I like this thread as it sticks closely to the topic: the erroneous & completely unevidenced claim by SAGE that “because this is a new virus, there is no immunity in the population”. SAGE included no cellular immunologist (no one who references any of the now-extensive body of... https://twitter.com/surbitonsteve/status/1333675688038117376

...evidence that challenges that most unlikely assertion), so we get a policy response which itself doesn’t work (SAGE, for some reason, is not required to show any evidence that their increasingly bizarre interventions work, whereas those questioning it & offering evidence to...

...the contrary are accused of bad faith at best). If you calm down & take a step back, the most plausible explanation for the time course of the pandemic pivots on well understood principles of immunology, none of which is speculative or cutting edge, and not on ‘lockdown’,....

...an intervention with NO prior evidence for net benefit & for which much convincing evidence runs against it working. I often hear the argument that “this virus is transmitted person to person, so lockdown MUST attenuate spread”. I do understand the core logic. But we must be..

...careful not to leap to the conclusion that ANY intervention called ‘lockdown’ must reduce transmission by enough to yield worthwhile benefits. It seems to me equally self-evident that an intervention that leaves most of the important routes of transmission fully operative...

...(busy hospitals, care homes, essential shops, notably supermarkets, food prep supply chain, some people still going to work, some people still using public transport etc) should NOT greatly reduce transmission. I do believe that, from theoretical perspectives, sufficiently..

...severe interpersonal restrictions must halt transmission. But what I mean by ‘severe’ is each person living in an individual, ventilated, filtered ziplock bag, provided with supplies by a small team, moving about in CBW suits, each living alone. We’d have very little normal..

...services, including much more constrained healthcare, fresh food supply chain, care home residents treated just the same. Obviously this is deliberately exaggerated but I’m doing so to show that the argument I often hear simply doesn’t account for the fact that transmission...

...continues along every available path, and path lengths to reach every single person in the country are very short. Consider the spring, where there was unconstrained transmission for weeks, even months, before the March lockdown was instigated. During that time, someone...

...carrying the virus will have travelled to almost every city, town, village and within a few days to a few weeks, very many people would have been in contact with someone carrying the virus. We’re told this is more infectious than influenza. Given we know if was in the UK...

...at least by Jan, and given the peak of the flu season takes 2mo or less to reach its winter midpoint or peak, I argue the question is the other way around: why wouldn’t it be reasonable to have expected transmission to have been substantial before lockdown? I believe that...

...was what happened. That’s why calculated infections were collapsing, before lockdown started. This is absolutely fundamental because if this is correct, lockdown (in the form it was introduced) not only could never have succeeded, but was superfluous. When you add to this...

...toxic mix, clear evidence of enormous harm in every way from lockdown, it’s truly astonishing to me that polls indicate such support for the policy. Note that I’m not relying on my reasoning. I’m resting my confident beliefs outlined here mostly on peer reviewed journal...

...articles which, in numbers, show that lockdowns, as adopted, didn’t slow transmission nor were they associated with reduced mortality. Those on SAGE continuing to demand we do this hideously damaging thing, which is so bad that it’s associated with up to 1500 avoidable non-

...covid19 deaths every week, while arguably saving no one, they are the ones upon whom the obligation to show that policy is likely to work & to save far more lives than they cost. They haven’t come close to doing that. I can only think they cannot.