Public health practitioners and policymakers from all sides of the COVID-19 policy debate participated in four expert panels.
In early October, Stanford University held a conference to discuss and reflect on pandemic policies during COVID-19.
The goal was to “bring together people with different perspectives” and “try to repair some of the rifts that opened during COVID,” said Jonathan Levin, the newly inaugurated Stanford president, in his opening speech at the conference.
Public health practitioners and policymakers from all sides of the COVID-19 policy debate participated in four expert panels discussing domestic and international pandemic policies, misinformation, and COVID-19 virus origins.
“This was really the first conference of its kind that I’m aware of, with experts and thought leaders with contrasting viewpoints on the pandemic engaging in good-faith discussion,” said Jan Jekielek, senior editor at The Epoch Times, who moderated the “COVID-19 Origins and the Regulation of Virology” panel at the event.
“This is sorely needed, and hopefully just the beginning.”
Myopic Public Health Policies
Panelists generally agreed that many of the health policies enacted, like lockdowns and school closures, were too focused on immediate health impacts and had less consideration for collateral damage.
In the first panel, six out of seven experts agreed that they thought some of the public health policies were good ideas but then later changed their minds.
“This was really the first conference of its kind that I’m aware of, with experts and thought leaders with contrasting viewpoints on the pandemic engaging in good-faith discussion,” said Jan Jekielek, senior editor at The Epoch Times, who moderated the “COVID-19 Origins and the Regulation of Virology” panel at the event.
“This is sorely needed, and hopefully just the beginning.”
Myopic Public Health Policies
Panelists generally agreed that many of the health policies enacted, like lockdowns and school closures, were too focused on immediate health impacts and had less consideration for collateral damage.
In the first panel, six out of seven experts agreed that they thought some of the public health policies were good ideas but then later changed their minds.
By Marina Zhang
