If it were a negotiation like Brexit, what is the minimum lockdown sceptics would accept to adraw line under heavy lockdowns.Obviously, we would all want to quit with the lockdowns and move on with our lives, being sensible obviously, Sceptics are by and large sensible people with a social conscience.That would be an ideal endpoint, but it's not going to happen soon.
But to get there, we may need to accept a bit less, moving in the right direction, so I'm thinking about hybrid Barrington. The target of hybrid Barrington would be to tolerate current intervention, (since we have no choice) which comprise heavy lockdown and vaccine (again, it's inevitable) our expectation is that before Spring these measures will change the status quo in our favour.
The status quo, with current interventions, indicates perhaps 500,000 ongoing active cases through winter with (at IFR 0.3%) about 700 deaths per week , a hundred a day. I think some sceptics and all non-sceptics would not consider 100 deaths a week as OK, even though we give special dispensation to the flu, for historical reasons. The public expects us to do something about Covid-19, and do not regard it as the flu. That's how it is, I'm afraid.
So the idea is a hybrid Barrington ; could we accept or even support the voluntary vaccination of those who most need it, could we accept or even support milder forms of social distancing somewhat short of lockdown, even masks. No kissing and cuddling in public; I'm fed up with that sort of thing anyway.
I can already hear all the toys being hurled from your prams, but think about it first, is there a hybrid Barrington, short of lockdown that delays the virus spread, we need to do something to get deaths down to under 100 a week. Once it's done, we're out of this mess.
If it were a negotiation like Brexit, what is the minimum lockdown sceptics would accept to draw a line under heavy lockdowns. Obviously, we would all want to quit with the lockdowns and move on with our lives, being sensible obviously, Sceptics are by and large sensible people with a social conscience. That would be an ideal endpoint, but it's not going to happen soon.
The onus should really be on the government to show that a lockdown - indeed any measure - is necessary rather than on opponents to show it is unnecessary. But we are where we are, despite constantly showing it is unnecessary. The government simply ignores contrary views. There is no discussion allowed.
But to get there, we may need to accept a bit less, moving in the right direction, so I'm thinking about hybrid Barrington. The target of hybrid Barrington would be to tolerate current intervention, (since we have no choice) which comprise heavy lockdown and vaccine (again, it's inevitable) our expectation is that before Spring these measures will change the status quo in our favour.
If there is no discussion of opposing views and the government have all the power, this would be futile. In July to August, after the pandemic finished, the situation was 'in our favour'. That did not produce any change in the government. In fact, mandatory masks were introduced on 24th July.
The status quo, with current interventions, indicates perhaps 500,000 ongoing active cases through winter with (at IFR 0.3%) about 700 deaths per week , a hundred a day. I think some sceptics and all non-sceptics would not consider 100 deaths a week as OK, even though we give special dispensation to the flu, for historical reasons. The public expects us to do something about Covid-19, and do not regard it as the flu. That's how it is, I'm afraid.
'How it is' is an obfuscation of data regarding so-called 'cases' and so-called 'covid deaths'. Misrepresentation of statistics by the government neglect to consider false positives and non-infectious virus fragments in the 'case' count and the 'death' count. They misattribute deaths to covid when 96% of them have an average of 1.75 pre-existing conditions. The ONS conflate deaths with covid as the main cause with those having covid as an incidental positive PCR test.
Essentially, unless we can incontrovertibly show that deaths due to covid are less than excess deaths due to other causes (i.e. probably anti-covid measures) - and this is aired and debated - there is nowhere we can go. Every day, more deaths are being caused.
So the idea is a hybrid Barrington ; could we accept or even support the voluntary vaccination of those who most need it, could we accept or even support milder forms of social distancing somewhat short of lockdown, even masks. No kissing and cuddling in public; I'm fed up with that sort of thing anyway.
I don't think anyone here is against voluntary vaccination. The main concern is that this either becomes compulsory or subject to coercion, i.e. that exclusions will be imposed on those who do not vaccinate. And this concern is not unfounded. We currently have anti-covid measures forced on us rather than letting us choose measures according to our proximity to vulnerable people.
I can already hear all the toys being hurled from your prams, but think about it first, is there a hybrid Barrington, short of lockdown that delays the virus spread, we need to do something to get deaths down to under 100 a week. Once it's done, we're out of this mess.
I suggest you get that tinnitus seen to. The point is that much pain, suffering, illness and death is being caused at the moment due to either covid or anti-covid measures. Furthermore, this is adding more problems to the pipeline for later. This is before even addressing the economy and so on. The ONS suggested an eventual death toll caused by anti-covid measures as 200,000 (that was back in July).
We must continue to push for removal of all these mandatory restrictions. We will only succeed if we can show the deaths being caused are more than those being saved - and if the general public accept and understand this. The government will not budge all the time they have the general public mesmerised.
* We will only succeed if we can show the deaths being caused are more than those being saved*
I don’t think that’s going to work.
That would mean them acknowledging that they were wrong, and they’re never going to do that.
I don’t know how it’s going to play out.
A large part of ten problem is there is no debate. The media are on message and anything off message is shut down.
* We will only succeed if we can show the deaths being caused are more than those being saved*
I don’t think that’s going to work.
That would mean them acknowledging that they were wrong, and they’re never going to do that.
They might accept it going forward, as a prediction, while not admitting previous actions caused more harm than good. They can manipulate the data to cover their tracks, which is why new strains were introduced.
A large part of ten problem is there is no debate. The media are on message and anything off message is shut down.
Yes. They will not debate because it would give the oxygen of publicity to the evidence against them. They need to obfuscate and confuse, distracting from the core arguments and their failings. We can expect to see a few more red herrings before any debate can take place.
A great post Mike a. It said it all. I totally agree with your post..
