Deniers

[TheArtfulDogger]

My social media feeds seem to be showing a lot of people, some famous, some not, who seem to deny certain elements of the pandemic.

This morning it was Julia Hartley-Brewer, a talk radio breakfast presenter (no I've never heard of her either) saying

"I've said it before and I'll say it again. Jab or no jab lockdown restrictions will never end until we Say 'enough is enough' & tell the govt to give us back our lives. There will *always* be another reason for them to extend the lockdown. This won't end till we say it does"

I am sure that the government doesn't want to keep us locked down forever, the financial impact alone is potentially catastrophic, and then people question the reason masks are necessary. I've seen arguments that they are "muzzling" the population and emasculating us all as a form of control.

In response hundreds of people are agreeing with her, and she isn't the only feed like this I've seen.

Freedom of speech is marvellous, but should dangerous points of view like this be checked and validated ?

People who respond in favour are potentially the same mindset as those that stood outside hospitals recently denying covid existed and upsetting medical staff who have come off shift dealing with it, and potentially deaths caused by it.

Why are these people hoping to gain ? Do they really believe there is a global conspiracy against them ? and won't they be surprised when the "mother ship" doesn't come down and take them all away (to a human meat processing factory of course)

[malumbu]

I've written to my mp about Tim Martin of Wetherspoons - not so much a denier but he has/had a campaign questioning lockdown. Tory party keep strange bedfellows. https://www.standard.co.uk/business/wetherspoon-boss-tim-martin-blasts-reckless-government-b112812.html

[TheCat]

There is a legitimate discussion to be had against lockdown per se. That is to say, there could be a sensible discussion about alternative restrictions which MIGHT allow for more freedoms/economic activity while still posing an acceptable risk to public health.

Unfortunately, as the OP alludes to, many of the anti-lockdown people are not really making these 'sensible' arguments very eloquently, and then you have the extreme 'Covid Deniers' who just undercuts any credibility or hope of genuine discussion. On the flip side of course, you have the uber-lockdown fans, who immediately paint any reasonable comment against lockdown as being associated with the extreme anti-lockdown mob

So the dominant public debate really only seems to focus on the two extremes and is a binary discussion - lockdown or don't lockdown.

I think there's much more to it than that in reality.

[mrwb]

What do you think they are denying exactly?

Is there allowed to be a debate or is anyone who disagrees just a "denier"?

What if vaccination doesn't work or not well? Given we only have trials that were 30% or so finished telling us they will?

If SARS-CoV-2 stays around in a similar way to Influenza evolving around anything we do, and there is little we can do about it, should we just lock down indefinitely?

What are dangerous points of view? Just things you don't agree with? If they're dangerous cite evidence of why they are dangerous?

I see this as a general problem in the 21st century, social and our online media has lead to their only being one "truth", no debate with actual evidence is allowed.

[Nigello]

I wouldn't say that JHB is a denier. She believes the virus exists and is damaging to people's health but she also believes that lockdowns are not effective as others would have her believe. True deniers are those who think that there is no virus and no disease caused by it.

[JohnL]

Julia Hartley-Brewer is supposedly in talks to have a slot on the new TV News channel "GB News". As this is a "shock jock" channel I wouldn't be surprised to see a number of alternative view points.

[JohnL]

Nigello Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I wouldn't say that JHB is a denier. She believes

> the virus exists and is damaging to people's

> health but she also believes that lockdowns are

> not effective as others would have her believe.

> True deniers are those who think that there is no

> virus and no disease caused by it.

you see tweets in reply to her like the below - what happens behind the scenes is anybodies guess. I wonder what "reached out" means ;)

You can see a pic of the original tweet in the replies somewhere.

[TheCat]

Brendan O'Neil does waffle on and exaggerate a bit....but his central point in this article isnt wrong in my view....

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/01/19/the-witch-hunting-of-lockdown-sceptics/

The lumping together of people raising questions over the specific nature of the restrictions we are subject to, with the people who claim COVID is a hoax, is symptomatic of total lack of nuance in public discourse, and results in the shutdown of any debate or discussion (certainly not a covid specific issue by any stretch)....

[Blah Blah]

Social media ceased to be a go to place for sensible nuanced debate some time ago. JHB currently has the morning slot on Talk Radio, the radio equivalent of Fox News.

It is all very well arguing for freedom of speech and wishing for sensible nuanced debate, but the truth is that mainstream media has fallen into the trap of reflecting the shock jock style of commercial tabloids and social media, as it fights ever more competition for viewers/ readers. Hysteria and outrage sells. Nuanced sensible debate doesn't because it can't cut through lowest common denominator tripe that plays on people's emotions over intellect. That shift is precisely what elevated people like Farage and other rabble rousers into the mainstream People who deliberately shift the lines between propaganda and truth.

The cost is increasing numbers of people being sucked into cult like belief systems, like Q Anon, and Pandemic hoax theories. That is exactly why you end up with a President who convinces tens of millions of people (including some of his own senators) into believing an election was stolen. The consequences of that don't need spelling out.

On covid, any alternate that lessens restrictions is going to mean more infection and ultimately more people in hospital. JHB has been one of those people willfully neglecting to point that out. So for me, the issue is not in calling for lesser restrictions (or different ones), but the failure to be honest about what that will mean in reality to public health. That is that part that is covid denial.

[TheCat]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> It is all very well arguing for freedom of speech

> and wishing for sensible nuanced debate, but the

> truth is that mainstream media has fallen into the

> trap of reflecting the shock jock style of

> commercial tabloids and social media, as it fights

> ever more competition for viewers/ readers.

> Hysteria and outrage sells.

Agreed. But just because it sells, and that's the way all media is headed...doesn't mean we should collectively accept the death of nuance and sensible debate. We should keep calling for and attempting to have sensible debate. I don't believe in fighting fire with fire in this context...fight it with water.

>

> The cost is increasing numbers of people being

> sucked into cult like belief systems, like Q Anon,

> and Pandemic hoax theories.

Yes indeed. Its also true at both ends of the political spectrum...think Critical Race Theory now becoming increasingly mainstream, which by its very design closes down debate (i.e. racism is inherent in EVERY human interaction apparently, and questioning if something is really racist, or inability to idenitfy said racism is just proof of one's inherent racism and privilege apprently...quite the head twisting logic there.....anyway, I digress).

>

> On covid, any alternate that lessens restrictions

> is going to mean more infection and ultimately

> more people in hospital. JHB has been one of those

> people willfully neglecting to point that out. So

> for me, the issue is not in calling for lesser

> restrictions (or different ones), but the failure

> to be honest about what that will mean in reality

> to public health. That is that part that is covid

> denial.

So...hypothetically...if everyone over the age of 70 was banned from setting foot outside of their home, and the rest of the population went about their lives with absolutely no restrictions...I'd hazard a guess that the death rate would plummet. Surely one can argue that this is a change in restrictions which would be of benefit to public health? Now clearly thats not paritucularly practical or realistic, but its an example to make the point - I don't accept the premise that any change to 'lockdown' means we also must expect that it will have overall negative consequences. Hence the desire for discussion.

[Jules-and-Boo]

If the 70plus are vaccinated then it would be sensible that they are the only ones allowed out.

The deaths are not limited to age; the hospitals are filled with young to middle aged as well.

[TheCat]

Sure....but deaths are not the same as hospitalizations...

I also didn't suggest deaths were limited by age. I said the death rate would probably plummet.

That is exactly the same rationale behind vaccinating over 70's first, then allowing things to open back up progressively at that point. My point was a hypothetical...and hypothetically...the same result (i.e. plummeting death rate (not zero death rate)) could have conceptually been achieved much earlier by locking up over 70's for the last few months.

As I already said, not particularly practical (or ethical), the point is there should have been (its almost too late now assuming vaccination is successful) some more nuanced public discussion about some potenbtial alternatives. If we could have had lower deaths, and lower unemployment/people on the poverty line - im sure we could all agree that may have been a worthy discussion, even if the resultant conclusion was to do exactly what we've done....

[diable rouge]

A ''nuanced public discussion''?

By whom? For how long? Who gets to make a final decision?

Besides, isn't that the role of SAGE, and don't you think they've looked at alternatives?...

[TheCat]

Do I really need to walk you through what a public debate is? Look at what Marcus Rashford has done for meals for kids with a bit of public pressure...

No I don't think there was sufficient public pressure on the government around lockdown alternatives. No public debate, no voter awareness of alternatives, therefore no pressure to consider alternatives.

With regards to sage and the epidemiologists on the group. They are the experts in modelling of disease spread for sure...but if you run a model on the spread of a disease...what would be the most efficient and easiest way to reduce your calculated R rate?...LOCKDOWN. So it's natural that they advise as such. SAGE are not concerned with the economy or other 'ancilliary' concerns. Without public pressure on the government to consider alternatives, I don't think the pressure would then have come from the govt back to sage to come up with some other ideas which may have also been acceptable from a public health point of view...but perhaps not quite as 'clear cut' as LOCKDOWN everyone...

[Blah Blah]

TheCat, odd that you should use racism to counter a point made about Q Anon and Pandemic hoax theories. Racism exists. Q Anon and Hoax theories are fantasy. So not a good analogy.

[Blah Blah]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So...hypothetically...if everyone over the age of 70 was banned from setting foot outside of their home, and the rest of the population went about their lives with absolutely no restrictions...I'd hazard a guess that the death rate would plummet. Surely one can argue that this is a change in restrictions which would be of benefit to public health? Now clearly thats not paritucularly practical or realistic, but its an example to make the point - I don't accept the premise that any change to 'lockdown' means we also must expect that it will have overall negative consequences.

> Hence the desire for discussion.

You make the same mistake as everyone else in neglecting the fact that many more people fill hospitals because they are too sick to recover without specialist help. Many of those people are in other ages groups. In fact, the bigger age group in hospital with covid at the moment are those in the 30s and 40's. And that is the problem with this debate. Covid is far more complex than people over 70 dying. Letting the virus spread freely, even excluding the over 70's, means tens of millions of people suddenly becoming infected. Even a tiny fraction of that needing hospital care would overwhelm the NHS.

[TheCat]

I used another example of an extreme point of view. Its a perfect analogy.

Pedophiles also exist, doesnt make Qanon any less extreme. Racism does indeed exist, and, similarly, that doesn't make some CRT groups any less extreme. Let's not strawman this away from the intended point which you you're well aware I was making. In anycase, I was agreeing with your original point, just adding another example to illustrate extreme and inflexible points of view. It wasn't a 'counter' to anything.

[TheCat]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TheCat Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > So...hypothetically...if everyone over the age

> of 70 was banned from setting foot outside of

> their home, and the rest of the population went

> about their lives with absolutely no

> restrictions...I'd hazard a guess that the death

> rate would plummet. Surely one can argue that this

> is a change in restrictions which would be of

> benefit to public health? Now clearly thats not

> paritucularly practical or realistic, but its an

> example to make the point - I don't accept the

> premise that any change to 'lockdown' means we

> also must expect that it will have overall

> negative consequences.

> > Hence the desire for discussion.

>

> You make the same mistake as everyone else in

> neglecting the fact that many more people fill

> hospitals because they are too sick to recover

> without specialist help. Many of those people are

> in other ages groups. In fact, the bigger age

> group in hospital with covid at the moment are

> those in the 30s and 40's. And that is the problem

> with this debate. Covid is far more complex than

> people over 70 dying. Letting the virus spread

> freely, even excluding the over 70's, means tens

> of millions of people suddenly becoming infected.

> Even a tiny fraction of that needing hospital care

> would overwhelm the NHS.

I'm not advocating the EXAMPLE I used. Its an off the top of head example of illustrate that there MIGHT be other things worth discussing.

But, in anycase, just like that...we're having a discussion, shame there wasn't a more high profile one 6 months ago

Anyway...some light bedtime reading to add to the thinking...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-sustainable-alternative-to-blanket-lockdowns/

https://hospitalpharmacyeurope.com/views/an-alternative-strategy-for-covid-19/

https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-four-traps-governments-fall-into-when-making-decisions-about-lockdown-149684

[alex_b]

The problem is that the anti-lockdown brigade have framed the argument as health or the economy. They?ve been supported in this in the media due to the drive for ?balance? in arguments rather than nuance. What we can see now, with the benefit of hindsight, is countries such as New Zealand, Australia, and numerous Asian countries is that locking down earlier and harder shortened the restrictions and reduced the economic impact. Of course those countries also got proper test and trace and quarantine procedures in place to support the easing of lockdowns which we failed to do.

[Seabag]

Singapore

Yet nobody here seems keen to follow

[Blah Blah]

Seabag Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Singapore

>

> Yet nobody here seems keen to follow

No hope of emulating any of those countries when so many people can be bothered to wear a mask even for the short amount of time they spent in a shop or on a bus.

[KidKruger]

Yeah we debate the merits of this or that until the cows come home, meanwhile some of the countries listed above owned it, got pretty much through to the other side, and are rebuilding.

Wish I was back in Thailand !!

[malumbu]

I'm watching a documentary on the Beeb on Sunday evenings about backpackers being murdered in Thailand Feels much safer here.

[JohnL]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm watching a documentary on the Beeb on Sunday

> evenings about backpackers being murdered in

> Thailand Feels much safer here.

The 'suicides' from balconies are well known (some have been going on about it on social media for years)

On the other hand I have a work colleague who loves Thailand and visits every year (not for nefarious reasons) and wouldn't hear a word against it.

[mancity68]

So this isn?t a thread about thickness of tights? Disappointing.