Well he’s triggered.
Not gone to his safe space yet though 😂
I've rather admired your pluck, Charles, in posting stuff here and have been disappointed though not altogether surprised at the abusiveness of some of the responses. I don't agree with most of what you say but to me it's healthy that this forum is open to people who want to debate alternative viewpoints in such a complex and challenging area. It's a bit rich for us sceptics to complain about the lack of diversity in MSM if we can't tolerate a bit of diversity here. What are we afraid of?
I think Charles is basically missing the main thrust of the anti-lockdown case. It's not that lockdowns have NO effect on the spread of the virus but that that effect is of dubious longterm value and that the enormous collateral damage caused by lockdowns are so horrific that the cure is definitely worse than the disease.
Similarly with fon and other's comments in favour of vaccines. I'm not antivax but (beginning to sound a bit like I'm not a racist but...!) but it seems to me that THESE vaccines are being over-hyped as a solution. But we can surely debate this without being nasty.
It seems to me that one reason that we sceptics (or as I prefer anti-lockdowners) fail to gain support is that we have tended to stick dogmatically to our views in ways that are actually very off-putting to the genuinely open minded. The issue of false positives is a case in point. You don't have to be a mathematical genius to understand that a 1% false rate is a big problem when you have very low prevalence but pales into insignificance when a large percentage of people being tested actually ARE positive. Yet I still hear people routinely dismissing any case figures as "just false positives". Or repeating the mantra that this is just a casedemic. That may have been the case a few months ago but if you don't think many people really have Covid now you need to get out a bit more or talk to somebody actually working in the NHS (yeah, I know it's dysfunctional system).
I don't pretend to be an expert but it seems to me likely that we all too readily swallowed the line from Yeadon, Cummins, Levitt et al that the epidemic was over in the summer. Events now would suggest they were flat out wrong. So it does us no credit to hang on to what is now a very fringe view when the facts as far as we can ascertain still don't justify a lockdown.
When lockdowns are introduced the infections reduce. Please give me a reference to somewhere that suggests that is not true.
Simply isn't true. Rates in many places decreasing before lockdowns and/or before effects would be seen.
Correlation is not causation.
What or where are your control groups to judge lockdown works?
Why are you ignoring the SPI-M, IC and other models that show that long term they produce even bigger spikes than would have originally happened once released?
Let's close down all media that dares to question the government narrative and encourages open and transparent debate? Over my dead body!
Thank you for agreeing with me. Dangerous posts that encourage people to ignore safety concerns and cause deaths have no place on a useful open forum like this. Let's keep the discussion here about the negative effects of lockdown with strong logical arguments.
I didn't agree with you. I have no idea what you mean by "dangerous posts". If anyone has tried to post something that might incite dangerous behaviour I'm sure our moderator would have taken action.
The replies have come as a response to insults not the other way round and its certainly not been as a response to differences of opinions that's a healthy debate but take the experimental vaccine or you are anti vax and it's your moral duty if you have a social conscience are individual opinions that do not need to be foisted onto others as the correct thing to do.thats the difference.
