Which is more troubling - that this new member of the House of Lords does not understand that the issue with schools is mixing of kids, not vaccination of teachers?

Or that he does understand this but pretends not to? https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/1351487824378392576

The most pernicious aspect of the so-called lockdown sceptics is not their desire to call attention to costs of lockdown. That is a debate worth having. It is the desire of so many of them, on so many issues, to wish away real costs & constraints with fantasy & magical thinking

So it is never "yes the lockdown brings down R, and reduces pressure on hospitals, but here are the args on the other side"

It is always "the cases aren't real" Or "the hospitals aren't full" Or "it doesn't kill you" Or "the schools can open if you vaccinate teachers".

This is doubly pernicious. It is pernicious because it perpetuates false beliefs about lockdown being unnecessary in the first place. And it is pernicious because such fantasism displaces proper arguments about how to minimise the (very real & extensive) costs lockdown brings.

Instead of saying "how can we best support poor kids until its safe to reopen schools?" we get "vaccinate the teachers open the schools".

Instead of "how do we support those who can't work" we get "end lockdown now, restart the economy".

And that is a shame because I think there *should* be a strong debate about balancing these things. But the loudest voices in the media and politics on the "harms of lockdown" side keep framing their args around evidence-free dismissals of the situation we face.