Lockdown has turned us back to superstition


4 responses to “Lockdown has turned us back to superstition”

  1. Mark Cardwell avatar
    Mark Cardwell

    You raise points which are important to consider, but they’re a minority view in the scientific community. I’d suggest it would be better to make that clear, and not simply dismiss the majority view as superstitious and unscientific.

    1. Hi Mark, what should one do if one believes the majority view of scientists become subject to groupthink based on some kind of superstition rather than solid evidence? A consensus is not the same as the truth – far from it. There have been many times in history where the majority consensus was wrong. Scientists are just as susceptible to social pressures as everyone else. It seems to me a lot of things e.g. masks (especially in restaurants), the 2m rule, and so on are based on pseudo-science rather than real-world data. It’s political rather than evidence-based.

      There are a number of eminent scientists and medical professionals (such as the authors and signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration), as well as many ‘ordinary’ academics, medics etc, who are deeply concerned about these measures. Some are afraid to speak out.

      Science only proceeds because people challenge the consensus. Science needs its heretics, its Galileos.

      I’m sorry if calling the consensus superstition and unscientific is offensive to you. But unless you can actually demonstrate where my points are wrong, I will continue to believe it.

  2. Mark Cardwell avatar
    Mark Cardwell

    As I said, it would be better to make it clear that you’re quoting minority positions. You reference a few papers as though they were definitively the final word, and then dismiss all contrary scientific views as essentially people making stuff up without evidence. I don’t think you’re giving your audience the full picture.

    I don’t disagree that the majority can be wrong, and that’s why I said the points you raise are important to consider.

    As a suggested programme, why not hunt down all the evidence on both sides, disclose the papers that are contrary to your position, and show us where they’re flawed?

    1. Hi Mark,

      I’d be happy to do that just as soon as all the people advocating restrictions are prepared to do the same! I haven’t seen any engagement at all with this kind of evidence. This is why I talked about superstition. If Sage and others had been engaging publicly with this, there would be no need for nobodies like me to put out videos on YouTube.

      The onus should be on Sage and others who want continuing restrictions to prove their effectiveness. I think there is abundant evidence that they are not effective.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related posts

Like this? Subscribe to my Substack.