New lockdown in England, including school closures, announced by Johnson, 4/1/21

[greyman42]

All those photographs in the news of crowds of football fans on Merseyside lining the streets and crowding around the Spurs team coach doesn’t help.

I know it is two different police forces, but how can you have the police standing by and allowing this to happen and the exact opposite with over the top police in Derbyshire. Were the two ladies in Derbyshire considered low hanging fruit? It is no wonder that the public are loosing confidence in the police.

 

[py_megapixel]

They can't seriously be expecting people not to sit on a park bench can they. If you're quite elderly, or have one of various health conditions, then the inability to sit down and take a break on a walk could be a serious problem.

 

[birchesgreen]

Were the two ladies in Derbyshire considered low hanging fruit? It is no wonder that the public are loosing confidence in the police.

Basically yes.

They can't seriously be expecting people not to sit on a park bench can they. If you're quite elderly, or have one of various health conditions, then the inability to sit down and take a break on a walk could be a serious problem.

I suppose they think they can deter people from going out this way, so they can stay stuck in their homes until they die. Not that anyone cares anymore as its not covid.

 

[johntea]

I liked Hancock's '7 mile exercise' nod to Boris and his bike ride!

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Hancock has ruled out removing the childcare/support bubble arrangements in any potential future tightening of restrictions.

I suspect this will be a welcome announcement to many!

 

[35B]

Interestingly, this open letter is going around, stating evidence in China's involvement in getting the West to implement the measures they have (which is something I've long suspected) - I've only skim read it and not checked out any of the evidence, but I will read it properly this evening (so I can't comment on any kind of veracity right now, but people here might be interested): https://www.scribd.com/document/490...ific-Fraud-in-COVID-19-Public-Health-Policies

Seeing a couple of the names at the top of the linked page, I jumped straight to the signatories. They appear to be very closely linked to the AIER, the body behind the Great Barrington Declaration, who appear quite prolific in setting up initiatives to decry public health policies. Judging by what I've seen of the output of one of them, Stacey Rudin, I would want to be extremely careful of any interpretation she puts on the time shown on a clock. This blog entry was quite enlightening about the quality of her arguments - https://respectfulinsolence.com/2020/10/29/aier-lockdown-cranks-are-abolitionists/.

 

[Yew]

Seeing a couple of the names at the top of the linked page, I jumped straight to the signatories. They appear to be very closely linked to the AIER, the body behind the Great Barrington Declaration, who appear quite prolific in setting up initiatives to decry public health policies. Judging by what I've seen of the output of one of them, Stacey Rudin, I would want to be extremely careful of any interpretation she puts on the time shown on a clock. This blog entry was quite enlightening about the quality of her arguments - https://respectfulinsolence.com/2020/10/29/aier-lockdown-cranks-are-abolitionists/.

It does seem like the lockdown lobby are so scared to engage, that they can only result to rhetorical ad-homenim attacks.

 

[py_megapixel]

Hancock has ruled out removing the childcare/support bubble arrangements in any potential future tightening of restrictions.

Didn't Boris rule out another national lockdown at one point though?

I have precisely zero trust in this government to keep any promises they make.

 

[35B]

It does seem like the lockdown lobby are so scared to engage, that they can only result to rhetorical ad-homenim attacks.

Strange, I find that blog quite enlightening - and firmly science based. But then, I'd expect a blogger who's been very firmly focused on the anti-Vax and quackery lobbies to see the similarities, and to be willing to call them for what they are.

Meanwhile, I need to have a read of that letter later - but when the authors can't even be bothered to try to understand to whom they're addressing it (federal bodies in the UK?), their credibility starts very low.

 

[brick60000]

A very clear return to the "everyone must follow the rules" messaging again, ready for the government to turn around and say "we told you so".

I just feel like they're targetting completely the wrong areas. Surely tradespeople going into homes, people going into offices, elite sports mixing and crowded supermarkets are far more of an issue than outdoor exercise?

 

[brad465]

It does seem like the lockdown lobby are so scared to engage, that they can only result to rhetorical ad-homenim attacks.

That's a product of tribalism and confirmation bias, which is applicable to a whole host of situations, especially political, and was hardly new for Covid-19, but nonetheless Covid is arguably one of, if not the strongest case of these. Scientific debate is supposed to be normal, but it seems to have been stifled by officials around the world, both in Governments and media platforms.

 

[HSTEd]

Up until 2020, all the recommendations for pandemic response emphasised that there should be minimal disruption to the population's day to day life, party due to the benefits of keeping morale up amongst the people.

I have no idea why this changed.

Because those plans were not drawn up in the current political environment of outright gerontocracy.

 

[Yew]

That's a product of tribalism and confirmation bias, which is applicable to a whole host of situations, especially political, and was hardly new for Covid-19, but nonetheless Covid is arguably one of, if not the strongest case of these. Scientific debate is supposed to be normal, but it seems to have been stifled by officials around the world, both in Governments and media platforms.

Indeed, I never knew that so many esteemed professors are actually right-wing conspiracy theorists.

 

[duncanp]

Hancock has ruled out removing the childcare/support bubble arrangements in any potential future tightening of restrictions.

I suspect this will be a welcome announcement to many!

In other words, childcare and support bubbles will be abolished next week.

Because we all believe politicians' promises, don't we?

 

[52290]

Boris Johnson is on the TV news,in Bristol,saying stay at home and follow the rules!

 

[MikeWM]

Seeing a couple of the names at the top of the linked page, I jumped straight to the signatories. They appear to be very closely linked to the AIER, the body behind the Great Barrington Declaration, who appear quite prolific in setting up initiatives to decry public health policies.

If ever there was a set of public health policies that needed decrying, now is the time.

I have no particular time for the AIER - I mostly view them as a US extreme version of the Adam Smith Institute, which I have a lot of issues with - but if they're right on this, they're right. I signed the GBD some months back.

I wasn't remotely a fan of some of the right-wingers that I was on the same side with in the campaign against ID cards, or indeed the Iraq War, but it didn't make them wrong.

 

[kristiang85]

Seeing a couple of the names at the top of the linked page, I jumped straight to the signatories. They appear to be very closely linked to the AIER, the body behind the Great Barrington Declaration, who appear quite prolific in setting up initiatives to decry public health policies. Judging by what I've seen of the output of one of them, Stacey Rudin, I would want to be extremely careful of any interpretation she puts on the time shown on a clock. This blog entry was quite enlightening about the quality of her arguments - https://respectfulinsolence.com/2020/10/29/aier-lockdown-cranks-are-abolitionists/.

I think this is part of the problem with this debate at the moment - people see names and instantly dismiss an argument because of the names attached to it. What should be critiqued is the science and research behind it, and this letter is fully referenced so you can check for yourself.

I've finally read it in depth, and it is in line with a lot of my suspicions over what's gone on, although it does go down into a couple of rabbit holes it didn't need to to make the points.

But let me know what you think after you've read it. In the meantime I'll read your link - thank you.

 

[Yew]

Boris Johnson is on the TV news,in Bristol,saying stay at home and follow the rules!

So now photo ops are essensial?

 

[35B]

I think this is part of the problem with this debate at the moment - people see names and instantly dismiss an argument because of the names attached to it. What should be critiqued is the science and research behind it, and this letter is fully referenced so you can check for yourself.

I've finally read it in depth, and it is in line with a lot of my suspicions over what's gone on, although it does go down into a couple of rabbit holes it didn't need to to make the points.

But let me know what you think after you've read it. In the meantime I'll read your link - thank you.

That’s all I ask. But, as far as my assessment of source material goes, I do assess who as well as what. Not because someone is pro or anti this or that, but as a reflection of the credibility they bring.

 

[takno]

I think this is part of the problem with this debate at the moment - people see names and instantly dismiss an argument because of the names attached to it. What should be critiqued is the science and research behind it, and this letter is fully referenced so you can check for yourself.

I've finally read it in depth, and it is in line with a lot of my suspicions over what's gone on, although it does go down into a couple of rabbit holes it didn't need to to make the points.

But let me know what you think after you've read it. In the meantime I'll read your link - thank you.

It's worrying in a lot of ways. It's clearly overstating a lot of things, and making some throwaway unsubstantiated claims which would be hotly (if not necessarily correctly) contested. It also seems to be suggesting a lot of deliberate conniving and conspiracy on the part of people. In many cases it would be far more believable to say that they were just trying to make a name for themselves, or were being unconsciously biased by experience.

It does however hold together as a compelling narrative in a world that's starting to lose patience. I think that whatever the truth of the matter, this is probably going to be the widely accepted public narrative of how we wrecked the West five years from now

 

[35B]

It's worrying in a lot of ways. It's clearly overstating a lot of things, and making some throwaway unsubstantiated claims which would be hotly (if not necessarily correctly) contested. It also seems to be suggesting a lot of deliberate conniving and conspiracy on the part of people. In many cases it would be far more believable to say that they were just trying to make a name for themselves, or were being unconsciously biased by experience.

It does however hold together as a compelling narrative in a world that's starting to lose patience. I think that whatever the truth of the matter, this is probably going to be the widely accepted public narrative of how we wrecked the West five years from now

It may. But having read it through, it is overstated and tendentious. It misquotes in ways that I believe can only be deliberate (e.g. ref 136, by Richard Horton), or the presentation of allegations about Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

Where it discusses science, it is highly questionable - notably in its critique of PCR testing and the results therefrom.

Having presented what appears to be a basis for a investigation by security services, it then undermines itself by the disclaimer at the end; one that reminds me of Trumps lawyer's desperate attempts to fight his corner without committing perjury.

In short, it is far, far, from convincing.

 

[takno]

It may. But having read it through, it is overstated and tendentious. It misquotes in ways that I believe can only be deliberate (e.g. ref 136, by Richard Horton), or the presentation of allegations about Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

Where it discusses science, it is highly questionable - notably in its critique of PCR testing and the results therefrom.

Having presented what appears to be a basis for a investigation by security services, it then undermines itself by the disclaimer at the end; one that reminds me of Trumps lawyer's desperate attempts to fight his corner without committing perjury.

In short, it is far, far, from convincing.

All I'm saying is that if Carole Cadwallr published it in the Guardian in 6 months, then a lot of the people who are currently lapping up the increasingly deranged ramblings of Devi Shridhar would take it as gospel

 

[35B]

All I'm saying is that if Carole Cadwallr published it in the Guardian in 6 months, then a lot of the people who are currently lapping up the increasingly deranged ramblings of Devi Shridhar would take it as gospel

They might, though Ms Cadwalladr is also on my do not trust list.

Meanwhile, a brief dip into Twitter following my last post brings up some interesting commentary on the posters - including the suggestion that the letter and anyone who share it may be at risk of libel - thread found at https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1348412619858849792?s=21

I was particularly interested to see Simon Dolan’s track record - promoting David Icke strikes me as especially lacking in credibility.

 

[Scotrail12]

I was particularly interested to see Simon Dolan’s track record - promoting David Icke strikes me as especially lacking in credibility.

I respect what the guy has done in opposing lockdowns but he seems crazy otherwise and now refuses to use Twitter because of Trump's ban.

 

[DustyBin]

Indeed - and oddly, again, in pretty much every Western country simultaneously. Almost like they want us all miserable, depressed and isolated. To quote Tony Benn : "People who are poor, demoralised and frightened are easy to control".

Much like the population of China then!

Please define "need to do" in this context.

Strictly speaking, nobody *needs* to take any exercise outside the house whatsoever,
whether five miles away or five yards, so surely you can see that if you take your
"do something else and reduce such risks" argument to its logical conclusion you
would end up with people being forbidden from leaving the house at all apart from
going to work/obtaining food, as per the Italian example mentioned above.




MARK

This is my worry, there are a lot of things we do that aren’t absolutely essential. Some people would have us merely existing....

 

[island]

A very clear return to the "everyone must follow the rules" messaging again, ready for the government to turn around and say "we told you so".

I just feel like they're targetting completely the wrong areas. Surely tradespeople going into homes, people going into offices, elite sports mixing and crowded supermarkets are far more of an issue than outdoor exercise?

Are people still going into offices despite heavy work from home messages? Are supermarkets crowded? If so, the organisations involved should be regulated and threatened with enforcement.

Cases arising from elite sports, however, are a rounding error.

 

[Smidster]

A very clear return to the "everyone must follow the rules" messaging again, ready for the government to turn around and say "we told you so".

I just feel like they're targetting completely the wrong areas. Surely tradespeople going into homes, people going into offices, elite sports mixing and crowded supermarkets are far more of an issue than outdoor exercise?

This hits the nail on the head for me.

I appreciate the need for measures but I would like much more focus on ensuring that every measure is going to be effective in making a material difference in reducing transmission.

Given all we know about the virus and how it spreads there is not a problem with people exercising outdoors and yet that is the thing that might be targeted for further measures while other stuff where you actually have groups of people together indoors carries on as before.

 

[bramling]

This hits the nail on the head for me.

I appreciate the need for measures but I would like much more focus on ensuring that every measure is going to be effective in making a material difference in reducing transmission.

Given all we know about the virus and how it spreads there is not a problem with people exercising outdoors and yet that is the thing that might be targeted for further measures while other stuff where you actually have groups of people together indoors carries on as before.

I suspect much of any remaining spread is
(1) workplaces - there’s still a lot of mixing in such settings
(2) people continuing to meet up in indoor household settings
(3) those children who remain at school

It’s hard to see how there’s much further they can go with any of these.

I suspect distancing remains rather half-hearted in many workplaces, though by the same token there’s going to be places where it’s pretty impracticable. Just at my place alone I can think of a whole string of issues causing distancing to be compromised.

 

[westv]

I haven't been to my workplace since 13/3/20.

 

[chris11256]

I'm starting to wonder whether we're reaching the limit of what a lockdown can achieve. Short of removing all reasons for leaving home, there's not much left that can be done that'll have a significant impact on transmission.