Subscribe
Notify of
guest

23 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
J Bryant
J Bryant
2 years ago

The title of this article is “We are Hostages to Government Fear,” but really we’re hostages to the internet. If SARS-cov2 had arrived twenty years ago we wouldn’t have had the option of working from home and we’d have had no choice but to protect the most vulnerable as best we could but otherwise take sensible precautions and just get on with life.
I’m also not sure the situation is quite as bad as the author suggests. It appears the Brits are comfortable with another four weeks of restrictions but at some point most people’s patience will wear thin. And the 600lb gorilla in the room is the economy. A very big bill is due and when it arrives people’s attention will turn to the economy, not more lockdowns.

Antony Hirst
Antony Hirst
2 years ago
Reply to  J Bryant

And with the internet came the offloading of personal responsibility and the irrational deferment to scientists and so-called experts.
The push towards a bigger and fatter state (thanks EU!), has resulted in scientists and experts who face no personal risk to the predictions of doom and subsequent overreaction, in fact, they benefit from it. We have a stratum of society holding the reigns, serving themselves, and investing in the increasing level of infantilism and stupification of society.
What is even more incredible, is due to the internet, how their constant stream of failed predictions is swamped by more, increasingly outlandish, and preposterous predictions of yet more future doom.

Last edited 2 years ago by Antony Hirst
Alan Thorpe
Alan Thorpe
2 years ago
Reply to  Antony Hirst

I agree. Your second paragraph reflects the views of one of the wisest men on earth, Thomas Sowell. It is obvious when pointed out, but nothing will ever change and that is because democracy is failing us. As Plato said, democracy effectively results in idiots being put in charge. I agree about the internet, which has whipped up hysteria similar to that in. Salem in 1692.

Dr Stephen Nightingale
Dr Stephen Nightingale
2 years ago
Reply to  Antony Hirst

The Mail and The Express and endless years of TV soap-Opera with its faux emotionalizing have contributed far more to the stupification of masses of peolple than the Internet. The Intrnet contains far more truth than the above organs, if you do but have the discriminating faculties to winnow it out.

Peter LR
Peter LR
2 years ago

I wondered what the question was that was asked for the poll. I imagine the response would have been different if conditionals were added:
1. Would you support lockdown if furlough finance finished on June 21?
2. Would you support lockdown if It meant you lost your job?
3. Would you support lockdown if your local pub closed as a consequence?
4. Would you support lockdown if you had suspicious symptoms but could not get a face-to-face doctor assessment?
I make this points as these are the actual situations facing many people due to lockdown. Decisions are being made on the narrowest of parameters. The politicians are not taking the brave choices that entail risk.

Mark Gourley
Mark Gourley
2 years ago
Reply to  Peter LR

Exactly. As shown in an episode of that great comedy (or documentary?) “Yes Minister” you can always rig an opinion poll by choosing carefully the wording of the questions!

Nick Faulks
Nick Faulks
2 years ago

I would start by throwing out any work produced by academics whose departments are funded by the Chinese Communist Party.

Alan Thorpe
Alan Thorpe
2 years ago
Reply to  Nick Faulks

We need to go further than that. Eisenhower warned about this in his farewell address, saying, “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.” Did anybody listen? Certainly not the politicians.

ralph bell
ralph bell
2 years ago

Its time for civil disobedience and then vote them out asap.
There’s too many in the top of the government that cannot be trusted.

Fennie Strange
Fennie Strange
2 years ago
Reply to  ralph bell

Vote them out and replace them with …?

Cheryl Jones
Cheryl Jones
2 years ago
Reply to  Fennie Strange

That’s the thing isn’t it. I’m just coming to the conclusion that politician and government job descriptions have expanded way too far. We seem to have arrived in a place where a few people have too much power and too little competence but we, the public, kep looking to them and expect them to be able to fix everything in our lives. They can’t. If ever something was an advert for render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s then this is it. Govt should be a mechanism for providing essential services and pooling resources, nothing more. Controlling every aspect of our lives because they think, and we think, that’s how we’ll stop anything bad ever happening to us, is like being in a state of perpetual infantilism.

Fennie Strange
Fennie Strange
2 years ago
Reply to  Cheryl Jones

I do so agree! I’m all in favour of small government and have a great fear of totalitarianism: scribbling “a plague o’ both your houses” on the ballot paper is now a real possibility come the next election.

Scott Powell
Scott Powell
2 years ago

With a captured mainstream media, scientists who’ve morphed into politicians, corporate giants making record amounts of cash, and spineless ‘leaders’ at the helm, I’m afraid to say it’s ‘game over’.
This never ends. It only gets worse.
The moment a crack seems to appear–will Fauci be sacked?–and predictions of the ‘house of cards’ tumbling start to flutter around, *bang* the next crisis will be unleashed.
Either a brand new variant with a scary name.
Or, the BIG one. The inevitable market crash will be ‘allowed’ to happen–the forces staving it off will just be turned off. Then, in that new pandemonium, the already Huge stack of unanswered allegations of corruptions will just get buried under a thousand more.
And Big Government will be there to save the day. We’ll get all sorts of Emergency Payments. Trillions will printed. And, just like that, the government will ‘take responsibility’ for everything, and we’ll Never Get Our Freedom Back.
-OR-
We just say enough.

A Spetzari
A Spetzari
2 years ago

Excellent piece exploring all the nuances here.
A further thought, much like that they wont touch the NHS, I wonder if the fact that it’s a Tory government also plays a part.
Whilst we have seen nothing from Labour to suggest they’d do different – or in fact even more – perhaps the Tories are too cautious to fulfil their role as the “nasty” party and so have been more cautious than they would have been.

Last edited 2 years ago by A Spetzari
Alan Thorpe
Alan Thorpe
2 years ago

Edmund Burke described the present situation perfectly: “it is in our nature, when we do not know what will happen to us, to fear the worst that can happen, and hence it is, that uncertainty is so terrible, that we often seek to be rid of it, at the hazard of certain mischief.” We have an incompetent government, using incompetent scientific advisors, and hysteria spread through all form of media.

Jonathan Ellman
Jonathan Ellman
2 years ago

You’d have thought not. But the polls don’t lie. Or do they?

Alka Hughes-Hallett
Alka Hughes-Hallett
2 years ago

To be fair, this disease did originate in China under suspicious circumstances. And I am an anti- lockdown/ anti mask proponent , I too was surprised how quickly it changed shape in India and spread like wildfire. People are spooked. They are spooked worldwide. The governments are unprepared for such an engineered virus. Even though lockdown doesn’t help, it is a way of the public saying “you screw8d up, you deal with it”.
But what is most true is that we are NOT in a normal natural world of risk any more. Escaped virus, record time vaccines to vaccinate the WHOLE world, mega tech companies for social & business & who have huge control over what we say. We are in an unusual era.
We who crave for liberty and talk of fearlessness, uncensored freedoms are of dying culture. And even more alarming is that this is a worldwide shift.

Alexandra Stonor
Alexandra Stonor
2 years ago

Creativity is ever more vital then.

Jorge Espinha
Jorge Espinha
2 years ago

We in the west have societies of old people, gerontosocieties. When I was in school we were preached about overpopulation, now we have quiet neighbourhoods, without the sound of children. We substituted children for idiotic pets and refer to them as people. And we are afraid. That’s how we think about the unknown, we fear it. Say what you will about Muslims in Europe ( and I have little nice to say about them) but at least they look into the future and have children.

J Bryant
J Bryant
2 years ago
Reply to  Jorge Espinha

Very insightful comment.

Scott Powell
Scott Powell
2 years ago

We’re all in this together — forever.

Cheryl Jones
Cheryl Jones
2 years ago

I think Boris has been against lockdowns from the start, it’s why I think those decisions have been somewhat less snappy than some would have liked. That is why I think these decisions are not really down to him, I think he is overriding his natural instincts to defer to what Whitty et al are telling him, under sufferance. The weird thing is, at the start Chris Whitty very eloquently explained basically the Swedish approach. They stuck to their guns, we didn’t. I sometimes wonder if they know something about this virus that we don’t which makes it more unpredictable (man made), or if there is some other pressure being brought to bear on this that will not be made fully public but is being deliberately drip fed to manipulate us into compliance (great reset). Or am I overthinking this and they really all are irredeemably evil charlatans out to ruin our lives to line their own pockets and are sitting in some No.10 office rubbing their hands with glee. Sorry I know for some people that’s the default position but it doesn’t persuade me. Politics is an ugly business and all it proves to me is that too much power in too few hands is never a good thing.

Edward De Beukelaer
Edward De Beukelaer
2 years ago

Interesting in this context to read the reply of the ethics commission in relation to the fear tactics accusation of the government:
The ethics of behavioural messaging during the covid-19 pandemic 
The Ethics Committee of the BPS has reviewed and considered the above issue raised with the society. 
On 5 February we issued a statement in response to emails detailing similar concerns. This response continues to be the BPS position.  
Covid-19 is an extremely serious public health issue. The response to the pandemic is clearly a matter of social as well as individual concern. Indirect behavioural interventions are commonly employed in public health campaigns in order to safeguard the population. Given the scale of the mortality and morbidity caused by the pandemic the behavioural interventions employed by the UK Government have been proportionate and necessary. 
The Ethics Committee believed that the contributions of psychologists in responding to the pandemic was entirely consistent with the BPS Code of Ethics and Conduct, demonstrating social responsibility and the competent and responsible employment of psychological expertise.
The Committee also emphasised how psychologists’ shared values of respect, competence, responsibility and integrity will be vital in supporting the long-term recovery from the pandemic at both the individual and societal levels.
Kind regards
BPS Ethical Enquiries Team
Possible reply:
Dear Dr Roger Paxton, Chair of the BPS Ethics Committee,

This reply worries me very much: is this the end of real democracy?
Your answer suggests that the end justifies the means. That is a very dangerous position. I am sure I do not have to explain to you why.
I think it is much more ethical to work with shared values and integrity as you suggest in your last paragraph, to approach a serious public health issue.

Note, and research is suggesting this more and more, that the public health issue is indeed a new virus but much more the state of health of the population. (and this was know from the beginning)

From an ethical point of view the government should have:

  1. Made all efforts possible to improve the health of its population, in the short and long term, which would have decreased the impact of the covid 19 (of course that would have created an issue with the lobby)
  2. Have used all possible and suggested treatments of people affected by covid 19 before they ended up in hospital. (again issues with the lobby)
  3. Not have give into the bloodhound attitude of the press. (again issues with the lobby)
  4. Trusted the population of the country by allowing a free debate and giving the population the means to respond as well as possible to the covid outbreak. I see it everyday with my clients: if you give people the space and time and various options, they tend to make quite good decisions. If you talk down to people, outcomes are more unpredictable.
  5. Not skewed data to frighten its population (I.e: new ways of accounting deaths, etc

Your reply is a political statement to avoid embarrassment of the government. If ethics means: I know and I tell you what you should do: it is time for you to put on your fascist uniform.
Your reply has no value in ethics. I am flabbergasted.