The WhatsApp message leak

[Mycatsgoldtooth]

So, we’ve had the FBI saying it was a lab leak, the leaked messages showing many of the restrictions were for show, stats on the reality of masks being mostly useless unless N95s. Where are all the people that were so upset about anyone saying anything against the government now.

It’s almost as if no one care where the virus came from and how the government reacted. If I’d spent years being terrified and washing my shopping I’d be really pissed off.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/01/untruth-untruth-peddled-justify-great-lockdown-disaster/

Lockdown was not the primary cause but it contributed to it. If his uncle had not been prevented from going round there things may have turned out differently

@Mycatsgoldtooth

That’s just not true. And I’m not sure how that fits with your anti mask stance - where you’d do all you can to protect the vulnerable - in a hospital or in a surgery. Even if some studies are uncertain about their efficacy.

Protect the vulnerable? Seriously Protect our "betters" more like. People like myself being told we are "all in it together" when people call SH tenants like me entitled the rest of the time and told to buy a place or suck it up when water pours through light fittings.

And nowhere was protect out "betters" more bloody obvious than the G7 summit and award ceremonies post lockdown but still in restrictions when those working in hospitality were masked up while politicians heads of states and actors/ celebs were maskless. Masks for the help but not for those they were serving. The pictures were worth a thousand words.

@MinkyGreen in community settings masks make very little difference, as the report I referenced. If they worked then Scotland and wales would have had lower covid rates as they had stricter mask protocols.. but they didnt theirs were higher. In surgery masks are for preventing droplets not viruses

@Mycatsgoldtooth

I did post to say that in the key findings of that study - they stated ‘uncertain’ - and I could list about 20 other studies that say masks do offer protection.

Your observation there is a hunch, which is why it’s better to stick to the consensus opinion of the majority of studies on the efficacy of masks.

Your post should not have been taken down, if this all correct.

@EmmaEmerald

No. It came across to me as a rant against restrictions and some very strong words about the case. I found it offensive.

it’s up to Mumsnet to decide. I reported it, they make the decision.

Our society is set up to try and catch/support these parents. You acknowledge this yourself by outlining the two key factors - dysfunctional parenting and the need for social care. That is how we are set up to work.

Lockdown meant the social care was swiftly and immediately gone / reduced to bare minimum. You may not like the assertion that children in these high profile cases may have been fine, but it is certainly going to be a contributing factor - withdraw the social care part which has been propping up the families, and things are going to change, possibly for the worst. You sort of have to assume that the social care has some influence (or why bother?) and so removing it will have some consequences?

Sorry for the offensiveness of that, obviously.

You can't just cry "I find that highly highly offensive" in the hope that a post will be removed. No one has the right not to be offended.

I personally find it much more highly offensive that vulnerable children were kept inside with their abusers with no one checking on them. And that the government knew full well this was bound to happen yet somehow considered these children acceptable collateral.

I agree mostly with what was stated there.

Except the ‘criminalised checking in on vulnerable children’.

I was a carer during lockdown to someone very vulnerable. I was allowed to check in. In the case mentioned I’d say it was more that the parents were preventing any check ins.

capx.co/the-lockdown-files-are-a-warning-to-never-let-government-scare-the-pants-off-us-again/

*sits and waits for a repeat of what happened before

As the WhatsApp messages are telling us - the enforcement of masks was a political decision, it was never about a consensus in science. There is no scientific consensus on masks.

Remember they were mandated.

Imagine it had just been a good old fashioned personal choice for people to wear them? Imagine that.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10140731/Tragic-Arthurs-grandmother-threatened-ARREST-trying-help.html

"Police told the grandmother of a boy allegedly murdered by his parents she would be arrested if she returned to the house for breaking Covid rules, a court has heard.
An officer told Thomas Hughes' mother and brother Daniel not to see Arthur Labinjo-Hughes, six, at the house in Solihull, West Midlands, the jury was told"

Disagree. There is a consensus opinion on masks. It would be stated in the NHS guidelines, and recommendations made when you visit a hospital or surgery.

You do understand the meaning of the word consensus, right?

The NHS is not 'science'?

@JenniferBooth

I imagine because the parents had convinced social services that ALJ was not vulnerable or in need. Like I said, I was allowed to visit a vulnerable person that I cared for.

I’ll continue to say that the parents are the primary cause for what happened, exacerbated by lockdown.

Mumsnet removed the post, so I’m not sure why there’s a need to keep repeating.

@hamstersarse

I do. Do you?

NHS guidelines would be fed by medical science/studies??

There was the Kaylea Titford case as well. The actual prosecution implicated lockdown as a factor in her death.

I just can't believe some people are still trying to defend the shit show. "Oh we could only go on what we knew at the time" etc. Turns out that a lot more was known than was let on.

As a pp mentioned, it's the cognitive dissonance isn't it? The sunk cost fallacy. For god's sake, this was being discussed TWO YEARS ago. Yes, those enormous sacrifices we all made were on the whole for nothing. Sorry. Lots of us realised at the time

It was cited IN COURT that family members were told if they attempted to visit they would be breaking lockdown rules.

Since when do people take the parents word when their kid is already under SS. The authorities choosing to listen to the parents and not other family members is not the gotcha you think it is because it shows that they chose what and who to believe to suit the lockdown rules.

Is this thread going to go the same way as before. Someone working hard to try and get it deleted.

I wouldn’t bother trying to argue with that poster. They got my post deleted as I described Matt Hancock as ‘fucking’ his mistress. And yes it was a rant. But I think it’s more they can not defend their point so deflect, delete and obfuscate.

We are allowed to say fuck on mumsnet and reference inquests into the death of children. If it offends your sensibilities more the children dying due to lock down then that’s your issue.

Agreed. And we should be spelling all this out, because lots of people don't like the idea that there are specific instances where a policy they supported may have led to a death that wouldn't have otherwise happened. So it needs to keep being said.

It's the same as those posters who were so noisy at the time, and shouted down anyone who compared government fear tactics to psychological abuse and gaslighting. We were being SO OFFENSIVE with these comparisons - to people who suffered actual psychological abuse and gaslighting. Ditto any comparisons made with state mandated fear and propaganda which has been seen throughout history in countries such as China, Nazi Germany, East Germany and the Soviet Union. "How offensive!" they would chorus, when anyone dared to draw comparisons with what was happening to us at the time, in the United Kingdom.

They refused to acknowledge that one reason for studying history is so we can look for parallels and learn lessons, not bleat on about being offensive.