Re: Lancet: Scientific consensus on the COVID-19 pandemic: we need to act now Archived Message
Posted by Sinister Burt on October 15, 2020, 5:10 pm, in reply to "Re: Lancet: Scientific consensus on the COVID-19 pandemic: we need to act now"
I was just putting it up as a compare and contrast with the great barrington declaration. Did you have similar criticisms of that one? The interests i pointed to are worthy of note, but so are the dodgy right-libertarian links of the barrington one (though the interests in the former are at least related to the skills involved, as opposed to the koch brothers et al (yeah i know, bill gates yada yada). "If near-normal now means you have to muzzle yourself and be granted permission by police and government officials before you can be close to other people or travel, " Is that really the case in eg Vietnam, or Cuba? I thought they had much lower numbers because they had a proper public health response which is able to supress the virus early on without need for heavy lockdwon measures, whereas ours and similar neoliberalised countries had ####ed public health over for 'austerity'/ideological purposes and so weren;'t able to supress it without the lockdowns. (muzzle's a bit childish though - what next, face nappies?) Also are you still arguing that bohnson's government are pro lockdown? Seems pretty clear right now that they still want to be 'clarke kent' and go against the lockdown for the sake of 'economic freedom' (meaning no sort of freedom for anyone not loaded (when they say it at least)). Of course the fact that boris johnson/the tory establishment are one side of a debate doesn't in itself affect the arguments, but it'd be better to accept the obvious imv.
|
|