Main Edition
US
FR
March 25, 2023 - 8:00am
It’s been three years since then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced that normal life would be indefinitely halted. Yet, despite the growing body of evidence proving pandemic mismanagement, a new poll from UnHerd Britain has shown that there is still widespread support for the Government’s lockdown measures. Most surprisingly, despite being the generation most socially impacted, young people continue to show high levels of support for lockdown.
The UnHerd poll shows that 54% of people in the UK do not think, retrospectively, that lockdowns were a mistake, with almost a third (30%) still in strong support of them. Among those in my age group of 18-24, 41% disagree with the idea that the lockdowns were misguided, with 34% in agreement. In this respect they are more pro-lockdown than the 25-34 age bracket, where 39% think the policy was a mistake. This is worryingly compounded by a recent YouGov poll showing that over half (51%) of those aged 18-24 think that Government measures during the pandemic weren’t strict enough.
At first, these numbers are startling. Do young people really wish they were locked up at home for longer, losing more of the best years of their lives? Yet this is less surprising when we consider how youth support for lockdowns is matched by an increasing sympathy for authoritarianism. This scepticism of democracy is now well-documented, with research noting that this is “the first generation in living memory to have a global majority who are dissatisfied with the way democracy works while in their twenties and thirties”. The reasons for this are complex, but the “democratic disconnect”, it is argued, is largely due to democracy’s failure to deliver important outcomes for young people.
As liberal democracies increasingly fail to deliver the promise of greater opportunity and prosperity, the young may be increasingly drawn towards forms of organising society that are detached from social and political participation. But it seems that young people today don’t have the political organisation, knowledge, or desire to rage against the machine — or even to develop a substantive social and political critique of it. To affect change in the real world would mean unplugging from what Mark Fisher called “the communicative sensation-stimulus matrix of texting, YouTube and fast food; to be denied, for a moment, the constant flow of sugary gratification on demand”. And nothing facilitated this virtual matrix like lockdown. No wonder young people weren’t bothered about leaving the house and claiming back their freedom.
Youth support for lockdowns may also be attributed to a worrying reliance on the Government to solve all of their problems. The historian Christopher Lasch once said that “the atrophy of informal controls leads irresistibly to the expansion of bureaucratic controls”. And in a world where members of Gen Z have never known anything but the formal bureaucratic controls of modern liberal democracies, can we really be surprised by their lack of faith in the informal controls of civic duty and personal responsibility? Of course informal controls could not be trusted to stop the spread of Covid-19, just as informal sanctions cannot be used to stop the spread of hate and misinformation. For many young people today, personal civic duty is an empty concept. Safety and common standards can only be upheld by the state.
In the confused Gen Z psyche, lockdowns are a bit like what university has become — nothing more than a comforting formal restraint on the overwhelming prospect of freedom.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWhy do young people support lock downs? I can answer that. Because the possibility that the experts and the government were wrong on such a massive scale is too terrifying. I grew up surrounded by medical experts. My father was a respected surgeon and my mother a professor of nursing. As a kid I was amazed by how much they knew. But when you become an adult, you start to realize that they don’t know everything, and often times because they are ‘experts’ they have to make things up, or at least make educated guesses. People demand answers from them. But they are guesses. It’s a scary thing – growing up and coming to understand just how often the people in charge are simply guessing and then trying to obfuscate their lack of knowledge and lack of success to maintain their status. The supremely confident ones like Fauci achieve great success – the honest and humble ones struggle. I think many people continue with this child like naivety for life because its too scary to comprehend how little our beloved experts actually know and how powerless they are when nature unleashes havoc on us. Perhaps we’ve come a long way from the days of throwing human sacrifices into the volcano to appease the gods. Or perhaps we just think we have. But the post-covid excess deaths to me are simply human sacrifices forced on us by our modern witch doctors.
Good post.
Agreed. And would only add that many have been indoctrinated in colleges to admire Central planning.
Agreed. And would only add that many have been indoctrinated in colleges to admire Central planning.
That’s an excellent post.
Great post. I will add that your observation is also true for those like me whose parents weren’t educated. I had tremendous faith in the experts in the 80s and <0 now.
My twenty something children come to me now to get a balanced perspective on any controversial topic. So often like this article’s claim there is no scientific basis for Murray’s claims, the prevailing narrative is wrong.
We truly are in a post truth world – maybe user defined Chatbot AIs can save us.
Excellent post, thank you. I’m also the son of a respected physician, and an MD myself. Medicine is and should be a humbling profession, and in my opinion the better MDs come to understand what one of my mentors told me in med school: “Doctors’ egos kill patients.” Besides, there are way too many variables in biological systems to be able to control perfectly.
Thank you for this sharp comment. All has been said!!
Your last sentence is very true in the sense that the UK government are in complete awe of the American big Pharma. In April they want the UK to have yet another mrna vaccine despite a Professor of Immunology in Australia saying they are not safe. The more we take the less effective they become he said. Now we hear from an Australian FOI request that these Pharma companies haven’t even researched any side affects for which many people are suffering. It was “here’s an experimental vaccine to try and by the way we want indemnity and thanks for profits suckers”
Good post.
That’s an excellent post.
Great post. I will add that your observation is also true for those like me whose parents weren’t educated. I had tremendous faith in the experts in the 80s and <0 now.
My twenty something children come to me now to get a balanced perspective on any controversial topic. So often like this article’s claim there is no scientific basis for Murray’s claims, the prevailing narrative is wrong.
We truly are in a post truth world – maybe user defined Chatbot AIs can save us.
Excellent post, thank you. I’m also the son of a respected physician, and an MD myself. Medicine is and should be a humbling profession, and in my opinion the better MDs come to understand what one of my mentors told me in med school: “Doctors’ egos kill patients.” Besides, there are way too many variables in biological systems to be able to control perfectly.
Thank you for this sharp comment. All has been said!!
Your last sentence is very true in the sense that the UK government are in complete awe of the American big Pharma. In April they want the UK to have yet another mrna vaccine despite a Professor of Immunology in Australia saying they are not safe. The more we take the less effective they become he said. Now we hear from an Australian FOI request that these Pharma companies haven’t even researched any side affects for which many people are suffering. It was “here’s an experimental vaccine to try and by the way we want indemnity and thanks for profits suckers”
Why do young people support lock downs? I can answer that. Because the possibility that the experts and the government were wrong on such a massive scale is too terrifying. I grew up surrounded by medical experts. My father was a respected surgeon and my mother a professor of nursing. As a kid I was amazed by how much they knew. But when you become an adult, you start to realize that they don’t know everything, and often times because they are ‘experts’ they have to make things up, or at least make educated guesses. People demand answers from them. But they are guesses. It’s a scary thing – growing up and coming to understand just how often the people in charge are simply guessing and then trying to obfuscate their lack of knowledge and lack of success to maintain their status. The supremely confident ones like Fauci achieve great success – the honest and humble ones struggle. I think many people continue with this child like naivety for life because its too scary to comprehend how little our beloved experts actually know and how powerless they are when nature unleashes havoc on us. Perhaps we’ve come a long way from the days of throwing human sacrifices into the volcano to appease the gods. Or perhaps we just think we have. But the post-covid excess deaths to me are simply human sacrifices forced on us by our modern witch doctors.
I’m always quite sceptical when I read articles based on polling younger people. Younger people tend to have very low response rates to surveys and those who do answer, tend to heavily skew middle class and left wing, their support is probably no deeper than, “if groups I perceived as right wing oppose lockdown, then I support it.”
We’ve seen over the past few years that polling companies are very bad at modelling the views of demographics which have low response rates to their surveys. Think of the surprise that greeted Brexit and Trumps election. Trying to extrapolate the views of large sections of society based on very little data rarely gives good results.
Agreed. If a majority of Gen-Zers think lockdown was a good thing the next step should be to do some research find out why. Instead we have the usual round of speculation which these opinion polls always provoke. Most of this is predictable. Commentators trot out their pet tropes about young people, lockdowns and (God spare us!) the rights and wrongs of vaccination.
Yes indeed, and let the funding for this proposed research come from those who championed the lockdowns etc in the first place.
This research will no doubt uncover the fact that young lockdown supporters. . . are more “caring”! About the “climate”, “equity”, “health” and “safety”! Praises be!
Yes indeed, and let the funding for this proposed research come from those who championed the lockdowns etc in the first place.
This research will no doubt uncover the fact that young lockdown supporters. . . are more “caring”! About the “climate”, “equity”, “health” and “safety”! Praises be!
Agreed, and you also need to look at the actual question(s) asked and the surrounding context … most of these UnHerd polls have oddly negative questions that worry me.
and if you look at the results I don’t think they carry the weight of the conclusions being drawn. The marginal difference between the response at different age groups is so small it doesn’t justify the article.
I agree with your assessment of polls, but the results go way beyond polling error. Lockdowns crushed young people. Support for them should be closer to O% for 18-24 year olds.
0% is Way too soft!
They should be in the streets demanding Nuremberg trials, the building of Super-max Prisons to house the tens of thousands who deserve to spend their life in them…..A set of laws which take all wealth from thode who gave the vax – and give it to any who paid a cost, like loss of a business, education, freedom, work, social life. Every GP, teacher, Police officer, and on up should be bankrupt and destitute compensating those they harmed!
0% is Way too soft!
They should be in the streets demanding Nuremberg trials, the building of Super-max Prisons to house the tens of thousands who deserve to spend their life in them…..A set of laws which take all wealth from thode who gave the vax – and give it to any who paid a cost, like loss of a business, education, freedom, work, social life. Every GP, teacher, Police officer, and on up should be bankrupt and destitute compensating those they harmed!
Agreed. If a majority of Gen-Zers think lockdown was a good thing the next step should be to do some research find out why. Instead we have the usual round of speculation which these opinion polls always provoke. Most of this is predictable. Commentators trot out their pet tropes about young people, lockdowns and (God spare us!) the rights and wrongs of vaccination.
Agreed, and you also need to look at the actual question(s) asked and the surrounding context … most of these UnHerd polls have oddly negative questions that worry me.
and if you look at the results I don’t think they carry the weight of the conclusions being drawn. The marginal difference between the response at different age groups is so small it doesn’t justify the article.
I agree with your assessment of polls, but the results go way beyond polling error. Lockdowns crushed young people. Support for them should be closer to O% for 18-24 year olds.
I’m always quite sceptical when I read articles based on polling younger people. Younger people tend to have very low response rates to surveys and those who do answer, tend to heavily skew middle class and left wing, their support is probably no deeper than, “if groups I perceived as right wing oppose lockdown, then I support it.”
We’ve seen over the past few years that polling companies are very bad at modelling the views of demographics which have low response rates to their surveys. Think of the surprise that greeted Brexit and Trumps election. Trying to extrapolate the views of large sections of society based on very little data rarely gives good results.
Groupthink. Young people, and a discouragingly high percentage of UK residents are “safetyists”. Their highest social goal is to remain “safe”. ( We could call this the Chamberlain Effect. ) And, they seem to tend to believe government authorities uncritically. They are still voluntarily wearing masks, because science is of no interest to them.
Of course, there are legitimate public health arguments that can be made for quarantines and other restrictive measures imposed by fiat during a pandemic, and some of these poll respondents may be able to articulate them. Fine. But as Jonathan Swift said,
“IT IS USELESS TO ATTEMPT TO REASON A MAN OUT OF A THING HE WAS NEVER REASONED INTO.”
I would suppose that most people in the “support lockdowns” and non-stop maskers category are described by that quote. This we might call The Lemming Factor.
Then there are the obvious sub-factors that attach to this perspective: some people were far less affected financially by the lockdowns, and some will look for any and every opportunity to virtue-signal. It’s a moral superiority thing. This we might call the extreme Left.
“They are still voluntarily wearing masks, because science is of no interest to them.”
Continuity maskurbators are really, really weird.
Indeed. I work in The Blob and there’s still people masking up all day in the office. All under the age of 30.
Indeed. I work in The Blob and there’s still people masking up all day in the office. All under the age of 30.
“They are still voluntarily wearing masks, because science is of no interest to them.”
Continuity maskurbators are really, really weird.
Groupthink. Young people, and a discouragingly high percentage of UK residents are “safetyists”. Their highest social goal is to remain “safe”. ( We could call this the Chamberlain Effect. ) And, they seem to tend to believe government authorities uncritically. They are still voluntarily wearing masks, because science is of no interest to them.
Of course, there are legitimate public health arguments that can be made for quarantines and other restrictive measures imposed by fiat during a pandemic, and some of these poll respondents may be able to articulate them. Fine. But as Jonathan Swift said,
“IT IS USELESS TO ATTEMPT TO REASON A MAN OUT OF A THING HE WAS NEVER REASONED INTO.”
I would suppose that most people in the “support lockdowns” and non-stop maskers category are described by that quote. This we might call The Lemming Factor.
Then there are the obvious sub-factors that attach to this perspective: some people were far less affected financially by the lockdowns, and some will look for any and every opportunity to virtue-signal. It’s a moral superiority thing. This we might call the extreme Left.
Whenever there is a Swedish election, there is a mock election of the Swedish youth — those in high school, too young to vote in the real thing. The Swedish youth voted right wing, same as the rest of the country, except more so. see: https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2022/09/15/the-kids-are-all-right-swedish-youth-swing-right-as-populists-make-gains-at-ballot-box/ (the only reporting of this I could find in English).
They apparantly think that _their_ school closures were a mistake, and the socialist government mishandled the crisis. They are also going to church more.
Whenever there is a Swedish election, there is a mock election of the Swedish youth — those in high school, too young to vote in the real thing. The Swedish youth voted right wing, same as the rest of the country, except more so. see: https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2022/09/15/the-kids-are-all-right-swedish-youth-swing-right-as-populists-make-gains-at-ballot-box/ (the only reporting of this I could find in English).
They apparantly think that _their_ school closures were a mistake, and the socialist government mishandled the crisis. They are also going to church more.
Could it be that young people are just getting stupider? The education system has seemingly collapsed – more like a job creation program for marginal university students than institutions of learning. They no longer need basic math skills. All the answers to their questions are right there in their phone.
Thank you for daring to suggest this.
Oh dear, they all voted the wrong way so therefore must be stupid. This is what happens Unherd publishes one article after the other saying the same thing. Echo, echo, echo.
Why not debate the point made?
It’s easier to be a troll.
See my comments further down.
It’s easier to be a troll.
See my comments further down.
Why not debate the point made?
Thank you for daring to suggest this.
Oh dear, they all voted the wrong way so therefore must be stupid. This is what happens Unherd publishes one article after the other saying the same thing. Echo, echo, echo.
Could it be that young people are just getting stupider? The education system has seemingly collapsed – more like a job creation program for marginal university students than institutions of learning. They no longer need basic math skills. All the answers to their questions are right there in their phone.
I don’t necessarily think that a lack of faith in democracy as it is currently inherently signals a great turn to authoritarianism, and I actually think that it’s pretty understandable to be sceptical of the current democratic system, and possible to be sceptical of it from a democratic instead an authoritarian point of view. I believe that this is what we’re seeing here when younger people say they “don’t trust democracy” or “democracy is failing”. It’s not that they are against democracy as a concept and principle, in fact they even want more democracy, they just believe the current system needs heavy reform in order to work better. I honestly can sympathise with this, and it’s not the scary authoritarian streak that a lot of people make it out to be. Yes, I would say that Gen-Z and Millennials do tend to lean more authoritarian than older generations on certain issues, especially when it comes to freedom of speech, but for someone to be distrusting of democracy as it exists does not necessarily mean that they wish to reduce or to get rid of democracy.
This country is governed (badly) by quite a small cabal of London-based Oxford graduates who control both political parties, the Civil Service and the media – and yet we persist in describing it as a democracy. Why?
This country is governed (badly) by quite a small cabal of London-based Oxford graduates who control both political parties, the Civil Service and the media – and yet we persist in describing it as a democracy. Why?
I don’t necessarily think that a lack of faith in democracy as it is currently inherently signals a great turn to authoritarianism, and I actually think that it’s pretty understandable to be sceptical of the current democratic system, and possible to be sceptical of it from a democratic instead an authoritarian point of view. I believe that this is what we’re seeing here when younger people say they “don’t trust democracy” or “democracy is failing”. It’s not that they are against democracy as a concept and principle, in fact they even want more democracy, they just believe the current system needs heavy reform in order to work better. I honestly can sympathise with this, and it’s not the scary authoritarian streak that a lot of people make it out to be. Yes, I would say that Gen-Z and Millennials do tend to lean more authoritarian than older generations on certain issues, especially when it comes to freedom of speech, but for someone to be distrusting of democracy as it exists does not necessarily mean that they wish to reduce or to get rid of democracy.
A lot of them have been over-mothered
Or under-fathered.
Or under-fathered.
A lot of them have been over-mothered
I think readers here would be shocked at how uninformed people are. I asked a friend of mine – the most informed person I know – about excess deaths and how it relates to Covid lockdowns, and he had no idea. He understood the concept, but didn’t know it was even a talking point when it comes to Covid.
I think readers here would be shocked at how uninformed people are. I asked a friend of mine – the most informed person I know – about excess deaths and how it relates to Covid lockdowns, and he had no idea. He understood the concept, but didn’t know it was even a talking point when it comes to Covid.
“Why do young people still support lockdowns?”
At least some of them probably wish to put off engaging with the world of jobs and adult responsibilities – there is probably some truth in the view that it is tough to get started when you are young.
Similarly may young people may have seized the opportunity to delay engaging in the adult world by going to University. Although University often provides a test bed for adult behavious…
Then there’s the gap year (between what?) before they’ve even started earning money. “Head in the clouds” lifestyle.
I had a gap-6months in which a close friend persuaded me to go travelling in Australia. I would never have done it if he hadn’t badgered me about it constantly, and it is one of the best decisions-sort-of-made-for-me that I’ve ever gone with.
And although as you say “between what?” – yes, it’s not a sabbatical because at that age you haven’t actually done anything yet – my trying to sell paintings door-to-door in Sydney and learning how to serve drinks behind a bar in Melbourne were forms of experience that have been repeatedly useful in later life in numerous small ways.
I took a five-year gap between school and college to do bar work in Amsterdam. It was perhaps the best five years of my life. I’d say it did me a lot of good, because by then I had divested myself from a lot of silly childhood notions I had growing up. Admittedly I was staving off adulthood too, but you can only do that for so long.
Between A levels and university. My daughter spent a happy 3 months gadding about in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe with her boyfriend. It seemed to me like a perfectly good way for an 18 year old to begin to achieve a measure of independence.
Gap year belongs in the past, when we still had the right to work in the EU.
I had a gap-6months in which a close friend persuaded me to go travelling in Australia. I would never have done it if he hadn’t badgered me about it constantly, and it is one of the best decisions-sort-of-made-for-me that I’ve ever gone with.
And although as you say “between what?” – yes, it’s not a sabbatical because at that age you haven’t actually done anything yet – my trying to sell paintings door-to-door in Sydney and learning how to serve drinks behind a bar in Melbourne were forms of experience that have been repeatedly useful in later life in numerous small ways.
I took a five-year gap between school and college to do bar work in Amsterdam. It was perhaps the best five years of my life. I’d say it did me a lot of good, because by then I had divested myself from a lot of silly childhood notions I had growing up. Admittedly I was staving off adulthood too, but you can only do that for so long.
Between A levels and university. My daughter spent a happy 3 months gadding about in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe with her boyfriend. It seemed to me like a perfectly good way for an 18 year old to begin to achieve a measure of independence.
Gap year belongs in the past, when we still had the right to work in the EU.
Then there’s the gap year (between what?) before they’ve even started earning money. “Head in the clouds” lifestyle.
“Why do young people still support lockdowns?”
At least some of them probably wish to put off engaging with the world of jobs and adult responsibilities – there is probably some truth in the view that it is tough to get started when you are young.
Similarly may young people may have seized the opportunity to delay engaging in the adult world by going to University. Although University often provides a test bed for adult behavious…
I thought that that was what Sweden did.
COVID would probably have spread anyway. The government can’t keep drugs out of prisons, so the idea they could control an invisible bug is risible. Remember the people crammed into Tube trains for weeks after Boris begged us all to stay at home? So many people had to move around to keep the country alive.
COVID would probably have spread anyway. The government can’t keep drugs out of prisons, so the idea they could control an invisible bug is risible. Remember the people crammed into Tube trains for weeks after Boris begged us all to stay at home? So many people had to move around to keep the country alive.
I thought that that was what Sweden did.
Are you more prone to authoritarian politics when young is but one question the Author poses? Possibly some are. I always remember how many seemed attracted to far left SWP, Trotskyite groupings when I first went on to HE and how the Leninist stream of thinking percolated. All seems rather silly now, esp has most of the SWP adherents I knew ended up in the City.
So do ‘most’ grow out of it and we should not forget our own development when younger?
I’d also add that the random selection of youngsters I know generally favoured Lockdowns because they cared about the risk to family members and others. Of course when a few alcoholic drinks had been imbibed behaviour became temporary myopic, but when sober one felt the general attitude v creditable. (Separate issue whether lockdowns were necessary and debated elsewhere)
I suspect that’s as close to the true picture as anything i’ve read.
Yes, it is a nice thought that those youngsters made such sacrifices for the well-being of their families. (Nevermind where they got the idea that young people and their healthy relatives were “at risk” of anything.) How nice to know they “cared”; how befitting to be praised for “caring.”
Allow me to complete the picture.
Privately, so many young people knew it was a sham. But what could they do? Their parents paid for education and housing. They couldn’t enter campus buildings without proof of the China flu shot. They knew that if they were caught on camera without a mask, they could ruin their career and social prospects. Others told me in so many words, they’d be viewed as a Republican if they rejected any of the “pandemic” hysteria.
It is similar to DEI: are students more “woke”? Maybe some–the ones who “care” no doubt.
But most are rolling their eyes. They just can’t speak up because then they’ll get a failing grade and be made to wear the scarlet letter as a racist etc, and then mommy and daddy will cancel the credit card.
Far from “completing the picture” you’ve simply taken one element of the comment (by j watson) and chosen to critique it.
Far from “completing the picture” you’ve simply taken one element of the comment (by j watson) and chosen to critique it.
Yes, it is a nice thought that those youngsters made such sacrifices for the well-being of their families. (Nevermind where they got the idea that young people and their healthy relatives were “at risk” of anything.) How nice to know they “cared”; how befitting to be praised for “caring.”
Allow me to complete the picture.
Privately, so many young people knew it was a sham. But what could they do? Their parents paid for education and housing. They couldn’t enter campus buildings without proof of the China flu shot. They knew that if they were caught on camera without a mask, they could ruin their career and social prospects. Others told me in so many words, they’d be viewed as a Republican if they rejected any of the “pandemic” hysteria.
It is similar to DEI: are students more “woke”? Maybe some–the ones who “care” no doubt.
But most are rolling their eyes. They just can’t speak up because then they’ll get a failing grade and be made to wear the scarlet letter as a racist etc, and then mommy and daddy will cancel the credit card.
It is pure Stockholm syndrome. They have learned to love their abusers.
I suspect that’s as close to the true picture as anything i’ve read.
It is pure Stockholm syndrome. They have learned to love their abusers.
Are you more prone to authoritarian politics when young is but one question the Author poses? Possibly some are. I always remember how many seemed attracted to far left SWP, Trotskyite groupings when I first went on to HE and how the Leninist stream of thinking percolated. All seems rather silly now, esp has most of the SWP adherents I knew ended up in the City.
So do ‘most’ grow out of it and we should not forget our own development when younger?
I’d also add that the random selection of youngsters I know generally favoured Lockdowns because they cared about the risk to family members and others. Of course when a few alcoholic drinks had been imbibed behaviour became temporary myopic, but when sober one felt the general attitude v creditable. (Separate issue whether lockdowns were necessary and debated elsewhere)
Firstly as a Millennial who qualifies for the 25-34 bracket (albeit at the older end), I’m actually quite proud of my generation on this matter.
It’s interesting that we would be more sceptical than those in the age group beneath us who had their best years stolen, but I can’t think off the top of my head why. It could just be mistrust of the government, but I do also think that Gen Z prioritises equality while Millennials I think are more likely to prefer freedom over enforcing strict measures on the population during a relative crisis. I appreciate I’m going off on a tangent, but it’s something I find interesting.
40% of your creepy generation thought this crime against humanity was fine! At least Post WWII almost all Germans and Italians realized what evil they had tolerated.
The outcome of the plandemic will be on a WW scale after all is done and finished.
Are you seriously comparing lockdowns to the Holocaust? You need help, mate.
How on earth do you get that comparison with his post? He mentioned WWII, the one where Germany set out to take over all of Europe, where 75 million people lost their lives, about 3% of the world’s population. One of the few times his use of “evil” was appropriate.
How on earth do you get that comparison with his post? He mentioned WWII, the one where Germany set out to take over all of Europe, where 75 million people lost their lives, about 3% of the world’s population. One of the few times his use of “evil” was appropriate.
Are you seriously comparing lockdowns to the Holocaust? You need help, mate.
What was “equal” about the effects of the cessation of economic, spiritual and physical activity? What did the cohort supposedly concerned with “equality” make of public school closures that had grave consequences for the underclass, while turning school into a vacation for everyone else?
I guess some are more equal than others!
Cannot believe his comment got so many upticks. This was never about equality.
Cannot believe his comment got so many upticks. This was never about equality.
40% of your creepy generation thought this crime against humanity was fine! At least Post WWII almost all Germans and Italians realized what evil they had tolerated.
The outcome of the plandemic will be on a WW scale after all is done and finished.
What was “equal” about the effects of the cessation of economic, spiritual and physical activity? What did the cohort supposedly concerned with “equality” make of public school closures that had grave consequences for the underclass, while turning school into a vacation for everyone else?
I guess some are more equal than others!
Firstly as a Millennial who qualifies for the 25-34 bracket (albeit at the older end), I’m actually quite proud of my generation on this matter.
It’s interesting that we would be more sceptical than those in the age group beneath us who had their best years stolen, but I can’t think off the top of my head why. It could just be mistrust of the government, but I do also think that Gen Z prioritises equality while Millennials I think are more likely to prefer freedom over enforcing strict measures on the population during a relative crisis. I appreciate I’m going off on a tangent, but it’s something I find interesting.
The question should have been in two parts …
a) Was the 1st lockdown a mistake ?
b) Were the 2nd and 3rd lockdowns a mistake ?
I suspect lockdown 1 would would be nearly unanimously supported, and subsequent ones far less – especially for those (very?) few who were taking the time to see what approaches were being taken in other countries.
The question should have been in two parts …
a) Was the 1st lockdown a mistake ?
b) Were the 2nd and 3rd lockdowns a mistake ?
I suspect lockdown 1 would would be nearly unanimously supported, and subsequent ones far less – especially for those (very?) few who were taking the time to see what approaches were being taken in other countries.
Because lockdowns were hammered into them by those older and more powerful than them.
It’s easy for them to go on climate strikes, because the leftist establishment supports this. Much harder to rebel agaondt the leftist eatablishment that wanted harder lockdowns for longer.
For the young to oppose lockdowns, they would have to believe that the one thing government told them to do was untrue. It also meant lots of time away from others, lots of time online and lots of Netflix.
The younguns also don’t like heterodox opinions. Being anti-lockdown is heterodox.
Because lockdowns were hammered into them by those older and more powerful than them.
It’s easy for them to go on climate strikes, because the leftist establishment supports this. Much harder to rebel agaondt the leftist eatablishment that wanted harder lockdowns for longer.
For the young to oppose lockdowns, they would have to believe that the one thing government told them to do was untrue. It also meant lots of time away from others, lots of time online and lots of Netflix.
The younguns also don’t like heterodox opinions. Being anti-lockdown is heterodox.
It’s because state education teaches them to put all their faith in government and accept unquestioningly the decisions not so much of politicians but of institutional elites. Throughout the pandemic it was my younger relatives who were most shocked by my cynicism regarding the so-called experts of SAGE.
It’s because state education teaches them to put all their faith in government and accept unquestioningly the decisions not so much of politicians but of institutional elites. Throughout the pandemic it was my younger relatives who were most shocked by my cynicism regarding the so-called experts of SAGE.
“54% of people in the UK do not think” .. well, about 70% of people in the USA don’t think either. Britain is actually doing better than us in that respect.
I always saw masks and shots and those that embraced them as willingy herded, cud-munching dupes who happily went along with whatever their friends, family, social media circle(s) told them to do. Independent thinking, doing their own research, having a stray, unapproved thought? Nah. Too much trouble. And possibly dangerous.
I love the term “misinformation”, which in times past was something called “a different opinion”. Wouldn’t want these weak minds to encounter anything that challenged their singular narrative, right? A conservative judge – invited to speak there no less – shouted down, insulted, disrespected, and led from the building under police protection. Such was the case recently at Stanford University Law School, supposedly the crème de la crème of all the bastions of budding legal minds. And hearing informed opinions different from their own sends them into a blind rage?
I just wonder .. is this our future? Pudgy automatons, addicted to bad food and no exercise, happily marching to the drumbeat of the same groupthink, willing to demonize and ostracize (or utterly rip apart) anyone who challenges the Paradigm? If so it will prove that Orwell was sadly and shockingly pretty much right on about everything.
“54% of people in the UK do not think” .. well, about 70% of people in the USA don’t think either. Britain is actually doing better than us in that respect.
I always saw masks and shots and those that embraced them as willingy herded, cud-munching dupes who happily went along with whatever their friends, family, social media circle(s) told them to do. Independent thinking, doing their own research, having a stray, unapproved thought? Nah. Too much trouble. And possibly dangerous.
I love the term “misinformation”, which in times past was something called “a different opinion”. Wouldn’t want these weak minds to encounter anything that challenged their singular narrative, right? A conservative judge – invited to speak there no less – shouted down, insulted, disrespected, and led from the building under police protection. Such was the case recently at Stanford University Law School, supposedly the crème de la crème of all the bastions of budding legal minds. And hearing informed opinions different from their own sends them into a blind rage?
I just wonder .. is this our future? Pudgy automatons, addicted to bad food and no exercise, happily marching to the drumbeat of the same groupthink, willing to demonize and ostracize (or utterly rip apart) anyone who challenges the Paradigm? If so it will prove that Orwell was sadly and shockingly pretty much right on about everything.
“As liberal democracies increasingly fail to deliver the promise of greater opportunity and prosperity…Youth support for lockdowns may also be attributed to a worrying reliance on the Government to solve all of their problems….And in a world where members of Gen Z have never known anything but the formal bureaucratic controls of modern liberal democracies, can we really be surprised by their lack of faith in the informal controls of civic duty…For many young people today, personal civic duty is an empty concept. Safety and common standards can only be upheld by the state.”
I don’t follow these, seemingly contradictory, statements.
In essence he’s saying that youngsters have never known anything other than the bureaucratic controls of liberal democracies, but notwithstanding the failure of these same bureaucracies to deliver, youngsters look to the state to solve all (sic) their problems.
I could understand it if the author argued that because youngsters feel they’ve been let down by successive governments that have sold them the dream of rewarding careers following a university degree but just saddled them with student debt and little prospect of affording a home of their own, they’ve lost faith in liberal bureaucracies and just want to be furloughed by the state. But he doesn’t.
The author does well to describe the Gen Z psyche as confused.
“As liberal democracies increasingly fail to deliver the promise of greater opportunity and prosperity…Youth support for lockdowns may also be attributed to a worrying reliance on the Government to solve all of their problems….And in a world where members of Gen Z have never known anything but the formal bureaucratic controls of modern liberal democracies, can we really be surprised by their lack of faith in the informal controls of civic duty…For many young people today, personal civic duty is an empty concept. Safety and common standards can only be upheld by the state.”
I don’t follow these, seemingly contradictory, statements.
In essence he’s saying that youngsters have never known anything other than the bureaucratic controls of liberal democracies, but notwithstanding the failure of these same bureaucracies to deliver, youngsters look to the state to solve all (sic) their problems.
I could understand it if the author argued that because youngsters feel they’ve been let down by successive governments that have sold them the dream of rewarding careers following a university degree but just saddled them with student debt and little prospect of affording a home of their own, they’ve lost faith in liberal bureaucracies and just want to be furloughed by the state. But he doesn’t.
The author does well to describe the Gen Z psyche as confused.
The difference between the way Western democracies are currently run in practice and full-blown technocracy (top-down rule by expert bureaucrats) is not that big. So for young voters dissatisfied with the outcomes of “democracy” to move in the direction of more authoritarian rule is a small step, not a revolutionary one. What they see as “democracy” is really a failed form of deep state rule thinly disguised by elections which have virtually no legitimating effect. By dispensing with elections, they are merely going to codify and perpetuate expert rule. In this they will be applauded and encouraged by the major supranational institutions running Western economies. These were all built on a strong post WW2 suspicion of democratic processes and are therefore all anti-democratic. The young have absorbed this attitude via elite cultural osmosis. When their wishes have been granted by politicians eager for even more unaccountable power, they will unfortunately find out that their ability to influence policy will be even less than it is today. They will find out that they have allied themselves inextricably to Leviathan.
The difference between the way Western democracies are currently run in practice and full-blown technocracy (top-down rule by expert bureaucrats) is not that big. So for young voters dissatisfied with the outcomes of “democracy” to move in the direction of more authoritarian rule is a small step, not a revolutionary one. What they see as “democracy” is really a failed form of deep state rule thinly disguised by elections which have virtually no legitimating effect. By dispensing with elections, they are merely going to codify and perpetuate expert rule. In this they will be applauded and encouraged by the major supranational institutions running Western economies. These were all built on a strong post WW2 suspicion of democratic processes and are therefore all anti-democratic. The young have absorbed this attitude via elite cultural osmosis. When their wishes have been granted by politicians eager for even more unaccountable power, they will unfortunately find out that their ability to influence policy will be even less than it is today. They will find out that they have allied themselves inextricably to Leviathan.
Why? Because they are idealistic, suggestible children. Some of them will grow up, thankfully.
Why? Because they are idealistic, suggestible children. Some of them will grow up, thankfully.
As so beautifully and accurately predicted by Eric Blair in 1984, the age group concerned is mesmerised by their prolescreen and big brothers word, aka the internet, and ” soshul meeja” now with algorithms that will reinforce the dystopian ” truth message”. Their craving for belonging and membership of something is a quasi religious substitute, and as such they are mere fish in a barrell for the manipulative.
As so beautifully and accurately predicted by Eric Blair in 1984, the age group concerned is mesmerised by their prolescreen and big brothers word, aka the internet, and ” soshul meeja” now with algorithms that will reinforce the dystopian ” truth message”. Their craving for belonging and membership of something is a quasi religious substitute, and as such they are mere fish in a barrell for the manipulative.
Young people are just young sheep.
Young people are just young sheep.
Don’t forget that they were paid to stay at home. They could sleep-in and spend their days on social media or Netflix with a walk out once a day to meet their friends.
Sceptical perhaps, but not without foundation..
Don’t forget that they were paid to stay at home. They could sleep-in and spend their days on social media or Netflix with a walk out once a day to meet their friends.
Sceptical perhaps, but not without foundation..
If 18-24yo’s support lockdown it’s probably because most of them don’t pay tax.
If 18-24yo’s support lockdown it’s probably because most of them don’t pay tax.
Simple – because they enjoyed them. The real lack of freedom is not a so-called lockdown, but the drudgery and control-freakery nonsense commuting that is inflicted on so many people. Travelling miles to switch on a computer in an open-plan office full of people chattering and stealth-vaping. Just so some self-important t**t of a manager can lord it over you. People rightly see the silliness and the waste of commuting and offices, and were delighted to get a break from all that nonsense.
Simple – because they enjoyed them. The real lack of freedom is not a so-called lockdown, but the drudgery and control-freakery nonsense commuting that is inflicted on so many people. Travelling miles to switch on a computer in an open-plan office full of people chattering and stealth-vaping. Just so some self-important t**t of a manager can lord it over you. People rightly see the silliness and the waste of commuting and offices, and were delighted to get a break from all that nonsense.
This has nothing to do with democracy – it is a living example of the Solomon Asch experiment in 1952 in social conformity – the group versus the individual.
When Profs. Bhattacharya (Stamford) and Kulldorff (Harvard) were here in London via UnHerd in ’21, I asked them both if the lockdowns were an exemplar of this experiment. They both agreed. The fact that this ‘survey’, whose efficacy I doubt, deals with the age groups it does in no way diminshes or could be considered a reappraisal of the experiment.
This has nothing to do with democracy – it is a living example of the Solomon Asch experiment in 1952 in social conformity – the group versus the individual.
When Profs. Bhattacharya (Stamford) and Kulldorff (Harvard) were here in London via UnHerd in ’21, I asked them both if the lockdowns were an exemplar of this experiment. They both agreed. The fact that this ‘survey’, whose efficacy I doubt, deals with the age groups it does in no way diminshes or could be considered a reappraisal of the experiment.
Why are we dwelling on the this when we should be asking why our Government believes these mrna vaccines are good for its citizens. They will spend £Billions for what the Immunology experts say is no gain but potentially a lot of pain. Perhaps Unherd management should be looking into this with more vigour instead of following the MSM sheep
Why do young people support lockdown?
Perhaps because ‘young people’ are not, and never were, a breed apart from their families, their schoolteachers and friends who were ‘clinically extremely vulnerable’ to respiratory diseases, Covid was a new one for which the mortality and complication rates were unknown and because, being young and not yet in, or new to, the workplace, young people are more in tune with people’s immediate health concerns than with anybody’s future economic welfare, including their own?
Why do young people support lockdown?
Perhaps because ‘young people’ are not, and never were, a breed apart from their families, their schoolteachers and friends who were ‘clinically extremely vulnerable’ to respiratory diseases, Covid was a new one for which the mortality and complication rates were unknown and because, being young and not yet in, or new to, the workplace, young people are more in tune with people’s immediate health concerns than with anybody’s future economic welfare, including their own?
Another lockdown article and another analysis of how utterly stupid the respondents were to dare to burst the bubble of sceptic bias.
It’s perhaps worth returning to the format of the question – it’s not that people supported lockdown or thought it was a ‘great idea’. They don’t see it as a mistake however since it was a necessary evil to protect the vulnerable – a caring response for one’s fellow humans, despite the sacrifices. The analysis doesn’t need to go any deeper than that.
If the aim was to protec the vulnerable, we’d have taken measures that did that while allowing everyone else to go about their lives.
It always sounds like such a sensible and reasonable theory, the reality of locking down a large section of the population is far more complex however, which is why no one did it.
It always sounds like such a sensible and reasonable theory, the reality of locking down a large section of the population is far more complex however, which is why no one did it.
Of course, it did absolutely no good, as all comparative statistics show. Sweden had zero lockdowns, and had the fewest excess deaths in Europe. Texas, and Florida ended lockdowns very early, and had fewer death than New York, California, and the other leftist states that kept draconian lockdowns.
Nothing worked to stop COVID, except the vaccines, which worked for a while, but now seem very ineffective.
If the aim was to protec the vulnerable, we’d have taken measures that did that while allowing everyone else to go about their lives.
Of course, it did absolutely no good, as all comparative statistics show. Sweden had zero lockdowns, and had the fewest excess deaths in Europe. Texas, and Florida ended lockdowns very early, and had fewer death than New York, California, and the other leftist states that kept draconian lockdowns.
Nothing worked to stop COVID, except the vaccines, which worked for a while, but now seem very ineffective.
Another lockdown article and another analysis of how utterly stupid the respondents were to dare to burst the bubble of sceptic bias.
It’s perhaps worth returning to the format of the question – it’s not that people supported lockdown or thought it was a ‘great idea’. They don’t see it as a mistake however since it was a necessary evil to protect the vulnerable – a caring response for one’s fellow humans, despite the sacrifices. The analysis doesn’t need to go any deeper than that.
There is a very good reason to accept lockdown policy: it was a reasonable and necessary attempt to protect people’s lives – and it could only be done collectively. Leaving it to individual choice without expliicit rules people were not going to stay home from the pub just because it might cause someone they do not know to get sick. MM blames authoritarian tendencies much like a deeply religious person who thinks that no matter which problem you are looking at, it was caused by people turning away from God.
Whether the lockdowns were the best policy in complete hindsight is a different discussion altogether.
Your argument doesn’t hold for Sweden where individual choice based on sensible guidelines was the adopted approach. It worked fine being able to go out unhindered, shopping, playing golf, other exercising. It was the best policy, no hindsight needed, we knew it at the time, especially comparing to my home country which I couldn’t visit for two years thanks to the insane woman in charge.
It worked for Sweden if conveniently ignoring all the people that died from covid needlessly.
Finland 8,967
Denmark 8,316
Norway 5,230
Sweden 23,777
Sweden – lowest number of excess deaths in the West apparently (2020-2022)
Robbie has been told about excess deaths. He doesn’t buy into it, for reasons he has not explained.
It seems obvious there’s a big black hole in the suggestion that Sweden chose the correct policy on the basis of excess deaths, when they had 3 or 4 times as many covid deaths as comparable countries – it’s simply confirmation bias to ignore that disparity.
Lockdowns are the correct policy of course, if the goal is to only reduce Covid deaths. If the goal is to reduce overall deaths, lockdowns were not the correct policy.
Using just Covid deaths fails to account for the substantial impacts of lockdowns themselves – drug overdose deaths, suicides, missed surgery and other medical interventions. This doesn’t even address the economic, educational, social and mental health impacts of lockdowns.
To debunk the excess deaths argument you need to show that the numbers themselves are wrong, or that excess deaths in other countries would have happened anyway. I don’t think you have done that.
COVID deaths are uncertain evidence, because it is hard to be sure from the available statistics and different record-keeping practices exactly how many died of exactly what. Excess deaths are more reliable to count. But excess deaths are vulnerable to other things. Were deaths unusually high or low in the base year? Were there unusually high or low numbers of weak and vulnerable people likely to die of the next flu or COVID? What did those people actually die of, and what, if anything does it have to do with either COVID or lockdowns? What you need know is many excess deaths there would there have been under different policies, but that is impossible to measure. How many excess deaths would there have been in Britain, for instance, with a raging epidemic keeping people in isolation anyway, and the battered NHS reeling under the strain of unlimited COVID patients?
The overall numbers are not clear enough for you to claim that ‘lockdowns were not the correct policy’ and that it is up to the other side to prove you wrong. The jury is very much still out.
Excellent post. This was the kind of response I was looking for. My sense is excess deaths is the best measure, but it’s just another statistical technique. Simply comparing Covid deaths seems like a pretty blunt instrument. This is the type of discussion we should be seeing today.
Good that there is something we agree on 😉
Good that there is something we agree on 😉
Excellent post. This was the kind of response I was looking for. My sense is excess deaths is the best measure, but it’s just another statistical technique. Simply comparing Covid deaths seems like a pretty blunt instrument. This is the type of discussion we should be seeing today.
COVID deaths are uncertain evidence, because it is hard to be sure from the available statistics and different record-keeping practices exactly how many died of exactly what. Excess deaths are more reliable to count. But excess deaths are vulnerable to other things. Were deaths unusually high or low in the base year? Were there unusually high or low numbers of weak and vulnerable people likely to die of the next flu or COVID? What did those people actually die of, and what, if anything does it have to do with either COVID or lockdowns? What you need know is many excess deaths there would there have been under different policies, but that is impossible to measure. How many excess deaths would there have been in Britain, for instance, with a raging epidemic keeping people in isolation anyway, and the battered NHS reeling under the strain of unlimited COVID patients?
The overall numbers are not clear enough for you to claim that ‘lockdowns were not the correct policy’ and that it is up to the other side to prove you wrong. The jury is very much still out.
Lockdowns are the correct policy of course, if the goal is to only reduce Covid deaths. If the goal is to reduce overall deaths, lockdowns were not the correct policy.
Using just Covid deaths fails to account for the substantial impacts of lockdowns themselves – drug overdose deaths, suicides, missed surgery and other medical interventions. This doesn’t even address the economic, educational, social and mental health impacts of lockdowns.
To debunk the excess deaths argument you need to show that the numbers themselves are wrong, or that excess deaths in other countries would have happened anyway. I don’t think you have done that.
It seems obvious there’s a big black hole in the suggestion that Sweden chose the correct policy on the basis of excess deaths, when they had 3 or 4 times as many covid deaths as comparable countries – it’s simply confirmation bias to ignore that disparity.
Robbie has been told about excess deaths. He doesn’t buy into it, for reasons he has not explained.
There you go again Robbie – comparing apples and oranges.
Sweden – lowest number of excess deaths in the West apparently (2020-2022)
There you go again Robbie – comparing apples and oranges.
It worked for Sweden if conveniently ignoring all the people that died from covid needlessly.
Finland 8,967
Denmark 8,316
Norway 5,230
Sweden 23,777
The point is it wasn’t a reasonable response, there is and was no scientific justification for the policy, it’s never been tested before, it was against WHO guidelines until they magically changed.
there’s no evidence lock downs saved any lives, but we are sure as *** paying for it now with double digit inflation
Ain’t it the truth!
Ain’t it the truth!
“There is a very good reason to accept lockdown policy: it was a reasonable and necessary attempt”
Please explain what made it both “reasonable” and “necessary” to attempt such a thing. It’s as if you said on a battlefield, “We’re unsure of the enemy’s strength and number…so the most reasonable way forward is to use nuclear weapons.”
Lockdowns were, prior to 2020, merely a hypothetical way to approach something like a pandemic; a hypothesis, by the way, that wasn’t taken seriously by nearly anyone. So again I ask: on what basis was this the “reasonable” approach?
Lockdowns have actually been widely used in the past, especially during the plague. It’s a reflex response that makes perfect sense.
“Lockdowns have actually been widely used in the past, especially during the plague. It’s a reflex response that makes perfect sense.”
Nonsense.
Read and learn. Just one example of many.
https://www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/plague-black-death-quarantine-history-how-stop-spread/
Robbie, Robbie, Robbie. Surely, you don’t seriously argue that lockdowns during the medieval plagues is a good argument for lockdowns in 2020.
A response to Mr Wagner’s comments, but on reflection, sure, why not? People then were just as smart as we are today and they understood how the threat worked and how to mitigate it. Make a fascinating read tbh.
A response to Mr Wagner’s comments, but on reflection, sure, why not? People then were just as smart as we are today and they understood how the threat worked and how to mitigate it. Make a fascinating read tbh.
Robbie, Robbie, Robbie. Surely, you don’t seriously argue that lockdowns during the medieval plagues is a good argument for lockdowns in 2020.
Read and learn. Just one example of many.
https://www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/plague-black-death-quarantine-history-how-stop-spread/
“Lockdowns have actually been widely used in the past, especially during the plague. It’s a reflex response that makes perfect sense.”
Nonsense.
It is reasonable because the virus spreads though interpersonal contact, so recucing interpersonal contact is about the only way to reduce spread. At the least (as was said at the time) it should spread the pandemic over a longer period, preventing the health service from being overwhelmed, and giving time for the development of a vaccine. And it is necessary because the down side risk was millions of deaths, which is not something you just ignore to keep the economy running.
Your comparison to nuclear weapons is totally off the wall. Unpleasant as it may have been with a year of isolation and a large increase in debts, it has not brought the world as we know it to an end. Rather, yor side of the argument keeps coming back to ‘it is not tested’. Which is another way of saying ‘we cannot possibly do it because it has never been done before!. That is more like a military commander saying: ‘We cannot possibly use tanks (Western Front, 1917), or drones (Ukraine 2022), because their use in war has not been tested!.
Now this is where you lose me. You simply wave away the massive disruption caused by lockdowns and you ignore the clear messaging from the WHO prior to covid that lockdowns are not a viable policy option during a pandemic.
Do I really have to list the harms caused by lockdowns – to the children, to the mentally ill, to the social networks. The economic impact was devastating and is still unfolding, as we see with the real possibility of further bank failures.
To describe the lockdowns as “unpleasant for a year” is incredibly myopic. There are very, very few of us who don’t have a story to tell about the impact of lockdowns, both from a social and economic context. And this is nothing compared to what happened in third world countries.
The goal of Covid policy should not be saving the health care system. The goal of the policy should be preventing the most death and sickness, while causing the least disruption to social and economic systems. And even if you supported this argument early, after about six months we knew it no longer made sense.
My Come to Jesus moment was the protests and riots following the George Floydd death. When 1,500 public health professionals released a statement saying these mass gatherings were an acceptable exemption to lockdowns, I knew they weren’t serious. That Fauci did not denounce this letter was further confirmation of this.
The Great Barrington Declaration was released in October, 2020. By this time, we absolutely knew the virus targeted older people. We knew healthy people and the young were not a risk of the disease. Lockdowns after this period of time were completely unjustified.
Now this is where you lose me. I can’t believe that anyone, hand on heart, feels this was a better approach than the one we took (with all it’s faults).
I suggest it would have been a catastrophic bloodbath of epic proportions, and the world would have looked on and presented us as an example of how not do it.
So you would agree that “when 1,500 public health professionals released a statement saying these mass gatherings were an acceptable exemption to lockdowns…” they were advocating for a “catastrophic bloodbath”?
Well intentioned, but clearly they wrong.
Well intentioned, but clearly they wrong.
So you would agree that “when 1,500 public health professionals released a statement saying these mass gatherings were an acceptable exemption to lockdowns…” they were advocating for a “catastrophic bloodbath”?
Now this is where you lose me. I can’t believe that anyone, hand on heart, feels this was a better approach than the one we took (with all it’s faults).
I suggest it would have been a catastrophic bloodbath of epic proportions, and the world would have looked on and presented us as an example of how not do it.
Now this is where you lose me. You simply wave away the massive disruption caused by lockdowns and you ignore the clear messaging from the WHO prior to covid that lockdowns are not a viable policy option during a pandemic.
Do I really have to list the harms caused by lockdowns – to the children, to the mentally ill, to the social networks. The economic impact was devastating and is still unfolding, as we see with the real possibility of further bank failures.
To describe the lockdowns as “unpleasant for a year” is incredibly myopic. There are very, very few of us who don’t have a story to tell about the impact of lockdowns, both from a social and economic context. And this is nothing compared to what happened in third world countries.
The goal of Covid policy should not be saving the health care system. The goal of the policy should be preventing the most death and sickness, while causing the least disruption to social and economic systems. And even if you supported this argument early, after about six months we knew it no longer made sense.
My Come to Jesus moment was the protests and riots following the George Floydd death. When 1,500 public health professionals released a statement saying these mass gatherings were an acceptable exemption to lockdowns, I knew they weren’t serious. That Fauci did not denounce this letter was further confirmation of this.
The Great Barrington Declaration was released in October, 2020. By this time, we absolutely knew the virus targeted older people. We knew healthy people and the young were not a risk of the disease. Lockdowns after this period of time were completely unjustified.
Lockdowns have actually been widely used in the past, especially during the plague. It’s a reflex response that makes perfect sense.
It is reasonable because the virus spreads though interpersonal contact, so recucing interpersonal contact is about the only way to reduce spread. At the least (as was said at the time) it should spread the pandemic over a longer period, preventing the health service from being overwhelmed, and giving time for the development of a vaccine. And it is necessary because the down side risk was millions of deaths, which is not something you just ignore to keep the economy running.
Your comparison to nuclear weapons is totally off the wall. Unpleasant as it may have been with a year of isolation and a large increase in debts, it has not brought the world as we know it to an end. Rather, yor side of the argument keeps coming back to ‘it is not tested’. Which is another way of saying ‘we cannot possibly do it because it has never been done before!. That is more like a military commander saying: ‘We cannot possibly use tanks (Western Front, 1917), or drones (Ukraine 2022), because their use in war has not been tested!.
Your argument doesn’t hold for Sweden where individual choice based on sensible guidelines was the adopted approach. It worked fine being able to go out unhindered, shopping, playing golf, other exercising. It was the best policy, no hindsight needed, we knew it at the time, especially comparing to my home country which I couldn’t visit for two years thanks to the insane woman in charge.
The point is it wasn’t a reasonable response, there is and was no scientific justification for the policy, it’s never been tested before, it was against WHO guidelines until they magically changed.
there’s no evidence lock downs saved any lives, but we are sure as *** paying for it now with double digit inflation
“There is a very good reason to accept lockdown policy: it was a reasonable and necessary attempt”
Please explain what made it both “reasonable” and “necessary” to attempt such a thing. It’s as if you said on a battlefield, “We’re unsure of the enemy’s strength and number…so the most reasonable way forward is to use nuclear weapons.”
Lockdowns were, prior to 2020, merely a hypothetical way to approach something like a pandemic; a hypothesis, by the way, that wasn’t taken seriously by nearly anyone. So again I ask: on what basis was this the “reasonable” approach?
There is a very good reason to accept lockdown policy: it was a reasonable and necessary attempt to protect people’s lives – and it could only be done collectively. Leaving it to individual choice without expliicit rules people were not going to stay home from the pub just because it might cause someone they do not know to get sick. MM blames authoritarian tendencies much like a deeply religious person who thinks that no matter which problem you are looking at, it was caused by people turning away from God.
Whether the lockdowns were the best policy in complete hindsight is a different discussion altogether.