Read on Twitter
There's a really particular frustration about being a medical historian right now, as so many people say "well history will tell us who was right and who was wrong" when they don't fucking listen to the historians now telling them what has worked or not worked in the past.
I've marked 2nd year undergrad essays explaining how important financial support was in ensuring people followed quarantine guidelines in the 14th century during the black death. That's literally coming up on 700 years ago, and yet so many governments have had to "discover" that.
This week my 2nd year undergrads were telling me what made a difference between different regional approaches to the Spanish flu, and why people seemed more likely to comply with different rules. We literally have centuries of history to tell us what approaches work.
Obviously diseases can be different and tech etc is different, but people are (infuriatingly, at times) the same throughout history. We are literally right here to explain what issues have come up in past pandemics, what approaches have worked, why people don't comply, etc.
So it is so incredibly blood-boiling to see governments say "well we are just going to do this based on (some) scientific advice and we'll see with hindsight whether it was a good idea", ignoring hundreds of experts ready to explain how people have ACTUALLY responded in the past.
Honestly you could put a few of my undergrad Disease and Society class on the SAGE panel and it would be an improvement atm. Nevermind the historians with PhDs, post-docs, and decades of research into how people respond to regulations during pandemics.
*screaming in historian*
*screaming in historian*
