Here is a list of assumptions (off the top of my head) that we are asked to take on board by the government, scientific advisory groups such as SAGE, international mass media, international bodies such as the WHO and influential funding figures such as Bill Gates. I find most people, even skeptics, find it hard to believe most of these facts are not true. I can only assume CD, who is highly critical of my attempt to undermine these assumptions without laying out his own beliefs, must be doing so from this consensus position. We do know however that this does not actually reflect a scientific consensus, as the Great Barrington Declaration points out.
1) This virus is especially dangerous and deadly compared to influenza
2) It threatens to overwhelm the NHS in a way that previous flu viruses have not
3) Catching it is not only a threat to our own life but a threat to others. A positive PCR test makes you a danger to others
4) contact with anyone is to be avoided as it may threaten their life. (or does it really? when we say gatherings of six people or from three households allowed, do we have conviction in the difference it will make?)
5) closure of the schools, for example, is no longer a matter of slowing the spread of the virus - it is a matter of safety for children
6) lockdowns protect people from catching the disease
7) lockdowns help to 'control the spread of the virus'
8) tiered, partial lockdowns slow the spread partially, allowing the NHS to cope
9) mask wearing stops people from catching the disease
10) it is the responsibility of the government to devise policy that saves us from catching the disease
11) PCR tests help us to track the disease and contain it
12) track and trace can control the spread
13) our hope lies with these vaccines, which will be safe and successful
14) Death rates after the initial spike are a reflection of failing to distance correctly. They are not seasonal and do not reflect health factors other than exposure to the virus, such as demographics, heart disease in the populus, care home culture or background immunity to coronaviruses.
and by extension
15) it is immoral to ignore these restrictions on normal life even if you feel safe personally
16) the health benefits of being outdoors and living life freely are not important enough to influence policy
17) the same goes for the health benefits of socialising
18) the same goes for the importance of having a strong economy
19) the same goes for the importance of maintaining routine health services such as cancer screening etc
I have now provided a lot of evidence that shows all of assumptions 1 to 14 are probably, if not certainly untrue. We have scientific and empirical evidence that they have been incorrect to assume. But these are the pillars of government action and public opinion. The startling fact to me is that no one is interested in finding out that these assumptions may be wrong and so we have no ability to adjust to the emerging science. I think the journalism class in particular has failed in its duty to ask the right questions. The modelling that has guided decision making has been wrong from the beginning and is still wildly inaccurate, favouring excessive alarm scenarios.
The exception is number 10) which is a philosophical assumption we don't even notice ourselves making.
15 - 19 are assumptions which may take years to understand if anyone has the guts to face what they have done to the country. They reflect the immense complexity in public health and, in my opinion, the extreme stupidity of this single issue focus to policy.
Originally Posted by Balinkay
Bookmarks