The idea that one doesn't develop immunity to a virus one has overcome seems patently absurd to me.
How does one resist or overcome it, if it is not by virtue of a functioning immune system?
Not by lockdowns, that is for sure.
The claims about cases of secondary infection seem poorly evidenced, far-fetched and anecdotal. And convenient to a power-crazed lunatic's mission, whatever it may be, but which I very much doubt the good faith of.
I'd rather take my chances with the virus than the government.
He ignores a body, however flawed or minority he claims it is, of scientific opinion. He makes a statement that he cannot understand. Rather than seeking more scientific debate to help clear uncertainty, he shuts it down and shuts it out, politicising science. He is dangerous.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The government -- all parties, in fact -- have not tested the public's willingness to put up with the policies.
It does not know how much it will cost to reach Net Zero.
It does not know how it will be achieved.
What will happen is that the government will continue to announce new policies in line with emissions-reduction targets. This will cause economic chaos as companies try to find ways to accommodate regulation. Many will go out of business. Skills & trade will be lost.
Imagine not understanding why a seemingly scientific injunction to suspend democratic norms, reverse and constrain economic growth and limit material freedoms might have "politicized" the issue.
But it's the "deniers" who are "ideological", right?
It's all hidden in the putative equivalence of the link between smoking increasing the incidence of cancer and the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere.
But global warming is not cancer. Global warming is not even a first-order problem, as cancer undoubtedly is.
It's the way, way, way downstream consequences of global warming -- nth-order effects -- which are the alleged problems. They are very far from the scientific "consensus". They are not part of it. Very many of them are political. Some are categorically mystical.
The New Climate Economy report produced by @NewClimateEcon, which is part of @WorldResources and chaired by Nick Stern is a project that cost the UK taxpayer £millions.
It's not hard to read this as terror about loss of control of narrative.
Accusations of "denial" are the shortcut to proving the interlocutor's bad faith: nefarious connections, sinister motivations, profit-seeking and malign intent.
The piece in summary is "There should be no expectation that scientists fall into line with a consensus.... Except that scientists who do not fall into line with a consensus are industry-funded propagandists who are only in it for the money".
Throughout the piece, claims like "it is misleading to suggest that giving up on suppression is anything but an outlier position" go unsubstantiated.
Even the WHO has now stated a position AGAINST lockdowns.