luka

Well-known member
Quite a few anti-lockdown articles now cropping up in The Guardian - not too long before the dinner-party set irrevocably changes their tune, as I predicted some 400 pages of thread ago.
once its history everyone is free to change their mind and fight over the meaning of it
 
Omicron shows signs that it evolved in mice, by the way. Not in Africans. Hmmmmm.

 

Leo

Well-known member
If newer strains are generally less lethal, then there's less need for mandates and lockdowns. That's not backpedaling, it's paying attention to a changing situation.
 

luka

Well-known member
If newer strains are generally less lethal, then there's less need for mandates and lockdowns. That's not backpedaling, it's paying attention to a changing situation.
thats not what theyre talking about though
 

luka

Well-known member
theyre referring to one single specific guardian article that i now cant find. and it asked, tentatively, whether we did more harm than good
 

Clinamenic

Binary & Tweed
If newer strains are generally less lethal, then there's less need for mandates and lockdowns. That's not backpedaling, it's paying attention to a changing situation.
Yeah I'm inclined to agree here, that the question of lockdowns now is contextually distinct from the question of lockdowns initially.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
If newer strains are generally less lethal, then there's less need for mandates and lockdowns. That's not backpedaling, it's paying attention to a changing situation.
These newspapers didn't even approach the risk:benefit calculation first time around, despite the concept of 'lockdown' being entirely novel.
 
I think there's going to be some SERIOUS blowback this year. The elites probably thought we'd all get on our knees in 2021. Didn't happen in certain jurisdictions (though it did in others: Canada, Australia, and especially NZ. NY and CA, SMH RIP), and now they're going to have to go full Nazi to contain the response. Though they're rich, their wealth and security is built on lies, and they're dependent on the same supply chains, so they are going to lose badly. Should have followed the actual science, rather than their half-baked, self-serving version of The Science™ . U.S. Mid-term elections are going to be lit.

I heard the Scottish health minister being interviewed by Nick Robinson over the weekend. As a teenager, she wanted to be a doctor, but was "rubbish at science". So she was so, so grateful to be spoonfed The Science by advisors. Being so thick and useless meant she was able to better explain The Science to the public and make The Right and Difficult Choices. That's the calibre of people making policy these days.
 
Last edited:

luka

Well-known member
Hold on, this is actually quite different from how it's been depicted. It's a review of his book, not a Guardian opinion piece. The review is devoted to explaining the beliefs that he spells out in the book.
yeah but i agree with them in that it feels significant
 

Leo

Well-known member
yeah but i agree with them in that it feels significant

yeah, but that's very different from the guardian publishing editorials about how what they said in the past was wrong, which is what mixed and IQ implied.
 
Top