“The EU, and often its member states, doggedly follows the ‘precautionary principle’,” writes Matthew Lesh in CapX, blaming this principle for the suspension of the rollout of the AstraZeneca vaccine in various EU countries. But hang on a minute. Is this the same Matthew Lesh who has been an enthusiastic cheer leader for the British lockdowns? He goes on to say about this rationale for erring on the side of caution: “To pass the precautionary principle challenge requires doing the impossible: proving something is completely safe. Based on this logic, if stairs or pools were invented today they would be forbidden because of the risks of falling and drowning.”
Well quite. In case it’s escaped your attention, Matthew, this is precisely the argument that lockdown sceptics have been making for the past year. It was the rigid application of the precautionary principle that led governments across the world to lock their citizens in their homes last year because the dangers posed by SARS-CoV-2 were still largely unknown. Or, more precisely, it was the combination of the precautionary principle and short-termism that led to the embrace of the lockdown policy, with the priority of political leaders being to prevent immediate harm befalling their populations even if the excessive precautions they took ended up causing far greater harm in the long-term. And this, surely, is exactly the combination that’s behind the AstraZeneca ban in continental Europe. Better to avoid the immediate political fallout caused by a handful of adverse events apparently caused by the vaccine than provide their populations with lasting protection from infection.
If people like Matthew Lesh can see how disastrous the application of this principle is to the vaccine rollout, how can they not see how disastrous it was when applied to managing the pandemic last year? And, of course, it isn’t just Matthew, but vast numbers of pro-vaxxers who were gripped by the same panic European leaders are now gripped by this time last year.
The senior financial journalist who’s been a longtime contributor to Lockdown Sceptics had this to say about the double-standards of the lockdown zealots.
It’s half amusing to see commentators decrying the Europeans for the the misuse of the ‘precautionary principle’ when suspending the Astra-Zeneca vaccination (e.g. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard writing in the Telegraph that the “French Precautionary Principle is literally killing Europe”. Also the Economist’s Health Correspondent said on BBC radio today that it is folly to apply the precautionary principle during a pandemic. But it is the same precautionary principle that was invoked 12 months ago to justify lockdowns in the first place – on the grounds that we didn’t know the covid infection fatality rate, its reproduction number and because hospitals might possibly be overwhelmed. The same precautionary principle was later invoked to justify two-metre social distancing, face masks, school closures, further lockdowns, etc. It seems that almost every day for 12 months we have had to endure some member of SAGE, notably Chris Whitty, appealing to the precautionary principle to justify some repressive measure unsupported by reliable data. Not only does the extreme risk aversion of the precautionary principle ignore costs (as LS has noted many times over the last year), but it returns to bite its advocates. One doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
… except that a ‘precautionary’ approach to vaccines that have not been adequately tested is based on sound principles. It is rational precaution.
Similarly, some actions back in February/March – when little was known – were rationally based and proportionate.
Lockdowns never had that rational precautionary basis – as was recognised in prior strategy documents.
Hyprocrisy abounds. But it just as much relates to ignoring vaccine issues as it does the use of the precautionary principle. Of course its hypocritical to use the PP when it suits your argument and not when it doesn’t. But its equally hypocritical to call for ignoring concerns over vaccines. They are experimental and to urge people to abandin common sense in their use is every bit as hypocritical as the likes of Lesh.
Hypocrisy is very typical behaviour of a socialist. Their argument will twist, turn and bend in which ever direction they feel necessary for ‘winning’ their deliberately confusing arguments. In the end, and very much the case with lockdown/vaccination, the argument becomes so old that they confidently use the passage of time to benefit their devious strategies.
“Hypocrisy is very typical behaviour of a socialist”
I don’t think everyone that has right wing views are typically all stupid morons, even when I read barmy generalizations like that.
surely if you haven’t done a risk/benefit analysis, you don’t know what is precautionary or not?
in the absence of evidence, the precautionary principle can be used to either do something or not do something based on your own prejudices
I thought it would be precautionary to not lockdown as we’ve never done it before and had no idea how it would turn out
apparently our government thought it was precautionary to do the exact opposite
My feeling is that the most precautionary thing is to do nothing unless you are sure what you are doing is correct. ie stick with the pandemic response plan that we already had
100%. “First, do no harm”.
Except in this case the precautionary principle is justified. These ‘vaccines’ have had inadequate testing and the risks of giving them out to all a sundry are completely unknown at this time as the trials won’t be complete for at least 2 more years.
Exactly Toby, as with so many aspects of covid/lockdown/overeaction we have been complaining about the precautionionary principle for almost 12 months.
Meanwhile as noted yesterday.
It’s all over now bozo blue.
This is the same crowd who were demanding ‘harder lockdown, sooner, quicker’ until that became inconvenient.
Why do I have the impression that an ostensibly sceptical web site is cheerleading for the experimental injections?
These blood clots may be a red herring, but they are not the only negative events being temporally associated with the injections. The “low count of blood platelets”, briefly mentioned (https://dailysceptic.org/2021/03/15/france-and-germany-suspend-oxford-astrazeneca-vaccine-rollout-amid-blood-clot-concerns/), and particularly its rapid onset following injection, may be a compellingly distinctive phenomenon.
Whatever the short-term adverse event data that have been collected, the fact remains that the clinical studies, of these injections, are scheduled to run until Q1 2023. It’s a funny sort of precautionary principle that has the injections being offered (or, more accurately, promoted) to “all … over-50s” (https://dailysceptic.org/2021/03/16/covid-vaccine-supply-surge-means-half-of-uk-adults-will-soon-be-jabbed/), when the disease, against which they are intended to protect, poses minimal menace to people who are neither in poor health nor very elderly.
Why do I have the impression that an ostensibly sceptical web site is cheerleading for the experimental injections?
I think the answer lies within your own question.
I find it very hard to understand how people, like Toby, who last March-April had the nous to realise that lockdowns were wrong, fail to have the nous to ask reasonable questions about these ‘vaccines’.
“… or, more accurately, promoted …”
Spot on. The sheer deviousness of what is going on is amazing.
The hand is so massively overplayed as to defy any rational basis.
According to the Yellow Card reporting, between 9 December and 21 February there were four hundred and sixty Covid 19 vaccination adverse reaction deaths. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting There is a deafening silence on these deaths from the government, the corporate media and the various health authorities. Whilst this is deplorable, it is understandable given their commitment to the coronavirus narrative. However, I cannot but wonder at why self professed lockdown sceptics, who have obviously been able to see the madness for what it is, are similarly ignoring these deaths.
And when some poor old soul passed away in a care home days after the jab, was any effort made to ascertain whether this rare form of thrombosis was the cause?
It’s just, just, just remotely possible that this side effect has been a lot more widespread than publicly realised ….
After all this time, why does the ‘senior financial journalist’ continue to hide his or her identity? If he or she really believes in what they’re saying, why not be open about it? Weird, and a bit pathetic. My money’s on it being Liam Halligan.
Nothing weird : this is the way blanket totalitarian propaganda works, whether you like it or not. Look at the wider pattern of those that have fallen silent when faced with losing their job. Hari-kiri isn’t an effective protest scheme.