That would only be true if she had uncovered these documents legitimately but even then the newspaper would be still be guilty of titillation by publishing selected extracts out of context.

She was given them in confidence, and even signed a non-disclosure agreement. That is disgusting behaviour, whatever the extracts are. I find nothing in them which is particularly surprising. It was a chaotic time, with decisions being taken under great pressure. That some stupid exchanges took place is only to be expected, especially given who was in charge.

Short, sharp lockdowns were the preferred answer in most major countries, supported by advice from both the WHO and our own experts. How they were delivered was the job of the politicians.

That some disagreed then, and still do now, doesn't mean it was wrong. It just means some disagreed. There are always some who disagree with every policy. It's also true that whilst we all know how difficult the lockdowns were and how economically costly, we don't know what would have happened had we not had them. What we have are a bunch of know-it-alls who think they know. The same group who always know better about everything.

We need to wait for the enquiry for a truly objective assessment.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

We also don't know the long term effects of lockdowns on small businesses, mental health, education or society in general. But as long as there is Brexit to blame for every ill...

Why am I unsurprised that you cannot tell the difference. I am quite sure that most can.

I don't post links to content prepared by those who have previously been dropped by their agent, and had bookings cancelled, because of racist content.

I post links to reputable, well researched and edited articles. If I advise you, and it's only you, to ignore the source it's because of your prejudices about reputable and reliable media outlets like the BBC.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

How true. I still see people wearing surgical style masks, and avoiding others not wearing them, even though they have no benefit whatsoever. They still believe the lie. I said right from the beginning that they were of no use in a viral situation. I even questioned the use of ffp2/n95 mask efficiency for a virus too, but was shouted down by the lockdown advocates. There are reports out now, but as usual, there will be silence from the COVID restrictions aggressors.

Cochrane report [Link]

Edit: I found an advocate of mask wearing admitting he was wrong on YT [Link]

Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (05 Mar 2023 9.26pm)

Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers

We don't, but they can be observed, measured and dealt with. I personally doubt they will be significant. Humans have shown throughout history a remarkable resilience to events much worse than lockdowns. So have businesses. Stresses come and go, some fail, others rise. There are stresses now, unrelated to the pandemic. Or Brexit!

Brexit isn't to blame for every ill. It is though for some, and tends to make others worse.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Well, he has had his career severely damaged, like J.K. Rowing and Laurence Fox, for daring to gainsay the authoritarian, witch-hunting, woke establishment, whose views you of course continually champion.

[Link]