Dan Hannan has written a belter of a column for the Sunday Telegraph pointing out that our current economic misfortunes are directly linked to the lockdown policy and reminding us that he warned about this in May 2020.
I hate to say “I told you so” but… oh, sod it, no I don’t. I bloody told you so. As early as May 2020, I was warning of what lay ahead:
“If you’re a pensioner, your pension will lose its value. If you’re a public sector worker, you’ll find that, as its tax take evaporates, the Government can’t afford to pay you. If you have savings, they will be inflated away.”
At that time, 96% of people supported the restrictions, every broadcaster was droning on about “putting lives before the economy”, and only 26% of people thought the lockdown was making them worse off. “Only when we are unable to afford the things we used to buy will we understand that ‘the economy’ is what we call the transactions people make to improve their lives,” I wrote. “And, even then, we may struggle to link our misfortune to the closures we have spent the past two months demanding.”
Just as people who clamoured for net zero now complain about the price of energy, so people who clamoured for the longest lockdown now complain about the cost of living. Naturally, politicians find it easier to humour them than to point out the connection. And, of course, no minister wants to take away even a notionally one-off benefit.
But unless we act now to restore our finances, we face a sterling crisis and a collapse which would be most painful for the people on whose behalf the opposition are demanding more subventions.
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: I, too, can say I told you so. This is the opening paragraph of a piece I wrote for The Critic on March 31st, 2020:
Like a growing number of people, I’m beginning to suspect the Government has overreacted to the coronavirus crisis. I’m not talking about the cost to our liberty, although that’s worrying, but the economic cost. Even if we accept the statistical modelling of Dr Neil Ferguson’s team at Imperial College, which I’ll come to in a minute, spending £350 billion to prolong the lives of a few hundred thousand mostly elderly people is an irresponsible use of taxpayers’ money. That may sound cold-hearted, but this isn’t a straightforward trade-off between public health and economic health. People are killed by economic downturns just as surely as they are by pandemics and more years of life will be lost than saved if the lockdown is prolonged. The Government should end it as soon as possible and encourage people to return to work, limiting social distancing measures to the elderly and those with underlying health conditions.
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.
My advice to Alex? Don’t stand near train tracks or busy roads when anyone else is around!
Twitter is evil, Jack Dorsey is evil. Climate Change, like Covid, is a complete and utter scam. Any politician who pushes this is extremely stupid or extremely evil
1979 – The Beginning Of Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K02fDpOu4AA
stand in South Hill Park Bracknell every Sunday from 10am meet fellow anti lockdown freedom lovers, keep yourself sane, make new friends and have a laugh.
(also Wednesdays from 2pm)
Join our Stand in the Park – Bracknell – Telegram Group
http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
That’s fine
GETTR is the new Twitter, without the deplatforming. Telegram is the new Facebook.
If you’re on Facebook, TicTok etc, you’re being steadily, remorselessly propagandised.
Shake the dust off your feet as you leave these apps.
Isn’t there the risk that moving to other platforms we just form an echo chamber? It’s important to have platforms that respect freedom of speech, but I think it’s valid to use whatever platforms we can to get our message across as best we can to the widest possible audience.
If it were a case of just moving to avoid hostile views, that would be a legitimate point. But the problem is that Facebook and Twitter actively censor and harass dissenting opinions, with the intention of making dissenters from elite dogmas feel isolated and alone.
So it’s necessary to find platforms that aren’t as manipulative. It might not yet be practicable for everyone to give up Twitter and Facebook, but we need to support the alternatives while they build up.
The blame rests with the big tech censors – they initiated the attack on freedom of speech on their platforms.
I think we have to do both – use and support platforms that allow free speech, but continue to use any platform we’re able to in order to reach as wide an audience as possible.
Big tech need to be reined in but I can’t see any realistic prospect of that happening. The much maligned Donald Trump might have done something in that regard, but who else will?
I agree we have to do both.
In the absence of elected politicians who will rein in big tech, the only tool we have, however imperfect, is to “vote with our feet” and help build up rivals to the censored platforms, that commit to tightly limited censorship and opinion manipulation.
Correct, see,
Dr. Sam Bailey – YouTube
and
Dr. Sam Bailey (odysee.com)
The advantage is you can draw people from the censored to the [relatively] uncensored platform, and simultaneously highlight the censorship itself.
All these ‘platforms’ you know, began as very sensible sheep.
Is any new platform not initially an echo chamber? After all Facebook probably started with half a dozen mates at University that Whalberg knew. A platforms strength is in its rules and its members. Some forums on Facebook are clearly echo chambers of course such as something like “Johnson Is an Idiot” or “Corbyn Is Antisemitic” which are both factual but rather limiting.
The issue is whether the echo chamber’s received opinions are enforced and protected by the administration. If not, then the predominant ideas can at least be challenged. The problem on Facebook and Twitter is that dissenting opinions are censored and harassed, administratively.
(Johnson is functionally an idiot, but Corbyn isn’t an “antisemite” – at least in the sense that (intentionally) smears him by association with Nazis. If Corbyn is an “antisemite” then being an “antisemite” is not necessarily a particularly bad thing to be – just a political opinion you hate. If you join the smearing of Corbyn et al as “antisemites”, then you can’t complain when people you might agree with are smeared as “islamophobes” or “racists”. And I write that as someone who could not be further from Corbyn on most issues.)
In many cases youtube is being used to advertise the uncensored material on other platforms adding links to the full versions.
Be a Human. Humans don’t need ‘platforms’.
Do not pay (feed) them.
There are only echo chambers now because the fanatics don’t want to hear what you have to say.
Gab is the only free speech platform.
Mewe is OK
I’ve had a few perfectly valid, perfectly accurate (I double checked everything mentioned) posts on Facebook marked as failing “Fact Check” which they got horribly wrong. This echoes my experience last year where I had them apologise for getting banning posts I’d made which they admitted were correct. They had still deleted them though – all four in one week. I welcome any platform which allows free speech and only censors where it is truly necessary (any admin of a forum knows this one as I do).
I totally agree – I don’t “do” social media , but it has occurred to me that one “positive” outturn from this sham/shambles is that you can now see the immoral/unethical/illegal/dictatorial mindset of Zuckerberg/Google and other media outlets acting as pure propaganda organs for corrupt politicians; what they trot out – whether it is fact checking bollox or ” incompatible with our policy on…” is so easily verifiably rubbish.
I appreciate it will take a very great number of people to switch before the click bait advertising revenue starts to diminish to the point where it starts to hurt. What will be truly scary is if access to the WWW becomes….restricted ….”discuss”?
“What will be truly scary is if access to the WWW becomes….restricted ….”discuss”?“
It already is. Look into how Parler was taken down by denying it access to server space, or racist/antisemitic groups and sites are denied access to basic finance services. As we’ve seen, the techniques pioneered on especially unsympathetic thoughtcriminals such as these are then conveniently available for use against other political dissenters.
Whoever first wrote this, it becomes increasingly relevant: ‘In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth will be seen as a revolutionary act’.
Generally attributed to Orwell but I’m not at all certain it was him and there is some debate on this. Sounds very Orwellian however.
Sadly it probably won’t be the case but I would love it if he was deliberately provoking twitter but making posts that were factually accurate but he knew would draw attention of ‘fact checkers’ to gather evidence as part of a class action law suit vs Twitter.
Don’t use Twatter, don’t use Farcebook, don’t use Gargle, don’t use Amazon, don’t use Netflix, don’t use TikTok, dont use Snapchat, don’t use PayPal, don’t use LinkedIn.
I’m not a fan of the organisations you mention, but I think we should consider using whatever platforms we can to get our message across.
Something like the ‘speakers corner’.
Firstly, we are not the centre.
Secondly, do not think that a machine is good.
“Social media companies that have audiences which dwarf any other are now actively censoring reporters at the behest of governments,”
I think it’s much more sinister than that. Social media companies (and major news and media organisations) are actively and relentlessly pursuing political agendas. It’s true that with covid these have coincided with government agendas, but if for example the UK had pursued a Sweden type approach, and/or had not authorised the covid vaccines, does anyone seriously think that the MSM and Big Tech would not have gone after them remorselessly?
News censoring reports is nothing new. Obviously at times of war it was done, Also in the reporting of relatively minor things like UFOs was restricted by the US government.UK I also believe asked for some UFO reports to be with held too.
Well, during WW2 the danger was real, not fictitious. UFOs I know nothing about. Yes, Ofcom restrict broadcasters with what they can say about covid. My point is that I don’t think the MSM need telling to push the covid narrative. They are pretty well all on board with it.
So you think these mobile morgues getting filled up now in Florida are fictitious?
Aren’t you being just a little obtuse? The evidence points to the existence of a novel virus of some kind that causes illness and death. What is pure fiction is the idea that covid is a deadly pandemic requiring unprecedented intervention, and the idea that any of this intervention makes any difference, and the idea that the evil fascists responsible for it believe for a second that it does make a difference.
I’m not up to date with what’s happening in Florida. Is there something unprecedented happening there, and if there is, do say what you think anyone could do about it that would make it go away?
FFS it is not a “novel” virus; it has been demonstrated ( Dr David Martin/Dr Richard Fleming and a load of other medics) that SARS COV2 is a chimeric, genetically engineered and therefore a synthetic product of GoF research, as admitted IN WRITING by Baric and Zhengli in 2015 (?highlighted in this presentation: https://youtu.be/3GzzBD1kJ0g?) – 8 successful results derived from a combination of Bat and Rat hosted viruses then distilled into 2 variants containing the inserted spike protein which when tested on humanised mice was shown to be pathologically lethal to humanlike tissue; SARS COV2 was then “released” on the world, method as yet unknown but almost certainly covered up by the CCP.
It appears that its only difference is the existence of genetic code that does not appear in any other known Coronavirus – how did this code become part of the Coronavirus – “ccucggcgggca”? I think Baric and Zhengli and certain other folks, Fauci/Farrar/Vallance/Daszak etc know
Yes, with people double vaccinated. We all know this.
Not fictitious, but perhaps overblown. I’d like to wait and see what is actually happening first before commenting. Sadly though it’s another strike against vaccine efficacy as Florida is in the top five vaccinated States!
Again. This troll. I was missing it…
The quicker people leave that stupid platform the better. If they’re so in need to spend time online, use decentralised platforms like Peertube (for video) and Matrix’s Elements. Both open sourced and free.
Maybe one day “they” will come after hosts for sceptic websites too.
What does “that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS.” mean?
prophylactic
I’m still none the wiser as to what he means.
“Think of it — at best — as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS.”
I can understand ““Think of it — at best — as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile”
But “that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS.” makes no sense
Normally you take medicine that mitigates illness once you’re ill. The covid “vaccines” are given to people before they get ill with covid.
Thanks Julian .
He means it’s a vaccine, but using the definition of vaccine as “substance intended to induce an immune response”.
It’s intensely amusing watching people froth at the mouth over their preferred word definitions. Of course religions have split in two over less, and this is no different.
These vaccines are not sterilising vaccines. They are symptom reducing vaccines.
But they are also a new, experimental type of treatment, for which we have literally no idea what the long term consequences might be, so calling them plain “vaccines”, as though they are just like the old familiar treatments that exposed the body to something like the pathogen to trigger an immune response, is intentionally deceptive.
The reason word definitions are fought over so passionately is that they have real world implications.
and are therefore prophylactic products just like Vitamin A, C, D, Zinc and Magnesium which when I last looked did not especially kill people.
I take them daily and have done since this covidmania kicked off.
Likewise !
He’s already got 100,000 readers on Substack. Think that must be rising fast,
Twitter is an incredibly sinister outfit. Truly ghastly people.
Yeah me too dot com – but I celebrated instead of whinging. Twitter is divisive in the extreme – an echo chamber at best and a mindless boxing ring at worst – not much in between. The mere fact it’s become the number 1 censoring arm of corporate govt is enough to boycott it en masse – but people are vain and count ‘followers’ and ‘likes’ etc. It’s called addiction and how the shit show works.
My life is so much better after being banned by twitter for the fifth time and me not bothering to make another account
Good for you!!
Try letters – not censored (yet)
It occurs to me if you, to use that dreadful Woke phrase, “deplatform” yourself from these platforms, as many of the comments suggest, are you not doing what they want you to do and silencing debate? Is it not better to fight back?
As discussed below, the best approach seems to be to do both. Continue to argue as far as is allowed on the censored platforms, while also actively supporting and building up the alternatives.
If you do the former without the latter, you are accepting battle where the odds are massively tilted against you, forever. If you do the latter without the former, then you are missing a chance to get the message out to a wider audience, albeit in a hampered and limited degree.
In the end, though, these platforms live or die by the market. If people want free speech then they have to prove it by selecting free speech platforms for market success. By preferentially using them.
I’m actually not convinced most people really want free speech, though. It seems likely most just want only the opinions they hate to be silenced. Understanding that free speech for yourself requires you to tolerate the expression of opinions you hate seems beyond the intellect and maturity of most.
Anyone with a brain or an ounce of humanity should get off twitter it is nothing more than putrid cess pool of ignorant, vain spewings by a very sad population and which lines the pockets of billionaires who get richer by encouraging hatred. If people just stopped using twitter the thing would die and people would be much better off.
…and yet, The Taliban and many other nasty pieces of work still have their account and have never been banned.
“Enuff said”
Note also he’s a former employee of the NYT. You have to wonder if a) he was sacked or constructively discmissed from that position for being a lockdown sceptic, and b) he was only banned from Tw@tter after he wasn’t working for the NYT, because a current employee being banned would be ‘bad optics’.
Granted; but then again the NYT have done a piece (just this week?) on the rush to install the RT-PCR test regime and the realisation that it resulted in the epidemic that “wasn’t” …I wonder if they had meaningful contact with certain US government officials and ad agencies…still come back to the pandemic busting piece ..maybe they have seen the light?
Another in the long list of censored, suppressed, and banned. Soon you will have no where else to look for alternative information. This was predicted and it is happening. Censorship, banning and suppression of information has no place in a “free” society.
Zuckerberg & Co., don’t like facts or the truth.
Welcome to global corporate fascism at its finest.
A handful of powerful global elites now control everything including experimental injections, main stream media, social media, nearly everything we buy and our governments.
Next phase of ‘The Project’ is tyranical global feudalism.
God help us all.
Good for him. God has ways to transforming evil ito good