Septic Sceptics how the anti lockdown folks got it so wrong and poisoned the debate.

[vera99]

A comprehensive and polemical account of how the poisonous right wing tributaries of 'truth' got it so wrong and are so unable to do a mea culpa and have so poisoned and contributed through their half baked half assed opinions a rational evidence based response particularly in the vital early days and the September/Christmas debacle that we have one of the highest death rates in the world. the-free-press.co.uk/2021/01/26/septic-sceptics-toby-young-allison-pearson-and-the-art-of-being-wrong/

I dont use punctuation on mumsnet

Doesnt mean I dont have anything to say and it’s certainly not a reflection on my intelligence or ability to use ‘clever’ words

Why? I'm no grammar pedant, but punctuation is important and helps people understand what you are saying. I would argue that's it's far more important than spelling.

@TinaYouFatLard

I can tell that the OP has a very balanced viewpoint and is willing to hear both sides 😂

After the last ten years listening to climate deniers and now covid sceptics, I honestly don't afford equal weight to both sides unless there is equal credibility.

Here’s a list of scientists who don’t believe in evolution.

answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/modern/

Just because you can find a list of scientists who will put their name to something, that doesn’t automatically mean it’s worth a listen.

It's a shame our Prime Minister listened to Heneghan, Gupta and Tegnell last September.

If he hadn't, 80,000 British people might still be alive.

And Dr Fauci told us we’d be on cruises in March and back to normal by May ... of 2020.

He got it wrong. Should we stop listening to him?

Shall we get into Neil Ferguson’s ridiculous models? Or all these other epidemiological models that made ridiculous claims that never came true?

Everyone was wrong in last spring.

Doesn't Gupta just keep on being wrong about exactly the same thing though?

@knittingaddict

*Plenty of scientists are against lockdowns. Here are a group of epidemiologists that are against them: gbdeclaration.org/*

Is that the completely discredited Great Barrington thingummy? I think you've just undermined your argument there. I'm not clicking on random links

It’s a link to the Great Barrington Declaration. Who has discredited the GBD? The likes of you?

Going to have to do better than that.

Newsweek magazine just published an article that extensively quotes one of the signatories, Stanford’s Dr Jay Bhattacharya, as saying the ‘lockdown was the biggest public health mistake we’ve ever made’

www.newsweek.com/stanford-doctor-calls-lockdowns-biggest-public-health-mistake-weve-ever-made-1574540%3famp=1

I think the US is going to have to admit they didn’t work before the UK, as people can see what’s going on in Florida and realise how unnecessary it all was. California, under near constant lockdown, has not done any better than Florida, which had abandoned lockdowns early on.

It’s like living in East Germany and seeing how good it is over the Berlin Wall. No matter what the media tells you, you can see a better way with your own mind and eyes.

People are literally fleeing California (California!!!) to live in Texas and Florida because of the harm caused by lockdowns. Good thing there’s no walls to stop them.

@noblegiraffe

Here’s a list of scientists who don’t believe in evolution.

answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/modern/

Just because you can find a list of scientists who will put their name to something, that doesn’t automatically mean it’s worth a listen.

Are these science denying scientists employed by Harvard, Stanford or Oxford and do they publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals? I think you know the answer to that one.

Those ‘experts’ of which you speak are usually employed by religious universities like Bob Jones University and never get published in peer-reviewed journals.

Are these science denying scientists employed by Harvard, Stanford or Oxford

A quick check of the list, UsedUp shows that the answer to your question is 'yes'. For example:

"Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson holds a PhD in cell and developmental biology from Harvard University. He serves as a research biologist, author, and speaker with Answers in Genesis and formerly conducted research with the Institute for Creation Research"

"Dr. Barnard has worked as a clinical biochemist, a research scientist, a senior research fellow, and a senior lecturer (equivalent of a professor in the United States) in various universities in the United Kingdom and around the world. He has been a visiting research scientist at the Weizmann Institute, Israel. His specialty is immunology/immunochemistry. He is currently (2005) Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Veterinary Science, University of Cambridge, UK."

answersingenesis.org/bios/nathaniel-jeanson/
answersingenesis.org/bios/geoff-barnard/

So you can have science-denying (as you called them) scientists working at top universities.

@noblegiraffe

Are these science denying scientists employed by Harvard, Stanford or Oxford

A quick check of the list, UsedUp shows that the answer to your question is 'yes'. For example:

"Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson holds a PhD in cell and developmental biology from Harvard University. He serves as a research biologist, author, and speaker with Answers in Genesis and formerly conducted research with the Institute for Creation Research"

"Dr. Barnard has worked as a clinical biochemist, a research scientist, a senior research fellow, and a senior lecturer (equivalent of a professor in the United States) in various universities in the United Kingdom and around the world. He has been a visiting research scientist at the Weizmann Institute, Israel. His specialty is immunology/immunochemistry. He is currently (2005) Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Veterinary Science, University of Cambridge, UK."

answersingenesis.org/bios/nathaniel-jeanson/
answersingenesis.org/bios/geoff-barnard/

So you can have science-denying (as you called them) scientists working at top universities.

Nice try, but anyone can sign that document. It is open to the public. You can sign your name right now as Noble Giraffe, spouter of absolute shite.

It doesn’t take away from the three lead authors.

I think you have misunderstood nobles point used. She isn't saying that is her position but that pretty much that support can be found for any position, but that alone doesn't make it valid.

However you have clearly shown that many will not actually read what people are saying unless it is exactly what they want to hear.

@AfternoonToffee

I think you have misunderstood nobles point used. She isn't saying that is her position but that pretty much that support can be found for any position, but that alone doesn't make it valid.

However you have clearly shown that many will not actually read what people are saying unless it is exactly what they want to hear.

That scientist had nothing to do with the drafting and anyone can sign it, so it’s neither here nor there.

I’m tired of people using the spurious ‘but Jack Bananas and a Mongolian shaman signed it!’ to discredit it.

You can have the opinion that lockdowns were necessary, but you can’t say that all the experts are for lockdowns, which is not true and it’s worth repeating. Credible medical doctors and epidemiologists have come out against it.

If a "credible" epidemiologist or doctor declared themselves against lockdowns when due to governmental mis-management in the U.K. there has been nothing else left to do three times now it would remove their "credibility" for me.

How many more British people dead do they want? The 1.3 million from the SAGE papers from February?!

I’m tired of people using the spurious ‘but Jack Bananas and a Mongolian shaman signed it!’ to discredit it.

That wasn’t my point. My point was that having a list of scientists put their name to a position doesn’t make that position credible by the existence of the list. Regardless of the institution or qualifications.

Because, as I showed, there’s a list of scientists with equally impressive qualifications who believe life was created as per the Bible.

Who you described as ‘science deniers’. Despite being on a list of scientists.

@PrincessNutNuts

If a "credible" epidemiologist or doctor declared themselves against lockdowns when due to governmental mis-management in the U.K. there has been nothing else left to do three times now it would remove their "credibility" for me.

How many more British people dead do they want? The 1.3 million from the SAGE papers from February?!

Good thing your opinion on their credibility doesn’t matter.

Also, it’s a bit of a false choice. The GBD isn’t advocating letting the virus run rampant. It calls for a targeted approach. Here’s a key bit:

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity

Yeah we know the herd immunity strategy. Or rather the ‘I reckon I’ll be fine with covid so I want my life to continue as normal and I’m going to dress it up as something noble when actually it’s purely selfish’ strategy.

@noblegiraffe

Yeah we know the herd immunity strategy. Or rather the ‘I reckon I’ll be fine with covid so I want my life to continue as normal and I’m going to dress it up as something noble when actually it’s purely selfish’ strategy.

You skipped the ‘protect the vulnerable’ part. You are using a blunt hammer to solve a problem that could be more skilfully contained, and hurting many, many people in the process.

Here’s what Dr Bhattacharya says about herd immunity:

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection

Also:

I should say something in conclusion about the idea of herd immunity, which some people mischaracterize as a strategy of letting people die. First, herd immunity is not a strategy—it is a biological fact that applies to most infectious diseases. Even when we come up with a vaccine, we will be relying on herd immunity as an end-point for this epidemic. The vaccine will help, but herd immunity is what will bring it to an end. And second, our strategy is not to let people die, but to protect the vulnerable. We know the people who are vulnerable, and we know the people who are not vulnerable. To continue to act as if we do not know these things makes no sense

My final point is about science. When scientists have spoken up against the lockdown policy, there has been enormous pushback: “You’re endangering lives.” Science cannot operate in an environment like that. I don’t know all the answers to Covid; no one does. Science ought to be able to clarify the answers. But science can’t do its job in an environment where anyone who challenges the status quo gets shut down or cancelled

This last sentence is particularly important and bears repeating again and again

A lot of of the libertarian right are against lockdowns for ideological reasons, and bring a lot of motivated reasoning to the table, that much is clear.

I'd also say there's a fair amount of "scientific consensus policing" going on by people who are taking lockdown effectiveness on blind faith.

There has been quite a lot of overselling / misunderstanding the benefits of enforced top down lockdown - e.g. the Flaxman paper in Nature that claims non-pharmaceutical interventions saved 3m lives in Europe has been widely criticised since by a lot of expert opinion for bad maths, faulty assumptions etc.

It's pretty clear that broad lockdowns work. It's less clear that they work massively better than alternative approaches.

There's a bunch of natural experiment data from the US, based on the timing of various lockdown / releases between different US states, that may well indicate that the vast majority of the "lockdown benefit" comes from self-enforced changes in behaviour of people in response to rising and falling covid levels.

I think we'll only figure out once the dust settles whether or not lockdowns were the best possible approach. I think it's a ferociously complex thing to figure out.

*I dont use punctuation on mumsnet

Doesnt mean I dont have anything to say and it’s certainly not a reflection on my intelligence or ability to use ‘clever’ words*

It does if it renders your posts incomprehensible.

@UsedUpUsername

I've read the GBD.

We've been shielding the vulnerable for most of the last year and still 146,000 people have died and a doctor put covid on their death certificate.

Our government listening to Gupta Heneghan and Tegnell is why so many British people are dead.

@Dissimilitude

Lockdowns are clearly not the best approach.

(Assuming the aim is to keep your citizens alive, and minimise costs and economic damage.)

No one in the zero tolerance for covid countries is looking at the U.K. Lockdown Hokey Cokey and thinking our way is better.

At the end of this, those countries will vaccinate, and most of their citizens will still be alive.

The U.K. government's policy will have kept the population in restrictions for years, created 200,000 covid deaths, and a self-inflicted economic disaster.

@PrincessNutNuts

Well, it is self-evidently true that preventing a widespread outbreak at all completely negates the need for lockdowns, and is best if that can be accomplished! No disagreement there.

[quote PrincessNutNuts]@UsedUpUsername

I've read the GBD.

We've been shielding the vulnerable for most of the last year and still 146,000 people have died and a doctor put covid on their death certificate.

Our government listening to Gupta Heneghan and Tegnell is why so many British people are dead. [/quote]
You didn’t protect the vulnerable.

So yes, a targeted approach for the actual people affected would have been much better. IIRC nearly 30% of COVID deaths in the UK were of care home. To protect the NHS, this happened:

A National Audit Office (NAO) report this month found that care homes were overlooked in order to protect the NHS. It revealed that NHS hospitals discharged 25,000 people into care homes during the peak of Britain's Covid-19 crisis, between March 17 and April 15, without testing them for the coronavirus

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8470041/amp/Covid-19-death-rate-UK-care-homes-13-TIMES-higher-Germany.html

[quote Dissimilitude]@PrincessNutNuts

Well, it is self-evidently true that preventing a widespread outbreak at all completely negates the need for lockdowns, and is best if that can be accomplished! No disagreement there.[/quote]
The option to prevent the next wave is also available. As Australia did.

Particularly at the end of a lockdown when you're so close to elimination.

Our government has so far never chosen to do that. Which is why we've spent more time in Lockdown than almost anywhere and so many more of us are dead/about to be jobless than in the countries that handled covid properly.

You skipped the ‘protect the vulnerable’ part. You are using a blunt hammer to solve a problem that could be more skilfully contained, and hurting many, many people in the process.

I’m not using a blunt hammer to do anything.

I didn’t miss out the ‘protect the vulnerable’ bit, I was pointing out that it is generally irrelevant to people spouting the herd immunity line because, as I said, they think they will be ok. They are not, as a rule, arguing that they themselves should be shut away for as long as it takes for herd immunity to be achieved, while the rest of the world carries on.

It’s also an increasingly irrelevant position as the vaccine program ramps up. They spent a lot of last year slating the prospect of a vaccine as unicorn dreams, then when the vaccines were approved it was all ‘but there’s no proof they reduce transmission’. Or now variants. Slating the vaccine as a route of of lockdown is necessary if you want to promote no restrictions even without a vaccine. ‘Learning to live with the virus’ etc etc. That’s how you know it’s ideological not scientific, because they are persisting with it as their favoured approach in the face of the vaccine data.

I’m not sure most people that are ‘pro-lockdown’ are necessarily pro a policy of rolling lockdowns as virus control though Princess. There’s a difference between being for lockdown if it’s got to the point it’s necessary and using lockdowns as virtually the only form of virus control.