is more than a 1000 fold difference so there's been a maybe even misguided belief by many of that by locking down the whole society you can somehow or protect the whole tyrus people what we're seeing now is sort of obvious that wasn't the case it did not attack. the high risk pool of people victorious in the us feel had over half a 1000000 deaths mostly all of the people so that was a complete failure to think that these last dance would actually protect or the high risk people so we are you know in the great barrington declaration with their off with. professor soon i dropped out of the university and professor jay but i shy on staff university is that when needed and we should have done a much better job of protecting all the hire a few people through standard of public health measures that were never implemented because people thought a lot of times we'll do it at the same time for children and younger adults the.

consequences mary lauriski for for corbett 1000 for children the risk is the even less than it is from dying from daniel in france the reason already very long for children so this is not a dangerous disease that shows them and for young adults so there they have much worse consequences from the last time. they are suffering through youth in the united states there are still many children who have not been in school for a year and that's not just for their vacation but also their physical and mental health and social development you mentioned that in the beginning we had this totalistic approach to about downs and i think it's now being sort of substitute by the same totally stick approach to that seems that i think that that what got you in trouble with twitter when you actually said to be needed diphtheria shaded approach both to people who already have acquired immunity that is somebody who

already had as well as children and i want to ask you about children in particular because the united states i don't have the maxine is not yet the situation is not yet approach so it's largely a fair bit of discussion but the united states has one of the highest prevalence as of 5 children where that tatiana b.d.'s and we know that in adult population this is a major complication and both with regards to contract the disease and the severity of complications one that miss asin that's acetate is not vaccinating b.'s group of children at least thinking differently about how they should be protected. yes so my point in the tree there was answer was that. yes it is as much wrong to say that everybody needs to be isolated as it is to say oh nobody should be an isolated saw that there might be some children who should have

isolated we don't know yet because we haven't done the studies you have and they cost benefit analysis for children for want of people the benefit isn't normal as for the vaccine so even if they are sound negative as aspects to it. the benefits will outweigh those but for children and young adults for whom this is not serious to see if this may be a sound few exceptions. is not at all clear that the vaccine benefits outweighs the risk because there's always risk with everything so to start arguing that all children must be vaccinated you know before we have a vaccine that we before we don't know about it is very strange i think yeah well and the thing is if they diagnose prescriptions for your health to my health without actually looking at their medical histories it's well how do you explain the fact that that all of a saturday sonne umbrella approach is being is becoming so popular i don't know

this seems to be some people who think the public callous of the curse of and i think that is very dangerous for public health maybe to have some small short term effects but in the long term it is really a death amount of the trust in public health and that's another basic principle of public health that it has to be based on trust and is a 2 way street so if public health official wants the public to trust them then they also have to trust the public and i think in the united states that in the heart is in the rest of the world but in the united states it has in the an enormous. a reduction in the trusts of powers out officials now one reason is that they say things that are nonsensical for example if you had. a college you have very good immunity and there's much more evidence from the

immunity from national infection than from the vaccines so then to go and save those who haven't had national infection these new vaccinated. doesn't make scientific sounds and people understand that and then they will say well if that was wrong what are maybe the promise of officials also on other things so we have to be honest with the public and we ask can say everybody needs to get it because we don't trust people otherwise there is serve the wrong approach to public of a professor we have to take a very short break right now to get back in just a few moments. today the industry prefers to spend millions of you know the. daily

traditions i will be sniffing all about making money making profits in some of the big corporations international markets import export do you imagine the number of chronic diseases that are out in every community today it is new due to new viruses all new microbes not true so it is due to environment. siggy though their momentum to supply the. muscles of really just accumulate could only come in to see the move to the side of. the plexus of the skull if the so food industry is successful it will create more jobs it will create more value added it will create more growth so i don't see why we shouldn't also fight for the interest something into street not accept that we are british and we want regulation i was in just belief we don't behave zaniest penalty that's fine.

that's good but survival guide let's stay single malt to start sampling at least that's. the sure it's not going to get back. public no one says a repatriation look at the last 7 years. philip the separate kaiser for. well the naturals are part of it dr laura's a board or a professor of medicine at harvard medical school professor called earth and all the year ago when confidential was still and spratt many governments around the

world react against several us fashion they were essentially coping at each other but. since the sack and in particular the 3rd wave of their virus ethie what we have seen is far * more discerning sheesh an inefficient response as . maybe biased by the. same western policy as time to be a warrant totalistic and more restrictive than in many normal western societies how do you explain that were my colleague dr sen gupta says he lockdowns is the last year of the red sea the developing countries don't have that luxury. of that of well it's not a luxury because it's a bad thing the 1st i think. if you're lucky donna we saw are some examples of that where you left on some places in the in the. latin america and africa

where the people who sell things on the market for sampling on their lives day to day they make a little bit of money and from that they buy things to sell the next day plus the liberal food and when that flows down the you pull the rug and the number from around so that had devastating consequences with children starving to death for example there were some take lessons 10000 a month saw a loft us is really not a not at all an option for for many countries because of that but it also has devastated. consequences. in the western world and it's really no way to protect young norris professionals who don't need to protections but who are for example laugh journalist like you or scientists like me. while out throwing the workers under the bus who are forced to work even if there might be

a 6570 old son who should protect because they have a one off i'm not i risk i saw in the united states i think a lot of downs the way we dealt with the pandemic has been their worst assault on the the working class since. around the vietnam war half a century ago and there is one generation that is. not necessarily affected now but that may be f.x. at long term talking about. children after you mash and before that many american children have been out of school for more than a year and this is a thing for me the most puzzling aspect of the american policy because as you know mash fight has been well documented that this virus doesn't pose as much of their threat to children while i being under the long down costs substantial harm. why do you think it has become such an intransigent issue because i mean many act

countries did introduce distance learning last great but many have pulled back without any consequences as in terms of fascists dats all but the united states as to persist and maintaining this and all of us learning. yes it's various in the u.s. some states like florida has kept schools open their resident to summer while others have been closed for a year and i think this is the most tragic aspect of this pandemic and if if i can only change one thing here in the u.s. it would be to open all the schools the university is. tomorrow of 3 in present teasing and i think it has boss' short and long term consequences are we can see that the mental health of children has deteriorated now overall medical he says i'm down in the u.s. but for. psychological and psychiatric mental health is there some children are going up to skyrocket to so it is

a huge huge problems and there's no reason for it. because if if if you look to the evidence with all that hair and juju life you look at for sample sweden which was the only restaurant major western township in north america and europe that jackscrew was open during the spring at. the height of the spring and pandemic a year ago so it's really an all children age one to $15.00 arriving day care always for free in present teasing without sort of just this thing without mass there without any testing and all this 1800000 a 2nd is cyril died from korea 19 and there were only a handful the last bullet hospitalizations so it's clearly not the days as the c. is for children but there will be a part of building the burden of suffering on the show them and even teachers the teachers since you know were not at higher risk than the average of other

professions i would ask you a personal question i know that you are a single dad with 3 children i wonder if an ielts downs. school age and if so how do you guys have been dealing only with the learning aspect but also socializing a diesel izing as. saw i have 50 of them ages 185 and 5 so the oldest one has been in khalis but. aren't even though he's on campus the classes are not in person they are online so you have to sit in his room and do their classes and this of course much harder for him to do it half way to learn the little ones of 5 years or so i think they are less affected they are twins so they always have each other so in that sense i think here my family has been much like year than most most i think they saw schools. those children who suffer the most are from the working and middle class

who cannot afford to hire tutors or do homeschooling. but i think you're right is very right shafik care for children and some children has also be in that sort of capital because their parents are very afraid but with my 18 your son i'm not worried about 4 for him but i am worried about his mental health so i always encourage him throughout this pandemic go hang out with your friends go play basketball go play soccer do that because i really want him not to be in his room house then start getting depressed i want him to be out there with friends and have as normal a life as possible under the circumstances now one of the ambassadors of governments around the world to use to justify such a trick on him matters is they need it for attack the elderly leave it all small there are the most susceptible to the badges of this virus and yet we have seen at quite a few dad lee outbreaks sadly ultimately gerald facility is say in

a number of countries. would it be fair to say that. rather than to task the elderly the slow down matters have contributed to that doc told by denying that they accept here they asked your resources the extra protection that that agent that how susceptible it is with warrant. you know that's not true so because people thought lockdowns would protect them they didn't institute other standard public health protection measures the other thing is the lockdown has to some extent sort of prolonging the and damage and that makes it much more difficult for people to protect themselves because you can isolate yourself for a while but you can't do it forever so amazing much more difficult also there are some of the law found matches that actually increases the spread of this of the virus rather the opposite for example by tossing university has many students

percentage home to live with their older parents who are at higher risk rather than infecting their their friends who are in the trenta sounds very low risk so that actually increases the risk for all the people so it would have been much better to keep all those cubans at the university this and then when it was time to go home for christmas or whatever a summer they would have been you know not infected by their older own tests in one of your interviews and i think i even during this interview he said that the public how different from. specialized medicine and that i passed it cannot afford to focus on one disease at a time it has to consider national health in all its complexity and continuity and why dash our early to be spent on a cure and others have been able to sort of understand the epidemiological

character all of this virus that stereotypically at least should have been able to help us artist you take. he said diversified focused that take on what to do for the most vulnerable yes you're right that public is has is different because if you are a physician less a mycologist they'll focus is to treat the cancer you know patient in front of you and that's what you're supposed to do but the public health you can't just. think of only one disease so they can't think of kovi we have to think of all the collateral damage to other aspects of health but this last time matches are creating and that has been on the failure also in public health we have to think long term rather than as short term so as soon as i heard about this virus and i have an assumed as this sagar place in northern italy and iran which was sort of the 1st also a sign that it was obvious to me and it should have been obvious to me found an end

to face of this he said i was just this was going to be a world wide open damnation there was no chance of keeping it out from spreading around the world. but i was only worried actually 10 minutes because i looked at the chinese date i managed to see of the enormous gradient on mortality between the older than the young and at that time there wasn't really not want to 2 people want protecting themselves in the home because they didn't know about the heart rate so you would expect that the explorer show was about the same to different days groups maybe a little less in the older we didn't know yet what the so-called infection fatality ratio was like the probability of death after if you were infected but we know that there was this huge difference in risk between the ages and that's must have been enough to know that we should have done it from the start the focus which actions just as you were left. where we're where we do muster the job protecting the older

people who stand apart with our measures while letting children and younger people live near normal life. so that we wouldn't have collateral damage consequences because last dance if can you have the years to flatten the curve but it can never stop the pandemic so that's are a futile effort and we have seen that people thought people in europe and north america thought that. in thought in the sound of that there was the lockdowns that had. pushed this is down but that's why we wrote the grandparental desperation october because we knew was going to come back and. now people stabbed it wouldn't and that we were sort of doing a straw man by criticising lockdowns but when you were giving back because there's clearly now a seasonal effect of this so we wanted to make sure that we didn't do the same mistakes again during the 2nd wave us through the 1st wave so that was our attempt

at a bigger brain to make the nation present who they are we have to get it he asked me am really grateful for you taking the time and see it's our cows about that school thank you so much has been a great pleasure so thank you and thank you. we're watching. all the worlds apart. all. or. part of. the news but like it's more it's. movie you just the 1st one to open your mind is produced. with hundreds. if.

not you'll see just what i do want to. see if it was national guard coming off. the top of. the play to talk a little. bit from what was from the school seems. a. little bottle support scoop what are these products one of the biggest musical. because these new. machines into my previous mirror. both of you knew those moves. to follow someone to bulimia because we've got a lot of style if you believe that 88.

weeks top stories on all t.v. the presidency throws up a major obstacle for the u.s. already struggling road. and struggling to convince people of the. northern ireland sees its worst rioting in decades with gangs hurling petrol bombs and torching police cars i mean a few read over a post. and a former u.s. intelligence analyst faces years in prison for exposing america's drug or warfare program we speak to a whistleblower who's in close contact with him. he did it because he was exposing a war crime he's not allowed to see the.