Although nationwide lockdowns are unprecedented in modern history, there’s been remarkably little public debate about whether they are justified ethically. Vague appeals to ‘protecting the NHS’ will not do, especially since the U.K. Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011 says that halting the spread of pandemic influenza virus would be “a waste of public health resources”.
In a paper due to appear in the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, Samuel Director and Christopher Freiman examine the two main justifications that have been given for lockdown. And they find both of these justifications wanting. In particular, they argue that each one has implications that most people would not accept.
The first major justification for lockdowns is that we have to minimise lives lost (or perhaps life years lost). In other words: we should adopt whichever policy minimises the total number of deaths, and since lockdown is the policy that achieves that, we should implement lockdowns.
As an example of this justification, the authors quote the former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who said, “We’re not going to put a dollar figure on human life. The first order of business is to save lives, period. Whatever it costs.”
Yet upon reflection, this justification makes very little sense. For example, it would imply that governments should drastically reduce speed limits to prevent all road deaths – at the cost of time, convenience and economic efficiency. (Or perhaps they’d have to ban cars altogether.)
As I’ve previously noted: “Society has functions other than simply extending people’s lives for as long as possible. If it did not, we’d spend a much higher fraction of GDP on healthcare, and we’d ban alcohol, smoking and extreme sports.”
The second major justification for lockdowns is that we must defer to experts. In other words: we should adopt whichever policy the experts advocate, and since the experts advocate lockdown, that is what we should do.
Aside from the fact that many experts were against lockdown – not to mention the difficulty of even defining ‘expertise’ in this area – insisting that we must defer to experts has implications that many people would reject.
For example, it would imply that we should adopt free trade, open immigration, legalisation of some drugs, and perhaps even markets in human organs – since these policies all receive support from academic economists. Note: I’m not saying these are all necessarily bad policies; but they can’t be justified purely on the basis of what ‘the experts’ believe.
According to the authors, the only justification that actually makes sense is that lockdowns have large “net welfare benefits”, i.e., their benefits in terms of lives saved outweigh all the costs they impose on society. However, as a matter of empirical fact, the authors doubt that lockdowns do have large “net welfare benefits”.
For example, they entertain economist Bryan Caplan’s argument that the reduction in quality of life alone may have offset any lives saved by lockdowns. (Though of course, there’s not much evidence that lockdowns have saved lives in most of the countries where they’ve been tried.)
Director and Freiman’s paper provides a good overview of the debate over the ethics of lockdown, and is worth reading in full.
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.
The justifications given for lockdown derive entirely from altruism and altruism is a term invented by Auguste Comte to mean we should exist for others, literally other-ism.
Altruism is the morality of death.
The word Altruisme was made popular by Comte – it is not clear whether he invented it.
However, the concept is much older. It just means putting the concerns of other people (and possibly animals) before your own. It goes back to Plato (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4615-0809-0_11) and is fundamental to most major religions. After all the opposite is egoism – putting yourself before others – and, with some exceptions such as Neitschze and Rand, egoism is usually regarded as amoral or immoral.
The term was coined by him though Plato was his forerunner
“Coined” is slightly ambiguous. Comte made the word “Altruisme” widely known and accepted. It is not clear whether he actually invented it. However, what the hell!
Nietzsches’s point against altruism is that it is just covert egoism: The altruist acts in a certain way because this makes him feel better about himself. He also exercises power over those tragetted by his altruism and doesn’t necessarily do something which actually helps.
People devote careers to interpreting Nietzsche and his views changed during his lifetime. So no simple answers. I am only familiar with the Genealogy of Morals and from that I would say his attack on Altruism is more to do with the way it is part of the slave morality which weakens and corrupts as opposed to the “pure” master morality.
The guy who wrote “altrusim is the moral of death” summed up this point nicely. I intentionally avoided it in order to avoid complicating matters needlessly.
I’m aware that people devote careers to reading into Nietzsche whatever they want. I’m more in favour of listening.
Listening to whom? Nietzsche presumably – so read not listen. The trouble about that is he wrote a lot which is metaphorical, he rarely presents an argument, and he is sometimes contradictory. So it is all too easy to interpret it according to your prior prejudices. See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/#DiffNietPhilWrit for a discussion of the difficulties.
Um den Herrn mal selber zu bemühen: Was geht mich das Geschwätz amerikanischer Wirr- und Flachköpfe an?
Altruism is the exact opposite of egoism, by definition.
Altruism is about living for others, not helping them.
That’s not Nietzsche’s opinion of it and also not mine. The idea behind this is that people may claim to live for others but this doesn’t mean they actually do it: It’s against the nature of creatures instinctically driven to survive. Whatever they do, they ultimatively do it for themselves.
I’ll have to leave it at this as I don’t feel up to the task of going deeper into the territory of altruism etc belonging to a set of décadent ideologies hostile to life.
Coerced altruism certainly is.
And everything nowadays is “coerced.” Which is the opposite of freedom and personal choice. Comply, obey … or else.
For sure. My understanding of altruism is that it’s an emotion and consequent behaviour which emanate from the individual. It doesn’t manifest itself from any sort of corporate or government source.
I don’t think it is necessarily has to be an individual. If it makes sense to talk of a government or corporation having a motive, then it makes sense to talk of a government or corporation having an altruistic motive.
Voluntary altruism is not a virtue either.
And, of course, what has been done is NOT altruism; it is the opposite, massively damaging overall health and state of the economy for money-making and power-grabbing by a tiny, tiny minority!
It’s been argued that pure altruism is impossible. Even the act of a mother sacrificing herself to save her child has a biological imperative reward. For some else’s child, you receive benefits in reputation and praise, whether you ask for them or not. Ultimately everything we do is selfish to some degree, were it not I suspect we wouldn’t have survived as a species.
I’m working on a rebuttal to a columnist in my state who argued for mandatory vaccines and masking of children, using the argument that our state health official “cares” about these children. This man literally almost broke down in tears at a recent press briefing, which showed just how much he cares for everyone he is trying to “protect,” per this columnist.
I am basically a child murderer for not supporting these policies and am certainly “selfish” and “crazy” for not agreeing with this consensus opinion (and not getting my young children vaccinated or letting them go somewhere sans a mask).
Unspoken or mentioned in this column in this scolding is this point: Doesn’t the author think I love and “care” for my children? If I really thought my children were going to die because they went to school without a mask would I let them do this?
I haven’t seen any healthy children who have died from going to school without a mask. Per my research, no child in Sweden wore a mask to school and none died.
Maybe I “care” about the harm being done to my children by HAVING to wear masks all the time and not being allowed to play with their classmates (due to social distancing mandates)? Maybe, since I know my healthy children are not going to die from this disease, I actually “care” about the unknown long-term health effects that vaccination would or could produce?
Maybe I should call a press conference and come close to tears making these points. Then perhaps my “virtue” credentials would be elevated. “Ah, this guy does care about his children after all …”
No, I’d again be called a “selfish idiot.”
It’s wearing a hair-shirt by proxy.
Altruism, as well as being the morality of death, is the morality of scolding.
His moronic emotionalism is not a virtue and may an elephant fart in his face forever.
If he is anything like Cuomo he is probably an opportunistic sociopath who knows how to read the mood of the sheep and is flagrantly exploiting it to his political advantage.
Crocodile tears, call me cynical.
On the contrary, everyone has been forced to live for the NHS.
It is indeed altruism, the morality of death, put into practice.
As for sacrifice, where there are sacrifices, it stands to reason there is a collector of sacrifices.
There is nothing egoistic about lockdown.
It is indeed egoistic – of the politicians/super-rich!
Wrong, collecting sacrifices is not egoism but altruism.
You wrongly assume there are only two choices: slave or master.
Altruism: We exist as cattle for the establishment to live upon.
Yes
I think we are the most caring and empathetic people, but the least!
I want the NHS to be available to everyone not just covid patients.
I want the everyone to have a rich and fulfilling life, inc. the elderly and frail.
I have no children of my own but I want everyone else’s to thrive and develop.
I want Government budget to be spent on projects that have cost benefit analyses shown to help.
I want everyone to have freedom of speech and to not be discriminated against for their opinions.
These are only selfish in that it’s the only kind of society that I find civilised and tolerable
Nothing in your post refers to altruism, altruism is literally other-ism, you must live for others.
Altruism is the morality of death.
I’d want all those, as long as I didn’t have to pay for it.
The people who invented all these measures used appeals to altruism to market them or rather, they claimed whoever happened to be opposed the them would be acting purely out of (condemnable) selfishness.
That’s presumably because they were entirely motivated by that, as in Wear these masks to protect us! As I wrote in an earlier comment about utilitarian moral, the key to understanding is that the person making a moral demand for a sacrifice by someone else always belongs to the group supposed to benefit from the sacrifice. Hence, this demand boils down to “You must do …, because I expect to benefit from that.” (and a lot of other people as well, despite they’re not asking for the sacrifice).
The problem with this sort of paper is that it presupposes that a sadistic and maniacal government intervention might, just might have been valid.
From my perspective lockdowns were only valid if the intention was to scare the population senseless, destroy the economy and prime people for the wonders of the long baked but only about to be released gene therapy potions….I mean “vaccines.”
Attempting to counter any aspect of government policy with fact based argument is simply pointless.
Lockdowns were the antithesis of correct action and that’s why they are constantly being resurrected.
Understand their end goal and suddenly all government actions can be explained.
Actually, a major driver of lockdown was the old criminal ‘common sense’ – which may be common, but isn’t often sense. A better term would be ‘received nonsense’.
For every expert that says the answer is A there is another who is absolutely sure it’s B, until such time as enough evidence supports one answer or the other (if indeed that ever comes to pass). If this weren’t true we wouldn’t need politicians to make choices for us, we’d have a parliament full of ‘experts’.
Currently we have neither politicians who are looking at every angle, nor experts willing to accept that they may be wrong.
As the authors suggest, the “experts” are not really experts and, plus, who gets to decide who are the experts? And why do I have to follow the orders of these people?
Really, the public is to blame. We allowed all of this. The scary part is that we haven’t seen anything yet. It’s doubtful we are going to have only partial “totalitarianism.”
The recent Veritassium video on YT regarding a wind powered craft being able to travel dead down wind faster than the wide propelling it was really interesting. They demonstrated it works and still a professor put up 10k against it because he didn’t believe it would be possible based on his knowledge of science. I’ll let you go discover who won that particular disagreement it’s really interesting, especially if you like sailing.
He also did one a while back pointing out that almost all current scientific research is likely to be false for a variety or reasons.
This was a perfect demo of the bloody mindedness of the established scientific “experts” – a physics professor betting 10k and essentially his reputation and found out to be wrong – how could he show face again at classes in his uni???
Also a very good demonstration of why to not believe something unquestioningly or just because it seems logical. Even the explanation of how it works seems backwards, it’s not pulling forward it’s discarding something to propel it… Or is it?!
Your last paragraph is a very good summation of our current government by the ignorant and the incompetent
It was about time that the fundamental point that saving lives at all costs is immoral, unnatural and futile was made.
I would take issue that lockdowns could be justified by “net welfare benefits” because those are in the eye of the beholder.
Lockdowns remove rights that must be regarded as inalienable if they are to be respected. Governments cannot be trusted to remove them only when absolutely necessary. For me, the argument largely begins and ends there.
People don’t know really know what they want anymore.
After 18 months of being tortured, frightened and disoriented with constant arbitrary diktats, the population is for the most part exhausted and demoralised.
Some resist, some become mindless government cheerleaders, the vast majority just try to get by with grudging compliance in the hope that the abuse will end sooner rather than later.
This was the tactic they used on the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. It’s also the tactic that was used by the Witchfinder General, to gain confession once the accused were demoralised and confused.
This is yet another irony. In general, the public is very skeptical of government and the mainstream press. “We’re from the government and we are here to help” used to be a sentiment that most in the public rejected. And most intuitively knew to not trust the agenda of the 99-percent conformist press. Not anymore. If government officials say something is best, the vast majority of the public agrees and readily submits or complies.
We HAVE become a “Nanny State.” Nanny has to “protect” us. Once upon a time, at least a few journalists and editors were skeptical of those with great power in government or other organizations. Not anymore. As you note, we have all become “mindless government cheerleaders.”
Basically, nobody is capable of making their own independent decisions about their health. Some bureaucrats with great and total power HAVE to do this for us.
What we have ALREADY received, and will receive more of in the future, we probably deserve. Because “we the people” let it get to this point.
As it turns out, our collective education was not strong enough to protect us from those who WILL take it upon themselves to protect us.
I don’t think most people want a nanny. They just want the abuse to end and think the quickest, least difficult way is to do what they are told.
“As it turns out, our collective education was not strong enough to protect us from those who WILL take it upon themselves to protect us”
In other words, I will tell you what is good for you and you will do it – just like the Statins/Cholesterol scam until you find out that the US study which NICE relied on when it
recommendedforced GPs ( and financially incentivised them ) to instigate treatment by spreadsheet including the rigorously scientific BMI measure was substantially funded by……..you guessed it “Big Pharma”.I take your point about education; if you “dumb” down the ability for people to think for themselves, you cannot expect loads of folks to be able to think through the fog of propaganda and misinformation directed by fear (about anything) – intentionally. I am not “special” but for various reasons over a long time I have had to think through large amounts of information in certain scenarios intended for my benefit, a lot of which was out and out lies to say the very very least.
A good one from Russel Brand, discussing the lack of open discussion around the dreaded C word and how dissenting views are being extinguished. The threat of lockdowns are still being waved around, as though they are some sort of accepted health measure and anyone questioning should be silenced.
https://youtu.be/jwo_JGLfTsk
The thing that interests me is WHY we are suffering this way.
It’s not that the public want to do this, obviously. They are being coerced by their leaders. But I can’t see the leaders as ‘wanting to lock people down’. For one thing, it will create enormous economic problems which will end up at their door.
Politicians probably do this because they are scared of what would happen if lots of people died. That would end their careers – which is a very good reason for action.
So now we have to discover what makes the politicians so scared about a possible disaster. And here we come to the nub of the problem. It appears that you can make ALL politicians doe ANYTHING you want if you convince them that a disaster is looming. This appears to be what lies behind Covid Lockdown policy, Climate Change policy, Environmentalism generally and many other of these oppressive initiatives.
So why are the politicians convinced by so may doomsday predictions? I think that the answer lies in Cancel Culture. Normally, for every academic discussing their hobby-horse of nuclear disaster, overpopulation or acid rain, there will be another academic pouring cold water on the idea. But nowadays, if you disagree with a ‘woke’ opinion, you are immediately cancelled – just like Soviet Russia under Stalin.
The result is that NO disagreement is allowed, and politicians are only allowed to hear data and argument which support a single view. Result – we watch our world collapse under the weight of single-issue fanatics….
I think you may be underestimating how many people want to live as serfs, having every aspect of their lives micromanaged by guilt (and gilt) dripping doom-priests who tell them that their craven compliance and rote obedience is in fact selfless and admirable.
It’s been the key tenet to most religions, and reformations are relatively rare.
Or it’s the ‘abusing parent’ syndrome – the desire to trust the authority of the abuser.
Great post. It all goes back to who creates “the narrative.” Once that narrative has been established, it’s too late. So you better knock down the fallacies of the narrative early on – but this will not happen with the mainstream press we have today. They build the narrative, and once it’s largely established, block any information that would challenge the narrative. It’s the “gatekeepers of the news” who really control everything.
Which is why this site is so important. You can’t get around or through these gatekeepers of the news – the protectors of faux narratives. You have to start a site on your own and hope you get a large and influential audience. And hope your site isn’t taken down.
Cancel Culture has played a huge part. My original thoughts last March, were that this was all a perfect storm, driven largely by our increased reliance on tech. I still come back to this point ( I’m not a luddite, honest ). Most politicians and business leaders have become obsessed with big data, our news media is driven by Tweets and Whats App messages. These are all becoming increasingly biased in one direction only and driving opinion into a huge group think ( pro tech ) mentality, versus a free think mentality.
From the moment lockdown was declared government made it virtually impossible to change course. The cost of the lockdown was so enormous that to admit it was a mistake would be to admit that a massive cost had been incurred for nothing. And no politician or official could survive that.
And they have doubled down at every stage, making it even harder at each stage to backtrack.
The idea that anyone in authority with responsibility for the decisions of the last 18 months will come out now and say, sorry, its all been a big mistake, lockdowns are a terrible idea, masks are useless and vaccines sadly don’t work and may in fact do some harm is pure fantasy. Never going to happen. Ever.
They are wedded to this totalitarian tyranny they have created.
My thoughts completely; lets not remember that it is not just Politicians but other non elected entities such SAGE, MHRA, JVCI, NERVTAG, ICL, PHE et al who have psychologically “locked the door” behind their ‘argument” or the defence thereof – no matter what the developing experience, disclosure of pre and post SARS COV 2 “events” which combine to put a very different picture to that these tyrannistas want us to believe. I think it is now impossible for anyone involved who is not prepared to resign because they have “got it wrong” to continue with “I followed the settled science”, or ” we had to take full account of the modelling” – they obviously do not appreciate that the defence of “befehl ist befehl” did not work from 1933 – ’47.
This where I feel the argument should be shoved back in their collective faces: I penned an email to my MP which in the end I did not send – I listed all the very inconvenient facts with references cited about GoF, Fauci email bombshells, US Patent timeline from the 1990s, Pfizer admitting that their jab is a gene therapy, Cormen-Drosten fraudulent RT-PCR demolished by Ulrike Kammerer, Dr Robert Fleming as well, contributions by Drs Malone, Cole, McCullough, Ardis, Mercola and a stack more – because I was convinced said MP would not listen due to his confirmed support, repeated several times, for the Government handling of the effects of SARS COV 2 on us.
I am no strategist but I feel strongly that all these participants should be targeted with a sustained attack, based on citable fact, to be bombarded with information they cannot refute – even if they ignore it – and if they do not desist and “see the light” – I cannot imagine, eg, Whitty/Vallance/Van Tamm cannot see the tide of information that runs counter to what they are saying – eg MHRA/VAERS type adverse effects information – but they have to be given a route out but at a price either way…if “status quo”‘ prevails – it has to be followed up with a Notice of Criminal Legal Liability and referral to all relevant professional bodies for investigation of professional misconduct.
Though it should all happen, and more, I feel no impetus for all of this which is one reason why I did not send the email…”pissing into the wind” comes to mind
I also feel that there should be a disclosure in a publicly available register of “interests” by any GMC/HAC etc medic, University faculty member, and scientist working in the fields of medicine research not employed by the pharmaceutical industry, as well as by all licensed pharmaceutical businesses of funding/donations received and made respectively – this may be done now in some way but I don’t know how to access it – not certain it is disclosed in Pharma accounts either
Call me naive!!
At this point, these discussions are like sheep debating whether it’s ethical for wolves to consume them.
This is an outstanding contribution to the “debate” on lockdowns. Finally, some “experts” critically analyze the philosophical underpinnings for policies that torch almost all of the civil liberties that allowed society and mankind to prosper and live longer and better lives.
Academic freedom is one of those rights. It’s nice to see that at least two academics are not afraid to use this freedom to write such a convincing paper, and that someone published it.
And that the Daily Skeptic gave this paper a larger audience. Thanks goodness we still have a few skeptical sources willing to challenge trends that are terrifying and are creating great “net” harm on society.
Re: “Academic freedom”
In several of my posts and articles I’ve argued against lockdowns on college campuses and the ridiculous and unnecessary “protocols” used to “protect” athletes by simply pointing out that healthy young people should not be “protected” because they face no real statistically-significant risk from this disease.
I use statistics and probabilities to make this point. For example, the risk a healthy child under 18 would die of COVID were approximately 1 in 2 million in the first year of the pandemic (per a UK study). I also point out that NO athlete (from high school to the pros) has died of COVID in 18 months. So the “risk” to these athletes is also zero.
But why has not ONE statistics professor on any college campus in the world made these same points?
What’s the point in studying statistics and probabilities if we don’t apply them to our lives?
Apparently, there is not one statistics professor in the world who is brave enough to speak up and point out this “elephant in the room” fact. So do we really have “academic freedom?” If we have it, it’s not being used as it should be.
Fortunately, this paper – written by two academic professors – shows that at least a few academics are not afraid to apply their expertise to this debate.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-09-myocarditis-higher-covid-vaccines.html
And they’re STILL trying to foist jabs on people at no absolute risk.
I still think this myocarditis risk among healthy young people (especially) males might be a ticking time bomb that explodes this “vaccination for all” push.
Of course, I also think that most examples of young vaccinated people who develop this condition will be largely censored from the mainstream press. For example, the death of a 23-year-old soccer player in Ireland has been reported only by a few non-mainstream sites (although I think this young man died from a stroke or blood clot not myocarditis, but still it was a death that was no doubt caused by his being vaccinated – so he could stay on his team).
However, a LOT of healthy young athletes have now been vaccinated. It is very possible that one or more of these athletes will fall out and die on national television (or at practices). I don’t know how this could be kept from the public.
A report in Israel said that the incidence of myocarditis in young males might be as high as 1 in 3000. Well, just extrapolate this number to, say, 6 million fully vaccinated young male athletes in the world. Two thousand are going to develop this “side effect” of vaccination. Of these 2,000, some will probably die.
And myocarditis can strike suddenly (in the form of cardiac arrest) or the condition can lie dormant for years and then later kill or almost kill the person who developed it years earlier when vaccinated. So any forthcoming health scares will probably be the tip of the iceberg.
Talk about pending wrongful death lawsuits. Almost all of these athletes have been coerced by “officials” to get this vaccine, and all of these officials MUST know of this elevated risk.
I quickly scanned this study, which seems to say that the myocarditis risk is greatly elevated by the disease itself, not from vaccination.
I question these findings for this reason. We have had millions of athletes who have already participated in sports for more than a year now. I am not aware of ONE case of a young athlete (from high school to college) who died of COVID-19 (for any reason, including myocarditis).
That is, if this risk was there, we would have already probably seen these deaths.
Ironically, I think it is the vaccination – not the disease – that elevates this health risk.
We have NOT seen millions of vaccinated young people play sports for months yet. But we soon will. Obviously, this risk has NOT been studied long-term.
The Pfizer trials had 20,000 participants, I believe. Of this number, probably a few hundred were young healthy males. So a “1 in 3000” elevated risk of myocarditis would NOT be picked up in a control group of just a couple hundred trial participants.
So the “experiment” will be in the real world. Not only are athletes being coerced into getting these vaccines, the U.S. military will soon be REQUIRED to get these vaccines. This is another cohort largely made up of healthy young males – almost none of whom face a real risk of dying from the disease.
It’s the law of averages and big numbers. We’ll see if my predictions are accurate. I hope they are not, but I bet they will be.
exactly.
Do you believe the MSM or your own lying eyes….
“In particular, they argue that each one has implications that most people would not accept.”
Although I agree with the argument, I’m beginning to question whether most people would not accept.
What has been disturbing about the last eighteen months is how keen people seem to be to be herded into a Chinese style society.
I’m beginning to think that my guts are pretty good experts and even better moralists, and my guts have been telling me since the beginning of the bollox that lockdowns, muzzles and forced snake oils are evil, wicked, wrong, and to cap all, useless.
“In other words: we should adopt whichever policy minimises the total number of deaths, and since lockdown is the policy that achieves that, we should implement lockdowns.”
I concluded a while back that this train of thought implicitly justifies organ harvesting from the healthy. After all, if somebody otherwise healthy breaks a toe and goes to hospital, we could just kill them and save the lives of 10 others.
Even if you believe lockdowns did prevent deaths overall, surely everybody has to accept that some people have died as a result who would not have died otherwise. Is that not rather similar to the scenario above? I wonder how many lockdown proponents would approve of organ harvesting?
The fact is, deaths through natural disaster (which I think we can classify the virus as, although the scale of the disaster may be in doubt) have no moral component. It is not immoral for people to die from the virus any more than it is immoral for somebody to die from an asteroid strike. Human actions have a moral dimension, nature does not.
The fundamental question for me has always been – is it justifiable to cause harm to one group to the benefit of another? By simply answering yes, one can conclude all sorts of evils are justifiable. Sadly, the question is unconsciously realised in the minds of most as “Is it justifiable to cause harm to others to the benefit of myself?”, to which they conclude, yes.
“We are not going to put a dollar figure on human life” spoken by the politician who sent Covid positive pts back to their nursing homes, who then went onto infect their fellow nursing home residents.
Anyone with common sense knows that you should isolate the sick not the healthy.
We have been lied to about asymptomatic transmission, the efficacy of the PCR test and numbers of deaths.
Our medical fraternity, SAGE and Government have behaved despicably.
And they should all be served with a Notice of criminal Legal Liability for backing this regime.
Regards lockdowns – Philosophise this: Go. Do. One. Updated information, resources and useful links: FIGHT. BACK. BETTER. https://www.LCAHub.org/