We need Scepticism more than ever

In fact, this article is touching on a massive elephant in that room which is known as “western civilization”. The Long March through the Institutions is now complete and the entire philosophical bases of those institutions have been overthrown. Every arm of society, be it courts, media, academy, police, social services (particularly social services), health and even now, the military is infused with leftist assumption. And, indeed, presumption.

Thus, in America, the left can spend the entire summer systematically burning their cities to the ground while Democrat prosecutors flatly refuse to prosecute, Democrat judges dismiss cases or give OR releases and Democrat “celebrities” raise money for bail for those who catch the judge on an off day. Meanwhile, when a Trump supporting mob crash the Capitol, it’s an “insurrection” requiring that the president with “the most votes in history” import more troops into Washington to protect him on his inauguration than were present there during the Civil War.

The UK is not much better, with, as an example, lawyers, twisting the definition of provocation to its breaking point in pursuit of leftist assumptions and in the process destroying the legal system as an engine of truth and fact and turning it into some kind of socialist rain-making machine designed to bring about the final earthly paradise. The unthinking arrogance of these people is emblematic of what the author of this piece is attempting to illustrate. “We don’t need to find the facts of this particular case because whatever they are, it’s all the fault of the patriarchy/white supremacists/racists/transphobes or whatever”.

I’m reminded of the creation of the Soviet Union under Lenin. We’ve all heard the wailing of the left about how it would all have been wonderful if only Lenin had lived and that degenerate Stalin had not come to power. Besides the fact that the “only for that” attitude is so typical of leftist excuses of why it never works, it was Lenin not Stalin, who created the gulags, and when he did, he put actual criminals in charge of them, then filled the camps with so-called “bourgeoisie” who suffered terribly under the regimes of these people. And he did that because the ideology of the left is absolute on this point. Criminals are never responsible for anything (except those on the right, of course). Whatever they’ve done, it’s due to the oppression of … whoever. But once the Earthly paradise is born — and birth in blood is an unfortunate necessity; can’t make an omelette and all that — it’ll all be fine for ever. Just one more push needed and we’re there.

That’s where we are today, folks. That’s why “scepticism” of any sort isn’t allowed, not even in the sciences where, you might think, it’s an absolute necessity. From the point of view of he left, it’s a bad habit to allow to take root. You’re down to your last pound coin of freedom, people. Find a good vending machine and spend it wisely.

Where we are now in relation to covid is not where we were 10 months ago and where we will be in 10 months time.

I’m personally of the opinion that there will have to be the mother of all public inquiries into how this has been (mis)handled by our politicians when the dust finally settles on this debacle.

We’re still not truly there yet, but as more and more news trickles out in time in terms of jobs and business losses, the rising suicides, the unheard court cases that threaten to seriously undermine our already creaking criminal justice systems, the predicted exponential rise in child and domestic abuse and mental illness cases, particularly amongst the young robbed at crucial stages of their educations, the many tens of thousands of undiagnosed cancer cases and those effectively denied treatment for other serious conditions due to Covid, the severe restrictions on funding for future healthcare thanks to a knackered economy, the list will just go on and on.

This litany of shame and disaster will build and build as the profound long-term social and economic effects of these monstrous measures finally begin to dawn on and impact more of those who naively believed that this was always all but a simple, binary choice between ‘compassionately’ saving lives or ‘cruelly’ and ‘cynically’ not saving them.

It will provide mighty cold comfort for all of us I fear, but perhaps then it’ll be far obvious as to who the real ‘covidiots’ were.

Even as a self-confessed sceptic I genuinely don’t blame the government for not being ready for this, and nor do I blame them for the first lockdown. Back in March 2020 covid was a novel illness.

Hasty preparations had to be made, fear was heavy in the air and nobody really knew what to expect.

In fairness then no government anywhere could have properly prepared for covid and its effects on their health systems not least because, by design, they have very little slack built into them for the simple reason of cost.

Sure, one might argue, why didn’t we have 10 times the numbers of ICU beds and 10 times the number of trained staff to man them and why didn’t we have a gazillion pieces of PPE in anticipation for this random once in a hundred years event, but if you argue for that then that’s probably a good indicator as to why you should never, ever be let anywhere near the levers of power.

That all said, ideally an elected government’s job is to recognise, react and act in the greater, long-term interests for the country and its people when facts become clearer and even when there are those who, arguably in good faith, might constantly seek to pressurise them into doing otherwise and in that task one can only conclude our politicians, pretty much of every hue, have been found to be seriously wanting.

The covid debacle has been an abject lesson in the political expediency we’ve come to expect from our politicians writ hideously large where no politician was up to facing down the cynical, but inevitable emotive charges of having blood on his hands and deaths laid at his door secure in the knowledge that what he was actually doing was ultimately seeking to achieve far less suffering overall not more of it.

I think they have all gone Mad. If ‘Lockdown’ was such a rip roaring success how come we are on the fourth version of same ? And what on earth is everyone thinking when blindly agreeing to be imprisoned in their own home indefinitely ? Agreeing that the Government has the right to decide how many people you can have to dinner etc. Does no one love and respect Liberty anymore ?? And just how deadly is this Chinese Virus ? Does it kill 70% of all those it infects ? Less than 70% ? More perhaps ? Is it worse than the black death in the middle ages perhaps ? And just exactly what is the exit strategy for all these ‘temporary restrictions’ ? This has already gone on for 10 months so does everyone envisage it lasting another 2 months, or 4 months, 10 months or 10 years, or is everybody willing to ‘live’ like this for ever ? And just exactly how much of the economy does everyone expect to be left at the end of all this ? Or does no one actually care. I’m starting to suspect no one does.

It seems that Sweden has had no more deaths than in a normal year, and fewer deaths per head of population than in 1993, the last time they had a serious flu outbreak. And that was without really taking steps to protect the vulnerable last March/April. That is why are both sceptical and dismissive of the insane and tyrannical lockdowns imposed upon us.

Is anyone surprised? We have seen it all before. We have seen calls for people who express sceptical opinions on Anthropogenic Global Warming to be prosecuted. Pretty soon you are going to be “lockdown deniers” if not worse.

I discovered Unherd as a result of the pandemic. It heads the short list of publications that have kept me sane throughout this ordeal. Keep celebrating skepticism!

Skepticism is portrayed as virtuous only when it is applied in the “correct” situations, meaning that it is aligned with the dominant narrative. We should be skeptical of “conspiracy theories”, but not about the Covid vaccine or the necessity of lockdowns. When we are skeptical of the “wrong” things, we are punished in some way, often by reputational and financial destruction. And, the power to inflict this damage is generally held in common with “official” or mainstream views.

The message in all this is very clear – that unless you are prepared to martyr yourself, or are protected against financial ruin, you must either accept the dominant narrative or keep you mouth shut. Why more people aren’t worried about this escalation of authoritarianism is unclear to me, although I suspect a good percentage of people are worried about this, but don’t feel safe enough to talk about it.

I think most of us are sceptical of everything that British governments, the authorities and the experts say or mandate because they have such a disastrous track record. Certainly, in my lifetime, one struggles to think of anything they have got right beyond a few social issues (equality for women etc) and a few economic reforms during the Thatcher era. Beyond that, it has been nothing but disaster after disaster.

One of the saddest things of this this crisis is how I’ve fallen out with many colleagues because I am a natural skeptic. I value liberty and education very highly. This pandemic shows just how much the whole world is governed by the priorities of the old and well heeled, at the expense of the young and impoverished. While we rush to immunise against a disease that 90% don’t notice (but kills and debilitates the powerful), we ignore the needs of the poorest in the world to receive basic care and support, including vital measles vaccines, and the development of vaccines against the diseases that kill millions, like malaria and dengue.
The fall out from our reaction to Covid will kill so many people. Time will only tell if it’s more or fewer than Covid itself.

Exactly right Freddie, and this is one reason why Unherd is a good platform, because it allows critical thinking and accepts alternative views too. The bigger concern for me, outside of the covid debate, is how criticism in many countries is now considered to be an attack on the state and there are an increasing number of countries that outlaw it with the threat of prison. Healthy debate of strategy and principle help progression to the correct view. Stifling debate is a classic characteristic of a despotic and insecure Government afraid of its’ own people.

I think a lot of the problem lies with a basic misunderstanding about the nature of the scientific method and the notion of uncertainty. People have difficulty with uncertainty, particularly when faced with existential crises. The press did not do a good job with communicating that any statement about the pandemic (particularly in its early stages) had to be taken with a huge grain of salt because of the high degree of uncertainty regarding its lethality, method of spread, etc. And often the “experts” seemed to let their newfound relevance get the better of them, framing their guesses as gospel. The problem was exacerbated by the requirement that politicians do something, so they framed their guesses in the mantle of certainty in order to project competence, while arguing they were “following the science” as if the science at that point was certain.

I am extremely sceptical of this article. Claiming its pro scepticism and then dismissing people as wrong who are far more right than the official narrative. Your “sceptism” is similar to the critical theory variety. i.e. its ok to question as long as you question in the “right” way and find the “correct” answers.

If there is an absence of trust the government are much to blame. For instance, many sceptics question whether the virus actually exists and some of the scepticism quite rightly surrounds the anomalies of PCR testing. In November I wrote to Public Health England asking how many cases of COVID the government had diagnosed by DNA sequencing and received an FOI answer stating that they only diagnosed by PCR. Five days later we were into the era of ultra transmissible mutations and I read in the the BMJ (Jacqui Wise) that the government had DNA sequenced 140,000 cases: it had suddenly become politically expedient to mention it! The government will apparently only use data in a manipulative way, and for those not happy with the treacle coming from the mainstream media this is deeply troubling. From the scientific point of view it is obviously essential that we have bona fide information and open debate, otherwise the government will just blunder from one position to another. The conflicts are also very serious: Ferguson, for instance, was has always been a prospector for the vaccine industry, heavily funded by GAVI and Bill and Melinda Gates (Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium). This is even more serious than his lockdown bed-hopping (though that might be something to swallow).

Excellent piece. I very much like Freddie’s calm, reasoning demeanor. Not afraid to discuss difficult and controversial topics, but always respectful. Bravo!.

There is nothing wrong with skepticism which should be ENCOURAGED and not “punished” but authorities or the media.
But I do have a problem with people that refuse to say ” I was wrong”…Sweden and its policy is the perfect example. If the policy was a success the SWED GOV would have not changed track over and over again.
Johan Giesecke is another great example. Last year he kept predicting (including the Unherd Interview) in the Swedish Media that by early summer large segments of the population would have developed herd immunity – but he kept changing his range numbers. When the tests were done it was revealed that a tiny tiny minority of people have developed immunity.
When asked by Expressen (a Swedish Tabloid) how did he come up with his numbers Giesecke responded “let’s drop this”.

I think its one thing to be a sceptic in the literal and scientific definition of the word, constantly testing and retesting theories. but the concern are those non Scientifics who use the word sceptic, at best, without understanding its meaning , or at worst using others understanding to spread distrust and push a particular agenda.

So I don’t have an issue with the Sunetra gupta’s of this world as long as they are open to being held accountable at a later stage and are open to testing and retesting and adjusting their thoeries according to the facts as they unfold. But I do have a problem with the Toby Youngs and lawrence Fox’s of this world who use this scientific and objective Scepticism to amplify and give credibility to their own unscientific agenda.

Thats concerning to me and why its important, particularly in this age where all sorts of ‘information’ is available at the touch of a phone, where the wider public are taught the importance of critical thinking, starting with the fundamentals of What a persons credentials are and why they are positing a theory before even taking a look and spreading on that theory.

Too many people search for things that fit their own gut and give voice to dangerous actors.