Louise Ross, one of two volunteers managing the Quit for Covid Twitter account, has tweeted:
I’ve pondered all day whether to bother with this but I will. Why do I help run the @QuitforCovid messaging (on a voluntary basis I might add)? Because I may have then done something to help a few people not find themselves gasping for breath in ICU. It’s a small contribution.
Louise’s tweet followed criticism of the Quit for Covid campaign here, on Chris Snowdon's blog, and on social media. I am guessing the two are related. Perhaps she feels a bit hurt that her efforts are not universally appreciated.
To be clear, I applaud anyone who offers their time and energy to help those that genuinely seek help. If however she is looking for sympathy because the broader ambitions of the Quit for Covid campaign are being questioned, she should look closer to home.
It wasn’t me, Chris Snowdon or anyone else commenting on social media that put the campaign in the public eye. It was ASH. They were the ones who went to the Guardian this week and complained about the 'unreasonable delay' in the government's funding of the Quit for Covid initiative.
As soon as ASH's application was public knowledge it was inevitable that people would query the use of £350,000 of taxpayers’ money on a campaign that, on the evidence of the last nine weeks, has failed to generate any traction with the people it purports to help.
Instead it's become a lame echo chamber for a tobacco control industry that already has enough money pumped into it to tackle smoking. Why does it need a further injection of taxpayers' money?
The fact that the application for additional funds came from ASH, a group already in receipt of an annual government grant of £140,000 and whose sense of entitlement is off the scale, merely added fuel to the fire.
To be clear, I’m aware of Louise’s background and I respect the work she did as a professional smoking cessation worker and her tireless advocacy of risk reduction products.
She comes across as a knowledgeable and empathetic stop smoking advisor and I can see why she is popular in public health and vaping advocacy circles.
Unfortunately, by getting involved with ASH and the Quit for Covid campaign, Louise has crossed the line from ‘smoking cessation for those who want to quit’ to a more coercive agenda.
Take, for example, this Quit for Covid tweet which (typos aside) makes the broader strategy very clear:
There are six strands and our approach and are based on ● stopping the promotion of tobacco; ● making tobacco less affordable; ● effective regulation of tobacco products; ● helping tobacco users to quit; ● reducing exposure to second-hand smoke; ● effective communications
I suspect this tweet reflects the grant application ASH submitted to the Department of Health and if so I'm not surprised Number 10 is taking its time weighing it up.
Perhaps, like me, officials suspect the Quit for Covid campaign is an opportunistic grab for public money when the public health industry, including the Department of Health, should be fully focussed on tackling a genuine public health crisis, not launching mass media campaigns urging people to quit smoking, or campaigning to make 'tobacco less affordable' at a time when many smokers may have been furloughed or become unemployed through no fault of their own and find smoking a comfort during this difficult period.
I’m sorry, Louise, but if you hang out with ASH and sign up to their bullying, prohibitionist agenda, don’t be surprised if you get caught in the crossfire.