The SAGE conclusion is not OK. Lockdowns work, but they kill society.
At the start of the 20th Century, Britain, America and Germany became interested in the study of Eugenics, the "science" of artificial selection. This interest eventually led to the Nazi death camps. This is what Dr Eric Lander said about it: Science lets itself be used if you don't stand up every time and say when the conclusion is not OK. The Nazis are a perfect example of what to watch out for, when we go off with a little bit of scientific knowledge and prescribe what is right for the world.
Lockdown scientists today are using their bit of scientific knowledge to lockdown the world in a huge experiment.We have good grounds to regard lockdown science as an evil as great as Eugenics. It's time to say that the conclusion is not OK. Lockdowns do what they say on the tin, they slow the infection for a bit, but they kill the society.
Exactly Fon this is exactly what l have been trying to explain to people in support of all these government/SAGE measures.
Close social contact is essential to human beings, as a physical therapist l have myself studied and understand the science behind the vital importance of TOUCH.
Lockdown may appear to save lives, in the short term, but as Fon correctly identified they are killing society and humanity itself, with what l believe ultimately be disastrous results, for the human race. I agree wholeheartedly with Fon this is a very dangerous EXPERIMENT.
Social affirmations like the smile and the handshake have been destroyed and replaced by (Nazi-like) SAGE backed group think, social distancing, masks, dangerously obsessional hand cleansing, and worryingly people now even seem reluctant to make eye contact. SAGE have created dystopia!!!
I agree, except I don't think they "work" well anyway.
I agree, except I don't think they "work" well anyway.
well, when I say work, I mean it literally, they achieve a result, but not the result we want! They do delay transmission, but there are grounds to think they cause more misery while they run and more infections overall eventually, when they end. So they have one good effect, postpone the bad, and several bad effects, economy gone, more infections later. So lockdowns are rather like heroin, first you feel better then, later you feel awful. Governments get addicted to lockdowns.
And that's why we are stuck as we are. Best rule: far too risky, heroin or lockdowns.
Again this is where Tengell in Sweden got it right.
His argument are restrictions and advice should be of the type you can leave in place for large periods of time and are sustainable.
Then you dont get repeat spikes every time you release a batch of measures at once.
His entire approach was based on medium to long term consistency and sustainability not the boom/bust elsewhere.
