If you are actually truly sceptical, read some opposing information to test your balance.
Thanks. It appears to be a repository for all the propaganda we're fed.
I was just saying the other day, "You know what I need? Some pro-government/media narrative propaganda, there just isn't enough of it about."
It does have hit pieces on people who dare to question the narrative too. I'd usually go to the Guardian for my hit pieces, but a new source is always welcome.
If you are actually truly sceptical, read some opposing information to test your balance.
I gave up after four or five. Total garbage.
The level of argument is - Yes the IFR is very low, but lots of people die..
Sure the < 60 deaths rate is almost nil but a lot of people die
Its not a bad as the flu because, well, arm waving...
The RT/PCR false positives cannot be over 90% because..."science".. what ever that means
Sententious rubbish. Not even worth countering each point because it is such errant drivel. Written by someone who has not a clue what they are talking about when it comes to the actual science and mathematics.
Very much sounds like the work of a Guardian reader with affections of competence.
If you are actually truly sceptical, read some opposing information to test your balance.
I gave up after four or five. Total garbage.
The level of argument is - Yes the IFR is very low, but lots of people die..
I agree, very poor quality and shallow. Their main argument is "covid19 spreads when people meet, hence stop them meeting", problem solved.
That it literally as far as they can take it before they collapse under the weight of their own cognitive dissonance.
It's true that site is highly selective and limited to examples in support of its arguments, judiciously omitting any evidence which might paint the contrary or doubt.
But to be fair to the OP, *that is exactly what this LS site does*. If anyone thinks that they are getting a full and objective view of the pros and cons of lockdown, simply from reading the information on this site, they are sadly misguided. I'm pretty sure Toby himself would readily admit, the purpose of the site was to publish information which is contrary to the prevailing view, and not to provide a full and balanced picture.
I had a quick look at the other site and whilst it does not give anything like a full picture either, I did not see any blatant factual errors (the false positive argument is actually explained there quite well in relation to accuracy of case numbers versus specificity of any test).
I think it's fair for the OP to say if you are a true sceptic (and haven't already made your mind up regardless of evidence) you need to stay abreast of both sides.
