Clinamenic
Binary & Tweed
Fascist pluralismeveryone has their own personal definition of fascism and we should respect that
Fascist pluralismeveryone has their own personal definition of fascism and we should respect that
once its history everyone is free to change their mind and fight over the meaning of itQuite a few anti-lockdown articles now cropping up in The Guardian - not too long before the dinner-party set irrevocably changes their tune, as I predicted some 400 pages of thread ago.
Larry Eliot has been consistently sceptical but there was something else recently i readlink to these guardian articles?
thats not what theyre talking about thoughIf newer strains are generally less lethal, then there's less need for mandates and lockdowns. That's not backpedaling, it's paying attention to a changing situation.
Yeah I'm inclined to agree here, that the question of lockdowns now is contextually distinct from the question of lockdowns initially.If newer strains are generally less lethal, then there's less need for mandates and lockdowns. That's not backpedaling, it's paying attention to a changing situation.
These newspapers didn't even approach the risk:benefit calculation first time around, despite the concept of 'lockdown' being entirely novel.If newer strains are generally less lethal, then there's less need for mandates and lockdowns. That's not backpedaling, it's paying attention to a changing situation.
But that said, I also agree with @148 I.Q. Magical Thinker in that, when/if the prominent liberal outlets shift their arguments, we may see some hypocritical tide shifts in accordance.Yeah I'm inclined to agree here, that the question of lockdowns now is contextually distinct from the question of lockdowns initially.
![]()
Britain got it wrong on Covid: long lockdown did more harm than good, says scientist
A new book outlines the mistakes and missteps that made UK pandemic worsewww.theguardian.com
yeah but i agree with them in that it feels significantHold on, this is actually quite different from how it's been depicted. It's a review of his book, not a Guardian opinion piece. The review is devoted to explaining the beliefs that he spells out in the book.
yeah but i agree with them in that it feels significant