Michael Esfeld decries the abuse of science during this time of Covid-19. A slice:
We know many cases from history, in particular of the last century in Europe and especially Germany, in which coercive state measures were legitimized as absolutely necessary from a scientific point of view and had devastating consequences for the people affected. Is it different this time? Is it possible and permissible to stop the spread of a virus through central state planning with a massive intervention in people’s lives – and especially the lives of those people who do not have much time left to live – without causing great harm?
Billy Binion reports that New York State strongman Andrew Cuomo continues to muck matters up.
British MP David Warburton explains his reasons for voting against a national lockdown. A slice:
First, the numbers and how they are being reported. Yes, there is no doubt that the new evolving strains of the virus – though thankfully no more virulent – are more easily transmitted between individuals. But our increased rates of infection are more interesting. The mass scale of our PCR testing and self-reporting through the NHS app means that, for example, our case rate appears to be far higher than many European neighbours. And testing also creates some revealing anomalies: the virus seems to understand the soft border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, for example, crediting those to the north with a far higher rate of infection. Our mortality rate – dreadful though it is – remains much the same as others’. So either the false-positive incidence of our testing is giving us a bleak picture, or we appear more resilient to the worst effects of the virus, which is obviously unlikely.
Everyone who attends hospital is now tested – itself, of course, a terrifically important step. Those who test positive are reported statistically as hospital Covid patients, whether they were asymptomatic or not; whether they attended hospital for a broken ankle or regular cancer treatment. Naturally, when we then hear of hospitals managing thousands of Covid patients, such reporting will concern us all and lead the Government to seek to act.
Laura Dodsworth eloquently defends skeptics of lockdowns. A slice:
Lockdown doesn’t come without regulations. Supporting lockdown necessitates the implicit support of the regulations and enforcement of them. They aren’t just the nuclear option; they are the totalitarian option. They have also never been used or recommended before. Pre-emptive disaster and recovery planner, Lucy Easthope, told me that lockdowns have never been recommended for influenza or SARS epidemics. They were never recommended by WHO until a little update of their website this year post-introduction of lockdowns, or by the UK government.
The Heritage Foundation has compiled a list of lockdown hypocrites. It’s long.
According to Karen Harradine – and she’s correct – lockdown zealots are selfish. Two slices:
But all this evidence and rational scientific debate is ignored because, as I have shown, Covid-19 is now a quasi-religious cult, Sage its high priests and government ministers its executioners.
Lockdown zealots, the most devout of all, are behaving like primitive tribespeople, demanding human sacrifices so they can be kept ‘safe’. On the altar are our children, saddled with a generation of debt, the lonely elderly, the medically neglected and the millions left unemployed and homeless.
…..
Millions are at risk of suffering and death because of Covid-19 lockdowns. Do not blame Covid-19. Blame the reactions by politicians taken in responding to this virus and their lockdown useful idiots.
And here’s Nicholas Orlando on the terrors and tyrannical oppression of Covid lockdowns. A slice:
The cruel and sanctimonious taunts of the Covzealots are riding on the back of the power of the state’s virtuous medical tyranny that remains oblivious to widespread suffering amidst personal, family, social and economic tragedy.
