I have no problem with people trying to argue that lockdown was entirely justified. It's important that we have this debate to establish whether we should ever do it again.
But what you can't do is claim that the justification for lockdown is the '130,000' people who have died.
We are not at the beginning of this, debating whether or not to lockdown. We've been doing it for a whole year. We have had stricter measures, for a longer period of time, than almost any other country on Earth. And still, you claim, 130,000 people died from the virus.
This does not help your argument. It helps ours. What you need to be questioning, establishing and the asserting is how many lives have been SAVED by what we've done.
You then need to question, establish and assert how many people have been KILLED by these measures and will be
killed in the coming years. Then you will have two numbers to compare and this will help you to prove that lockdown was justified. Or maybe it won't (it won't). The completely psychotic reasoning of pointing out how many people died while we were doing the thing that was meant to
prevent them dying, as proof that we got it right, really worries me. I don't think it's healthy for this many people in a society to abandon their critical faculties to this extent. Aside from that, it just makes the debate so incredibly boring.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Bob Moran

Bob Moran Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @bobscartoons

2 Mar
A lot of people are still confused about the difference between Sars-CoV-2 (the virus) and COVID-19 (the disease), and why it matters.
Several have suggested it's just semantics. I don't think it is and I will try to explain why. (thread)
H1N1 is a respiratory virus. If you contract that virus, you will likely have mild symptoms. We refer to this as a COLD.

In rarer cases, H1N1 can lead to a more severe collection of symptoms, characterising a disease we call INFLUENZA.
SARS-CoV-2 is a respiratory virus. If you contract that virus, you will likely have mild symptoms. We refer to this as a COLD.

In rarer cases, SARS-CoV-2 can lead to a more severe collection of symptoms, characterising a disease we call COVID-19.
Read 6 tweets
24 Feb
If a government chooses not to act in response to a naturally occurring virus which spreads around the country and kills people, it should not be held accountable for those deaths. In the same way that there are many actions the government could take every year to dramatically
reduce cancer deaths but they do not. Ministers are not then blamed for all the people who have died of cancer. This principle is even more relevant when the severity of said virus is uncertain and the proposed measures are unproven. And still more relevant when it quickly
becomes clear that the measures are not having the intended effect on the virus.

However, if a government TAKES ACTION - implements policies, introduces guidance, changes the law - which they know will kill people, we are talking about murder.
According to the government's own
Read 8 tweets
21 Feb
There is currently a lot of media attention on @jowhiley and the fact that her sister is in hospital with Covid-19.
I would firstly like to make clear that I hope Frances makes a full recovery. I understand very well what it is like to have a disabled family member fighting for
their life in hospital. My daughter's seizures are triggered by her having a cold and so all respiratory infections represent a real risk of death.
However, I felt that some of Jo Whiley's comments on @AndrewMarr9 today were quite misleading and I worry about them causing
unnecessary anxiety for disabled people and their families.
Jo Whiley stated that all people with a learning disability are at increased risk from Sars-CoV-2. This is not at all true.
There are many disabled people, like Frances and my daughter, with complex health conditions
Read 9 tweets
10 Feb
I understand how desperately people want to believe that all of this was necessary.

For all of the misery, heartache, sacrifice and anger to have meant something. To have saved lives. Protected the health service. Helped us deal with a dangerous new pathogen.

But it's not true.
Lockdowns are immoral and disproportionate. They kill more people and those people are younger. They wreck economies. They change societies. They alter people's psychology in dangerous ways. They are undemocratic.

And once you have set a precedent for their implementation, you
will be forever living under the threat of your government stripping you of your rights without warning or justification.

But even if they did none of those things, they don't actually do the thing they are intended to do. They do not prevent hospitalisations and deaths from
Read 8 tweets
4 Feb
Mr Blair, thank you for joining us.

I would like to ask you about the greatest crisis you faced as Prime Minister.

Indeed, the greatest crisis we have faced as a nation since the Second World War.

In the winter of 1999/2000 a huge number of people were tragically killed.
They died from a totally out of control influenza virus, letting rip across the country. The end result was a level of all-cause mortality which absolutely towers over what we saw during 2020's 'deadly pandemic'.

I can only imagine how stressful it must have been for you.
Obviously, it goes without saying that you considered a national lockdown - I mean, it's so obvious that they hashtag save lives.
And obviously, you considered mandatory face masks. I mean, the science is clear. They just work.
Read 6 tweets
8 Jan
Why is nobody bothering to distinguish between the virus and the disease anymore?

Everything is meaningless if you don't do this.

We need to know who has Covid-19.

Not who might, possibly, have fragments of the virus Sars-CoV-2, that can lead to the disease, Covid-19.
I'm not interested in how many people in hospital or anywhere else have 'Covid'.

What the hell is 'Covid'?

Be specific.

Tell us exactly how many people are dying from severe pneumonia after contracting Sars-CoV-2.

That is the definition of a Covid-19 patient.
Clearly, this has been deliberate from the start. There are a lot of people on both sides who still don't understand the difference. People who think they've 'had Covid-19' because they tested positive for Sars-CoV-2. People who think a disease can spread around a country.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!