The UK government's refusal to accept the Covid inquiry's findings on lockdowns has left many wondering why some people continue to cling to anti-vaxxer, climate change-denying and anti-public health ideologies. Boris Johnson's government was already notorious for its reckless behavior during the pandemic, with the Prime Minister himself taking a holiday while the country was bracing for an "overwhelmed" NHS.
In 1980s and 90s, newspapers like The Sunday Times promoted conspiracy theories about AIDS, further highlighting the right-wing media's long history of rejecting scientific evidence. Today, lockdown sceptics still peddle their fact-free ideology, claiming that interventions were too little, too late. This is despite research showing that countries with more stringent measures had lower mortality rates.
Polly Toynbee writes that the public needs to be reminded of the 23,000 lives lost due to Johnson's government's inaction during the pandemic. Sweden, often cited as a counterexample, saw fewer deaths per capita than the UK. The Norwegian study on lockdowns vs no lockdowns offers further insight into the effectiveness of such measures.
One can't help but wonder why people refuse to accept basic precautions that save lives, like vaccination and public health regulations. Johnson himself has been accused of being flippant about the pandemic, with comments suggesting he didn't take the virus seriously enough. The report on the Covid inquiry highlights the need for a balanced discussion on lockdowns' effectiveness in saving lives.
The £310-410 billion cost of lockdowns should also be weighed against the estimated 23,000 deaths. While some might argue that the benefits outweigh the costs, others point to the economic and social toll it took. Bereaved families clearly see the devastating impact of lockdown policies on their loved ones.
As the next pandemic approaches, serious thought is needed on trade-offs like keeping children out of school for extended periods or leaving vulnerable individuals to die alone. The right's emphasis on "freedom" over public health measures should not go unchecked. The inquiry's findings and ongoing discussions around the effectiveness of lockdowns serve as a reminder that science must be respected in times of crisis.
Lockdown sceptics continue to peddle their ideology, despite mounting evidence. Their rejection of scientific consensus has real-world consequences, like increased mortality rates. It is crucial for the public to critically assess the debate on lockdowns and consider the costs and benefits of such measures.
In 1980s and 90s, newspapers like The Sunday Times promoted conspiracy theories about AIDS, further highlighting the right-wing media's long history of rejecting scientific evidence. Today, lockdown sceptics still peddle their fact-free ideology, claiming that interventions were too little, too late. This is despite research showing that countries with more stringent measures had lower mortality rates.
Polly Toynbee writes that the public needs to be reminded of the 23,000 lives lost due to Johnson's government's inaction during the pandemic. Sweden, often cited as a counterexample, saw fewer deaths per capita than the UK. The Norwegian study on lockdowns vs no lockdowns offers further insight into the effectiveness of such measures.
One can't help but wonder why people refuse to accept basic precautions that save lives, like vaccination and public health regulations. Johnson himself has been accused of being flippant about the pandemic, with comments suggesting he didn't take the virus seriously enough. The report on the Covid inquiry highlights the need for a balanced discussion on lockdowns' effectiveness in saving lives.
The £310-410 billion cost of lockdowns should also be weighed against the estimated 23,000 deaths. While some might argue that the benefits outweigh the costs, others point to the economic and social toll it took. Bereaved families clearly see the devastating impact of lockdown policies on their loved ones.
As the next pandemic approaches, serious thought is needed on trade-offs like keeping children out of school for extended periods or leaving vulnerable individuals to die alone. The right's emphasis on "freedom" over public health measures should not go unchecked. The inquiry's findings and ongoing discussions around the effectiveness of lockdowns serve as a reminder that science must be respected in times of crisis.
Lockdown sceptics continue to peddle their ideology, despite mounting evidence. Their rejection of scientific consensus has real-world consequences, like increased mortality rates. It is crucial for the public to critically assess the debate on lockdowns and consider the costs and benefits of such measures.
I mean, what's going on with these people who refuse to accept reality? Like, they're stuck in this bubble where they think the lockdown was a total failure just because some people didn't die from COVID... but what about all those people who did die? 
23,000 lives lost is not something to be taken lightly. And it's not like lockdowns were the only thing that could've saved us - I mean, Sweden and Norway showed that stricter measures can actually make a difference.
The fact that lockdown sceptics keep peddling their anti-vaxxer ideology despite all the evidence is just mind-boggling.
It's not an easy question, but we need to start asking ourselves that if we want to move forward in a way that's actually responsible.
. Like, what's the point of all these conspiracy theories? We've got actual data now showing that lockdowns worked to save lives. And it's not like it was a one-size-fits-all solution or anything. But nope, people are still peddling their fact-free ideology 
. I mean, can't we just agree on basic precautions that save lives like vaccination and public health regulations? 
It's just so frustrating. The £310-410 billion cost of lockdowns should definitely be weighed against those 23,000 deaths... it's not like the benefits don't outweigh the costs or anything 
. We need to take a hard look at this debate and consider the real-world consequences of our actions 
.
how can people still be so anti-vaxx and climate change-denying? It's like they're intentionally ignoring the science 
. I remember reading about the AIDS conspiracy theories in old newspapers, it's like we've come full circle 
. And now with this Covid inquiry report, it's clear that lockdowns saved a lot of lives 
. The public needs to wake up and realize that sometimes you gotta make tough decisions for the greater good 
. Can't we just accept basic precautions like vaccination and public health regulations? It's not rocket science 
. The £310-410 billion cost of lockdowns might seem like a lot, but 23,000 deaths is a price too high to pay 
. Let's have a balanced discussion on this and respect the science 
. I mean, £310-410 billion spent on lockdowns and 23k lives lost - it's like, come on, can't we just agree that vaccination and public health measures save lives?! 
] UK gov't refusing to accept Covid inquiry's findings? 
] 23,000 lives lost due to inaction... that's some harsh math. 
] Can we just get vaccinated already?! [
] Sweden = 0 deaths per capita vs UK: who's right? 
despite all the evidence being right in front of them. And then there are the lockdown sceptics who claim that interventions were too little, too late... but what about all those studies showing that countries with stricter measures had lower mortality rates? 
I mean, come on, taking a holiday while the UK was bracing for an "overwhelmed" NHS? That's just reckless behavior at its finest. And now he's refusing to accept the findings of the Covid inquiry... what's going on here?
and newspapers like The Sunday Times peddling fact-free ideology back in the 80s and 90s. It's just so disheartening to see people still buying into it.
I'm not seeing them. And now with the next pandemic looming, it's more important than ever for us to be critical thinkers and respect the science.
. Sweden may have seen fewer deaths per capita, but we can't just dismiss their lockdowns as ineffective without considering other factors. And what about the economic and social toll of lockdowns? It's not all or nothing here.
. We need more critical thinking and less echo chambers when it comes to science and public health.
We can't just ignore the science anymore. It's time for us to take a hard look at what works and what doesn't, especially in times of crisis. Our lives might depend on it 
didnt he even take a holiday while the country was struggling? 
how can u be so flippant about ppl's lives?!?! Vaccination and public health regs rnt just about "freedom" its about NOT GETTING KILLED 
Sweden is a great example btw 
and no, lockdowns aren't a one-size-fits-all solution, but the data says that stricter measures can save lives. it's not about being "anti-public health", it's about making informed decisions based on evidence. 
. It's like we're reliving history or something. But what's even more frustrating is that lockdown sceptics are still peddling their ideology, despite all the research showing it's not effective 
. And Boris Johnson's government was already super reckless during the pandemic... taking holidays while the country was in chaos? 
What even is the deal with that?
.
. We need to make sure that lockdown sceptics aren't peddling their fact-free ideology anymore 
.
. The right's emphasis on "freedom" over public health is so misguided 
. Let's get our priorities straight and respect the science 
. We need to have serious conversations about trade-offs like keeping kids out of school for extended periods or leaving vulnerable individuals alone 
. We're heading into another pandemic soon – let's make sure we learn from this and do better next time 