I think the position of the “public” health lobby on the use of pharmaceuticals is:
1) if the problem is pathogenic, be my guest, pile then up; otherwise in response to Covid 19 they’d have stuck with the ‘we’re going to have to lose some liberties’ approach of lockdown & masks;
2) if the problem is behavioural, eschew them religiously; behavioural change whether voluntary or enforced is the only acceptable option.
So this is probably not a true case of Not Invented Here because, even if it had been (and it wouldn’t because it would never be even considered for invention), it wouldn’t be promoted.
I think the position of the “public” health lobby on the use of pharmaceuticals is:
1) if the problem is pathogenic, be my guest, pile then up; otherwise in response to Covid 19 they’d have stuck with the ‘we’re going to have to lose some liberties’ approach of lockdown & masks;
2) if the problem is behavioural, eschew them religiously; behavioural change whether voluntary or enforced is the only acceptable option.
So this is probably not a true case of Not Invented Here because, even if it had been (and it wouldn’t because it would never be even considered for invention), it wouldn’t be promoted.
“their use ‘might well deepen the emphasis in the public discourse on a “personal responsibility narrative”’.”
Pass the smelling salts!