No lockdown sceptic I am aware argued against precautionary measures for the categorically vulnerable.
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.
No lockdown sceptic I am aware argued against precautionary measures for the categorically vulnerable.
https://t.co/J0ZBFKxfG4
I\u2019ve called for a complete halt to PCR mass testing. Even if it was trustworthy, it serves no helpful purpose. We do NOT have EXCESS DEATHS. That\u2019s as it is in England & U.K. wide. People terrorised into staying home to die. Non-COVID excess deaths. Self-inflicted, due lockdown. https://t.co/M82gTgGpBm pic.twitter.com/c3CIfM7CZH
— Yardley Yeadon (@MichaelYeadon3) January 10, 2021
That is the reality of government policy.
That's every bit a failure as Lawson's claims against Lockdown sceptics.
"Counterfactual" not required, Dom.
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.
I would like to know what she actually said back in May.
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://t.co/sV7Sh7315u
“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 omits all that.