It is often the case that you (or me) can shoehorn facts so that they fit the words in some way. But they do not stack up once you take into account reality.
The lockdown files, for example, show Matt Hancock to be a vain, self-important man who believed he was more important than he was. And less dispensable than he was. Incidentally, that does not show him in a bad light-it shows him for what he was. However, it is important to put such stuff into context-so, for example, some of it is just heat of the moment, or gallows humour etc-which we have all done.
It is usually the case that those messages did show people genuinely trying to do stuff that they felt was going to be of benefit to the people of the UK. That is equally true, for example, for people who were trying to close schools, and people who were trying to keep them open. Because there were massive potential risks and benefits on both sides.
It is undoubtedly true that important people generally, and politicians in particular, on occasion have a "do as I say, don't do as I do" approach. Sorry to have to break it to you, but that is equally true for conspiracy theorists.
The initial strain (probably the first 3 strains) were considerably more dangerous than the later ones. Yet there were lots of conspiracy theorists, including many you have quoted on this and similar threads, that were doing exactly the same (if not worse) than the politicians that they point fingers at now.
Many conspiracy theorists undoubtedly had an ideological cause. Carried out actions that intimidated the public. That cost lives. That created a serious risk to the public.
Do I think those people were terrorists? No. For exactly the same reason as I don't believe politicians were terrorists.
However much conspiracy theorists try and alter history to try and paint themselves as more clever and more right than they really were. Ironically, in exactly the same way as politicians.
Just to mention 2 common topics amongst some conspiracy theorists that I find interesting. 1 that I profoundly disagree with, and 1 I find fascinating.
1. Trying to blame the various Government medical advisers. Just think it is wrong. Advisers are their to advise-not to tell people how to govern. I spent most of my working life advising people on stuff. Which was often completely ignored. Wasn't my fault
2. Did we spend too long doing too much in relation to Covid? Because there was undoubtedly a time when a lot of action was necessary. And undoubtedly a period of time when, with the benefit of hindsight, the undoubted risks going forward were less than they could have been, but it was still prudent to guard against the risks of more dangerous variants returning. But-was there a time when that risk had reduced, and we were too slow to recognise that? Because that may be true.
Just to mention 2 common topics amongst some conspiracy theorists that I find interesting. 1 that I profoundly disagree with, and 1 I find fascinating.
1. Trying to blame the various Government medical advisers. Just think it is wrong. Advisers are their to advise-not to tell people how to govern. I spent most of my working life advising people on stuff. Which was often completely ignored. Wasn't my fault
2. Did we spend too long doing too much in relation to Covid? Because there was undoubtedly a time when a lot of action was necessary. And undoubtedly a period of time when, with the benefit of hindsight, the undoubted risks going forward were less than they could have been, but it was still prudent to guard against the risks of more dangerous variants returning. But-was there a time when that risk had reduced, and we were too slow to recognise that? Because that may be true.
One thing i can't get my head round with the hindsight argument.
The WHO and other national governements/organisations hold regular tabletop exercises on how to react in the event of a pandemic and yet they still appear taken by suprise when it happens.
In part, it is because medical science is always going to be an incomplete science. And the way things develop, while not completely unpredictable, shows that things can go in carious ways.
To give 3 examples:-
1. Flu. Health experts can be pretty sure what flu strains are going to be about in the next 12 months. But don't have much idea in relation to the longer term. The 1918 flu (for example) went away on its own. But did massive damage-believed to have killed more people than the Great War
2. Bird flu. A couple of minor alarms, incidentally costing Big Pharma an absolute fortune. But I don't think anyone really knew why it just went away
3. Covid. The initial strains were dangerous. But within 12-18 months, the risk factors dropped massively. The fact that that risk dropped had everything to do with the fickle finger of fate. And little to do with "natural immunity" or indeed vaccination-the former might have had relevance for people catching the earlier strains, the latter did have an effect on that. We can all disagree on how much either saved lives. But the simple fact is that it was the way the virus changed that made the difference between Covid of 2020/21 and today. And, hopefully, tomorrow.
The WHO can provide considerable help in postulating theory, and running exercises for what might happen. But, while such things are undoubtedly useful, real life has a habit of throwing other things in to the mix.
Comments
They're not finished yet....
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9672347/Social-distancing-stay-FOREVER-says-Communist-supporting-SAGE-Covid-scientist-Susan-Michie.html
Thoughts on this given what we've seen in the "lockdown files"?
It is often the case that you (or me) can shoehorn facts so that they fit the words in some way. But they do not stack up once you take into account reality.
The lockdown files, for example, show Matt Hancock to be a vain, self-important man who believed he was more important than he was. And less dispensable than he was. Incidentally, that does not show him in a bad light-it shows him for what he was. However, it is important to put such stuff into context-so, for example, some of it is just heat of the moment, or gallows humour etc-which we have all done.
It is usually the case that those messages did show people genuinely trying to do stuff that they felt was going to be of benefit to the people of the UK. That is equally true, for example, for people who were trying to close schools, and people who were trying to keep them open. Because there were massive potential risks and benefits on both sides.
It is undoubtedly true that important people generally, and politicians in particular, on occasion have a "do as I say, don't do as I do" approach. Sorry to have to break it to you, but that is equally true for conspiracy theorists.
The initial strain (probably the first 3 strains) were considerably more dangerous than the later ones. Yet there were lots of conspiracy theorists, including many you have quoted on this and similar threads, that were doing exactly the same (if not worse) than the politicians that they point fingers at now.
Many conspiracy theorists undoubtedly had an ideological cause. Carried out actions that intimidated the public. That cost lives. That created a serious risk to the public.
Do I think those people were terrorists? No. For exactly the same reason as I don't believe politicians were terrorists.
However much conspiracy theorists try and alter history to try and paint themselves as more clever and more right than they really were. Ironically, in exactly the same way as politicians.
Just to mention 2 common topics amongst some conspiracy theorists that I find interesting. 1 that I profoundly disagree with, and 1 I find fascinating.
1. Trying to blame the various Government medical advisers. Just think it is wrong. Advisers are their to advise-not to tell people how to govern. I spent most of my working life advising people on stuff. Which was often completely ignored. Wasn't my fault
2. Did we spend too long doing too much in relation to Covid? Because there was undoubtedly a time when a lot of action was necessary. And undoubtedly a period of time when, with the benefit of hindsight, the undoubted risks going forward were less than they could have been, but it was still prudent to guard against the risks of more dangerous variants returning. But-was there a time when that risk had reduced, and we were too slow to recognise that? Because that may be true.
The WHO and other national governements/organisations hold regular tabletop exercises on how to react in the event of a pandemic and yet they still appear taken by suprise when it happens.
Oct 2019
https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/exercises/event201/about
To give 3 examples:-
1. Flu. Health experts can be pretty sure what flu strains are going to be about in the next 12 months. But don't have much idea in relation to the longer term. The 1918 flu (for example) went away on its own. But did massive damage-believed to have killed more people than the Great War
2. Bird flu. A couple of minor alarms, incidentally costing Big Pharma an absolute fortune. But I don't think anyone really knew why it just went away
3. Covid. The initial strains were dangerous. But within 12-18 months, the risk factors dropped massively. The fact that that risk dropped had everything to do with the fickle finger of fate. And little to do with "natural immunity" or indeed vaccination-the former might have had relevance for people catching the earlier strains, the latter did have an effect on that. We can all disagree on how much either saved lives. But the simple fact is that it was the way the virus changed that made the difference between Covid of 2020/21 and today. And, hopefully, tomorrow.
The WHO can provide considerable help in postulating theory, and running exercises for what might happen. But, while such things are undoubtedly useful, real life has a habit of throwing other things in to the mix.
▪️12m on waiting lists,
▪️cancer patients not treated
▪️elective treatment suspended
▪️NHS workers ‘exhausted’
To protect the NHS people lost livelihoods & lives.
All smoke & mirrors as Matt Hancock offers YOUR NHS to the EU.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11834599/Covid-vaccines-fast-tracked-quicker-virus-wasnt-deadly-enough.html