Read on Twitter
Bad faith smears, such as this article, omits so much context, order of events and perspective, in order to turn Lockdown into a partisan issue.
Context like claims about 500K deaths, and 67 million people under house arrest for a year. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-second-wave-of-covid-has-drowned-the-sceptics-delusions-f6xznkn6h
Context like claims about 500K deaths, and 67 million people under house arrest for a year. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-second-wave-of-covid-has-drowned-the-sceptics-delusions-f6xznkn6h
67 million house arrest years, and their as yet uncalculated second-order consequences amounts to vastly more lost QALYs than were allegedly lost to Covid19.
No lockdown sceptic I am aware argued against precautionary measures for the categorically vulnerable.
No lockdown sceptic I am aware argued against precautionary measures for the categorically vulnerable.
Moreover, the lockdown hawks have traded on rank fearmongering, leaving much of the public with the view that ~10% of the population had succumbed to the virus. There has been no effort from the official narrative to address that fear.
Here, Lawson takes Yeadon's comment, which is a statement about ONS's reporting of the week -- ONS's own claim of no statistically significant increase -- as a claim about the year.
https://twitter.com/MichaelYeadon3/status/1348363781269843970
https://twitter.com/MichaelYeadon3/status/1348363781269843970
He goes on to wonder what Yeadon was referring to, though Yeadon's Tweet was clear enough. The 5-week figures give some big number-drama to his story, but the daily death rate is less stark: 1,691 versus 1,397. Hardly heart-warming figures, but hardly the year 1349.
I wonder if Lawson's reference to 'government-mandated social-distancing' is a reference to the practice of sending older people back from hospital with newly-acquired Covid19, to "care" homes?
That is the reality of government policy.
That is the reality of government policy.
And it was Bowman who claimed that Lockdown would have little to no lasting impact on the economy: since there was no 'structural' problem, demand would bounce back as soon as the lockdown ended.
That's every bit a failure as Lawson's claims against Lockdown sceptics.
That's every bit a failure as Lawson's claims against Lockdown sceptics.
Recall: lockdown sceptics have NOT argued AGAINST protecting vulnerable people. Nor even against spending a LOT of money to provide that protection.
"Counterfactual" not required, Dom.
"Counterfactual" not required, Dom.
I argued it from the outset: focus the state's resources on protecting the vulnerable, not on policing (i.e. criminalising) the entire population.
And here, Lawson recycles his article points from November.
In the November article, he states that Bowman is "far from an illiberal interventionist".
But illiberal interventionism is exactly what Bowman is for. If he was ever against it, he folded under the pressure.
In the November article, he states that Bowman is "far from an illiberal interventionist".
But illiberal interventionism is exactly what Bowman is for. If he was ever against it, he folded under the pressure.
All the search results for "Gupta" and “definitely less than one in 1,000 and probably closer to 1 in 10,000” return links to Lawson's articles.
I would like to know what she actually said back in May.
I would like to know what she actually said back in May.
This appears to be the source of the quote.
It's fair to say that Gupta's claim is more nuanced than Lawson allows.
And it's a statement in an informal interview, not in a paper offered to peers in the field, like the prediction of 500K deaths was. https://unherd.com/2020/05/oxford-doubles-down-sunetra-gupta-interview/
It's fair to say that Gupta's claim is more nuanced than Lawson allows.
And it's a statement in an informal interview, not in a paper offered to peers in the field, like the prediction of 500K deaths was. https://unherd.com/2020/05/oxford-doubles-down-sunetra-gupta-interview/
This is the conclusion of the article in which Gupta is quoted, after stating:
“I think there’s a chance we might have done better by doing nothing at all, or at least by doing something different, which would have been to pay attention to protecting the vulnerable..."
“I think there’s a chance we might have done better by doing nothing at all, or at least by doing something different, which would have been to pay attention to protecting the vulnerable..."
Lawson would have you believe that Gupta's underestimate is underpinned by a callous disregard. But she speaks both about protecting people, and resisting political impulses, as well as seeking the consequences of lockdowns in the broadest perspective.
Lawson omits all that.
Lawson omits all that.
Lawson, like Bowman, who he plagiarises, is obsessed with a definitive fatality rate. He holds Gupta and sceptics accountable for their putative failures, but not fearmongering estimates for theirs.
