| Tragic and avoidable on 14:58 - Jan 29 with 710 views | Herbivore |
| Tragic and avoidable on 14:27 - Jan 29 by bluelagos |
I've heard of Covid deniers and lockdown sceptics Glassers, never a lockdown denier.
Presume you mean lockdown sceptics.
Lockdown sceptics argue (and I don't agree with them) that the undoubted downsides of lockdowns outweigh the benefits of lockdowns. That isn't a position I agree with them but you want to prosecute them for making those arguments?
Covid deniers - I have a lot more sympathy with your position. These people are spreading lies that directly lead to some people taking actions that will lead to more deaths.
The two are very different and I think it worth treating them differently too. |
Although the most vocal in the former group do tend to frequently cross the line into declarations more closely associated with the latter group. |  |
|  |
| Tragic and avoidable on 15:01 - Jan 29 with 699 views | bluelagos |
| Tragic and avoidable on 14:58 - Jan 29 by Herbivore |
Although the most vocal in the former group do tend to frequently cross the line into declarations more closely associated with the latter group. |
Some will for sure. But JHB, I don't think has ever denied CV exists has she?
The others just seem to be rentagobs not worth worrying about tbh. She has an audience of millions though so I would be far more worried if she were indeed denying CV was real rather than arguing against lockdowns. |  |
| |
| Tragic and avoidable on 15:19 - Jan 29 with 689 views | m14_blue |
| Tragic and avoidable on 15:01 - Jan 29 by bluelagos |
Some will for sure. But JHB, I don't think has ever denied CV exists has she?
The others just seem to be rentagobs not worth worrying about tbh. She has an audience of millions though so I would be far more worried if she were indeed denying CV was real rather than arguing against lockdowns. |
She might not have literally said it doesn’t exist but she has deliberately and repeatedly spread misinformation in order to minimise its severity.
I don’t believe she’s stupid enough to believe most of what she writes so it’s just all for ratings.
Hateful woman with blood on her hands. Her bosses do too. |  | | |
| Tragic and avoidable on 15:23 - Jan 29 with 681 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Tragic and avoidable on 13:02 - Jan 29 by Harry_Palmer |
Try it now, should be working.
Directly from the article :
"Between March and September 2020, there were 24,387 more deaths in England than expected in private homes, and 1,644 in Wales. The large majority did not involve Covid-19".
Again though I am not really interested in being right or wrong on the exact figure, I used it only to highlight that there is a legitimate debate to be had on the subject. |
There probably is a discussion to be had around what can be done to support those who are suffering at home. I do note from that article that the overall excess death rate appers unchanged (approx.) with a 25% increase in home deaths for males from heart disease and an corresponding 25% decrease in hospital deaths for the same causes. They're only focussing on the increase in home deaths though and don't provide full figures, so it's difficult to judge.
I've got an idea of what can be done about this... Don't hammer the NHS in the name of efficiency gains. Leave some redundancy in the system so they can cope with surges and the unexpected. And also make accessing health care locally easier. Don't withdraw funding for community health and mental health support. Support local GPs and don't run down locally-based health resources by closing cottage and small regional hospitals to build super-hospitals with huge catchment areas (some people in West Wales have Bristol as their nearest option depending on condition - a 2.5-3 hour drive for those furthest west).
It's not really rocket science. It's just that this pandemic has brutally exposed the austerity policy of the Tories and their underinvestment in community health services and the NHS in general. [Post edited 29 Jan 2021 15:49]
|  |
| |
| Tragic and avoidable on 15:24 - Jan 29 with 681 views | Herbivore |
| Tragic and avoidable on 15:01 - Jan 29 by bluelagos |
Some will for sure. But JHB, I don't think has ever denied CV exists has she?
The others just seem to be rentagobs not worth worrying about tbh. She has an audience of millions though so I would be far more worried if she were indeed denying CV was real rather than arguing against lockdowns. |
Not denied its existence entirely, no, but at various times she's downplayed its severity and seriousness. There's not a huge qualitative difference between outright denial and deliberate underplaying, especially when based on limited evidence. I'd still say someone could, using an analogy, be called a Holocaust denier on the basis that they 'only' claimed that the number of deaths is grossly exaggerated. | |
| |
| Tragic and avoidable on 15:32 - Jan 29 with 674 views | bluelagos |
| Tragic and avoidable on 15:19 - Jan 29 by m14_blue |
She might not have literally said it doesn’t exist but she has deliberately and repeatedly spread misinformation in order to minimise its severity.
I don’t believe she’s stupid enough to believe most of what she writes so it’s just all for ratings.
Hateful woman with blood on her hands. Her bosses do too. |
I'm not saying you're wrong - mainly cos I don't follow her closely as I find her views quite objectionable on most things.
But every time I've heard her (as a guest on Sky) she hasn't been close to spreading misinformation as described. She has argued firmly against lockdowns which is a million miles away from what you describe.
That said - if you can share with me where she has "spread misinformation in order to minimise its severity" am happy to be corrected. | |
| |
| Tragic and avoidable on 15:44 - Jan 29 with 657 views | m14_blue |
| Tragic and avoidable on 15:32 - Jan 29 by bluelagos |
I'm not saying you're wrong - mainly cos I don't follow her closely as I find her views quite objectionable on most things.
But every time I've heard her (as a guest on Sky) she hasn't been close to spreading misinformation as described. She has argued firmly against lockdowns which is a million miles away from what you describe.
That said - if you can share with me where she has "spread misinformation in order to minimise its severity" am happy to be corrected. |
Hospitals at normal levels, Hardly anyone knows someone who’s died from COVID etc etc
All the usual b***sh1t from the dog whistlers. They know exactly what they’re doing.
Argue against lockdowns by all means but do it from an honest position that accepts what you’re saying will cause many thousands of vulnerable people to die, even if you think that’s a price worth paying. | | | |
| Tragic and avoidable on 15:45 - Jan 29 with 654 views | Herbivore |
| Tragic and avoidable on 15:32 - Jan 29 by bluelagos |
I'm not saying you're wrong - mainly cos I don't follow her closely as I find her views quite objectionable on most things.
But every time I've heard her (as a guest on Sky) she hasn't been close to spreading misinformation as described. She has argued firmly against lockdowns which is a million miles away from what you describe.
That said - if you can share with me where she has "spread misinformation in order to minimise its severity" am happy to be corrected. |
Arguing against lockdowns is pretty patently stupid though and should be sufficient to justify not platforming her. I'm sure you'd agree that those who deny or downplay climate change shouldn't be given equal platform when we're in the midst of a climate crisis, and similarly those who deny the need for lockdowns during a pandemic shouldn't have their views aired alongside those with actual public health knowledge who say they are essential. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Tragic and avoidable on 15:47 - Jan 29 with 651 views | Herbivore |
| Tragic and avoidable on 15:44 - Jan 29 by m14_blue |
Hospitals at normal levels, Hardly anyone knows someone who’s died from COVID etc etc
All the usual b***sh1t from the dog whistlers. They know exactly what they’re doing.
Argue against lockdowns by all means but do it from an honest position that accepts what you’re saying will cause many thousands of vulnerable people to die, even if you think that’s a price worth paying. |
I think, but would have to check, that she was one of those who shared that photo purporting to be of an empty NHS intensive care ward that was actually taken in either a Sri Lankan hospital or Guantanamo Bay, and in either case was about 8 years old. I know many of the other prominent anti-lockdown types shared it, including Toby Young. | |
| |
| Tragic and avoidable on 15:49 - Jan 29 with 643 views | itfcjoe |
| Tragic and avoidable on 15:47 - Jan 29 by Herbivore |
I think, but would have to check, that she was one of those who shared that photo purporting to be of an empty NHS intensive care ward that was actually taken in either a Sri Lankan hospital or Guantanamo Bay, and in either case was about 8 years old. I know many of the other prominent anti-lockdown types shared it, including Toby Young. |
Also making a big thing about 400 deaths for U60s without underlying health conditions etc or whatever it was |  |
| |
| Tragic and avoidable on 15:51 - Jan 29 with 641 views | tractordownsouth |
| Tragic and avoidable on 10:34 - Jan 29 by GaryCooper |
What is a lockdown denier? Is it someone that believes that the loss of the economy, Cervical screening, Breast Screening may lead to more deaths than are saved by attempting to lock up a virus?
The only people who should be prosecuted are those who insisted that they were "still shaking hands" Those from the NHS who cleared the hospitals of the elderly without Covid test, those who wasted billions on hospitals that could not be staffed, Ad nauseum. |
I don’t agree that JHB et al should be prosecuted, as awful as they are. However this idea that lockdown stops cancer screenings is one of the most misguided arguments I’ve seen - it’s Covid itself that prevents it, not the restrictions. Without restrictions, there would be even more Covid cases taking up hospital capacity therefore even less chance of getting cancer treatment.
It’s a false but emotive argument that Talk Radio idiots use to justify their dangerous anti-science message. |  |
| |
| Tragic and avoidable on 15:52 - Jan 29 with 635 views | bluelagos |
| Tragic and avoidable on 15:45 - Jan 29 by Herbivore |
Arguing against lockdowns is pretty patently stupid though and should be sufficient to justify not platforming her. I'm sure you'd agree that those who deny or downplay climate change shouldn't be given equal platform when we're in the midst of a climate crisis, and similarly those who deny the need for lockdowns during a pandemic shouldn't have their views aired alongside those with actual public health knowledge who say they are essential. |
You wish to no platform people who argue against lockdowns?
No, I don't agree with you. There are many valid arguments why lockdowns are incredibly harmful. I happen to agree that on balance we should lockdown at the moment, but to no platform those who argue the opposite is not a position I think is in any way appropriate.
I do accept we should give more air time to doctors / sage members etc. who can give informed opinions/arguments but to seek to silence her because you disagree with her isn't a position I think is any way appropriate. (Assuming she is a lockdown sceptic rather than CV denier)
*As I said to M14 - I stand to be corrected if she had denied CV but I've never heard her to do that. | |
| |
| Tragic and avoidable on 15:56 - Jan 29 with 630 views | tractordownsouth |
| Tragic and avoidable on 15:49 - Jan 29 by itfcjoe |
Also making a big thing about 400 deaths for U60s without underlying health conditions etc or whatever it was |
Yep, by that they’re essentially implying that people with underlying conditions (something which includes asthma, for example) don’t matter.
Swayne, Young, JHB, Fox, Wootton and Corbyn are all crackpots. Probably missing out a lot more too. | |
| |
| Tragic and avoidable on 15:59 - Jan 29 with 626 views | tractordownsouth |
| Tragic and avoidable on 15:52 - Jan 29 by bluelagos |
You wish to no platform people who argue against lockdowns?
No, I don't agree with you. There are many valid arguments why lockdowns are incredibly harmful. I happen to agree that on balance we should lockdown at the moment, but to no platform those who argue the opposite is not a position I think is in any way appropriate.
I do accept we should give more air time to doctors / sage members etc. who can give informed opinions/arguments but to seek to silence her because you disagree with her isn't a position I think is any way appropriate. (Assuming she is a lockdown sceptic rather than CV denier)
*As I said to M14 - I stand to be corrected if she had denied CV but I've never heard her to do that. |
I don’t think there should be a blanket no platform on people who are anti lockdown, but there should be fewer situations whereby pro-lockdown medical experts are ‘balanced’ by anti-lockdown shouty radio presenters for “balance” on discussion shows. | |
| |
| Tragic and avoidable on 16:03 - Jan 29 with 618 views | bluelagos |
| Tragic and avoidable on 15:59 - Jan 29 by tractordownsouth |
I don’t think there should be a blanket no platform on people who are anti lockdown, but there should be fewer situations whereby pro-lockdown medical experts are ‘balanced’ by anti-lockdown shouty radio presenters for “balance” on discussion shows. |
Yep, wouldn't disagree at all. | |
| |
| Tragic and avoidable on 16:06 - Jan 29 with 612 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Tragic and avoidable on 14:27 - Jan 29 by bluelagos |
I've heard of Covid deniers and lockdown sceptics Glassers, never a lockdown denier.
Presume you mean lockdown sceptics.
Lockdown sceptics argue (and I don't agree with them) that the undoubted downsides of lockdowns outweigh the benefits of lockdowns. That isn't a position I agree with them but you want to prosecute them for making those arguments?
Covid deniers - I have a lot more sympathy with your position. These people are spreading lies that directly lead to some people taking actions that will lead to more deaths.
The two are very different and I think it worth treating them differently too. |
I've not had a chance to read the whole thread as I've been out today but I'll address your point.
Lockdown denial goes hand in hand with covid denial.
As I said earlier. There is a legitimate debate to be had about the pros and cons of going into lockdown.
But the people like Fox, JHB, Sawyne, Corbyn etc don't believe that lockdown has any effect on reducing the numbers of transmission or deaths, which it patently does. They only speak of the cons and deny the pros of lockdown.
A typical argument from one of these gobshytes would be "Well we've been in lockdown for over a month now an the numbers og people dying isn't coming down". Or "This is the third time we've been in lockdown. It simply isn't working". [Post edited 29 Jan 2021 16:10]
|  |
| |
| Tragic and avoidable on 16:10 - Jan 29 with 605 views | bluelagos |
| Tragic and avoidable on 16:06 - Jan 29 by GlasgowBlue |
I've not had a chance to read the whole thread as I've been out today but I'll address your point.
Lockdown denial goes hand in hand with covid denial.
As I said earlier. There is a legitimate debate to be had about the pros and cons of going into lockdown.
But the people like Fox, JHB, Sawyne, Corbyn etc don't believe that lockdown has any effect on reducing the numbers of transmission or deaths, which it patently does. They only speak of the cons and deny the pros of lockdown.
A typical argument from one of these gobshytes would be "Well we've been in lockdown for over a month now an the numbers og people dying isn't coming down". Or "This is the third time we've been in lockdown. It simply isn't working". [Post edited 29 Jan 2021 16:10]
|
Ok, so you saying "lockdown deniers" are arguing that "lockdowns don't bring down rates of infection / deaths"?
Got it - have a lot of sympathy with you against people making those arguments. That is clearly a bollox lie and yeah, I would no platform people making that sort of argument, no question.
But...not heard JHB argue that - and am happy to be corrected if she has. [Post edited 29 Jan 2021 16:11]
| |
| |
| Tragic and avoidable on 16:11 - Jan 29 with 602 views | eireblue |
| Tragic and avoidable on 12:56 - Jan 29 by Harry_Palmer |
I accept that some countries choose to prosecute for holocaust denial, yes.
You cannot in this case however prove that anybody questioning the validity of Lockdown policy overall is responsible for somebody dying of Covid.
We know that Lockdown policy causes isolation, which in turn leads to mental health issues that can lead to suicide, would you be ok with the Governement being held directly accountable for these deaths? |
The Government is responsible for mental health care in the U.K.
There was a mental health crisis before Covid. I believe one PM thought it should be a priority area.
I am not an expert, but if the concern is mental well-being, I am not sure that having people express opinions grounded in nothing, as though their opinions were some how equivalent to say SAGE recommendations helps.
Surely differing misinformation, disinformation, mixed messages, doubts, all expressed as being equally valid leads to more stress?
Anyway, you seem to agree a line can be drawn.
Just as a line can be drawn for people or positions that you disapprove of, they can also be drawn through positions you may take.
Speech has limits, and people take responsibilities or take the consequences, or it doesn’t. |  | | |
| Tragic and avoidable on 16:42 - Jan 29 with 590 views | tractordownsouth |
| Tragic and avoidable on 16:11 - Jan 29 by eireblue |
The Government is responsible for mental health care in the U.K.
There was a mental health crisis before Covid. I believe one PM thought it should be a priority area.
I am not an expert, but if the concern is mental well-being, I am not sure that having people express opinions grounded in nothing, as though their opinions were some how equivalent to say SAGE recommendations helps.
Surely differing misinformation, disinformation, mixed messages, doubts, all expressed as being equally valid leads to more stress?
Anyway, you seem to agree a line can be drawn.
Just as a line can be drawn for people or positions that you disapprove of, they can also be drawn through positions you may take.
Speech has limits, and people take responsibilities or take the consequences, or it doesn’t. |
It really annoys me to see the same Tory MPs who voted to decimate mental health services now suddenly claim to care about it now as a justification for ending restrictions. Charles Walker is getting a lot of praise online for his speech in parliament claiming to be a voice for those who are struggling, but he voted against FSM and didn’t speak out about the planned universal credit cut. They claim to be in support of these people but when push comes to shove they turn the other way - If Walker and co were left-wing, they’d be accused of being a virtue signaller. | |
| |
| Tragic and avoidable on 16:50 - Jan 29 with 580 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Tragic and avoidable on 16:42 - Jan 29 by tractordownsouth |
It really annoys me to see the same Tory MPs who voted to decimate mental health services now suddenly claim to care about it now as a justification for ending restrictions. Charles Walker is getting a lot of praise online for his speech in parliament claiming to be a voice for those who are struggling, but he voted against FSM and didn’t speak out about the planned universal credit cut. They claim to be in support of these people but when push comes to shove they turn the other way - If Walker and co were left-wing, they’d be accused of being a virtue signaller. |
Indeed, it annoys me how many people (not just politicians) cite mental health problems due to lockdowns... who had never shown the remotest interest in mental health before. It's almost like they're delighted to have a legitimate and emotive thing to complain with, so they're all over it like a cheap suit.
I wonder how many of these types will be talking about mental health, let alone doing anything about it, once the pandemic is over. |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Tragic and avoidable on 17:40 - Jan 29 with 557 views | Herbivore |
| Tragic and avoidable on 15:52 - Jan 29 by bluelagos |
You wish to no platform people who argue against lockdowns?
No, I don't agree with you. There are many valid arguments why lockdowns are incredibly harmful. I happen to agree that on balance we should lockdown at the moment, but to no platform those who argue the opposite is not a position I think is in any way appropriate.
I do accept we should give more air time to doctors / sage members etc. who can give informed opinions/arguments but to seek to silence her because you disagree with her isn't a position I think is any way appropriate. (Assuming she is a lockdown sceptic rather than CV denier)
*As I said to M14 - I stand to be corrected if she had denied CV but I've never heard her to do that. |
Yeah, I'd no platform them and would do so quite happily. They can spout off on twitter of course but they shouldn't be anywhere near mainstream media. As has been pointed out, pretty much all of the lockdown sceptics (or whatever polite term we're using for feckwits now) have ventured into Covid minimisation if not outright denial. They aren't scientists, they are rent-a-gobs. They have no public health credentials, just white privilege. And much of what they put out is potentially dangerous. So yeah, it'd be no platform from me. [Post edited 29 Jan 2021 17:43]
| |
| |
| Tragic and avoidable on 17:55 - Jan 29 with 544 views | Herbivore |
This is fairly typical content from JHB, which is just incorrect. The notion that not locking down would have saved lives doesn't stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever. There is lots of evidence that lockdowns save lives, she just chooses to ignore it and listen to the odd rogue scientific voice that claims otherwise:
| |
| |
| Tragic and avoidable on 18:40 - Jan 29 with 522 views | SpruceMoose |
| Tragic and avoidable on 16:50 - Jan 29 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Indeed, it annoys me how many people (not just politicians) cite mental health problems due to lockdowns... who had never shown the remotest interest in mental health before. It's almost like they're delighted to have a legitimate and emotive thing to complain with, so they're all over it like a cheap suit.
I wonder how many of these types will be talking about mental health, let alone doing anything about it, once the pandemic is over. |
Nailed it.
Similarly, I found it massively annoying when all kinds of people who normally would be the first to dismiss the mental health struggles of others as weakness (thankfully not anyone on here) suddenly became incredibly concerned that not being able to go to football or down the pub was incredibly damaging to their own mental health.
That's not to say that entertainment and socialising aren't important for mental wellbeing. It's that, disappointingly and somewhat typically, some people only started to care about it when it impacted them directly (or impacted the people they thought they could exploit). [Post edited 29 Jan 2021 18:43]
|  |
| Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country." | | Poll: | Selectamod |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
