Looking at the comments on Tobys site its almost like if you keep underplaying covid and hinting that there are alternative reasons for lockdown other than public health, you might encourage ppl to question vaccination.
Telling people there's minimal risks from covid, constantly claiming that we're just about at herd immunity is going to make people question why they need a vaccination
So I suggest Toby stops tossing his toys out the pram and starts taking some responsibility for the choices he's made.
Stop preaching personal responsibility and start practicing it.
However Toby is bang on trend, shifting the debate away from the partially vaccinated, those still waiting, those who can't for medical reasons and the fact vaccines aren't 100% effective.
The more I think of this the more I get a whiff of eugenics, getting a subtext of
"Only the undeserving will die"
"Let the idiots die"
Now consider implications with which communities are being labelled vaccine hesitant.
Platform skeptics, accuse education workers of being cowards because they claim the risks are incredibly low, keep pushing the line that the only ppl dying are ppl who were about to die anyway.
Sarah Vine is another one to constantly downplay risks who now seems annoyed people actually listened to her.
More importantly, the data just doesn't support the Government/client journalists narrative to shift blame away from their own actions
Doesn't help that media allowed skeptics pretending concern for children to push anti mask misinformation and now they're pushing an anti vax message for children, this is likely to increase hesitancy.
Mail really is going all out. Notice use of "excuse for lockdowns"
Still peddling lockdowns aren't necessary and hinting government has other motivations for lockdowns
Its like shouting "get vaccinated" and then loudly whispering "the government is exaggerating and seeking to manipulate you"
With this mixed messaging they really aren't helping with those who are hesitant.
And it looks like Russia are interferring, shame we didn't have some form of wide ranging inquiry into Russian activity... wsj.com/articles/russi…
Oh look UsForThem are also fighting against children being vaccinated, actually suggesting infection is better. Talking about "balance of harms" they further the anti vax agenda.
Yet this is the organisation invited to meet Johnson and ministers
🧵Oh what a suprise, Together Declaration are part of this network, and members of the Exec like UsForThem founder Kingsley accused anyone who said they were a hard right political project of smears and defamation
2/ Founded as anti-lockdown but going straight into anti-vax talking points, Together then switched to anti Ulez, anti net zero heading towards climate change denial
3/ They have been one of the main groups peddling nonsense about the WHO pandemic treaty, starting two years ago with Farage then becoming the leading face of a new astroturf group
While much of the media claims the inquiry is accomplishing nothing, its slowly revealed the gov knew transmission occurs in schools and causes harm to a not insignificant number of children
2/ The bill gives the Secretary of State the power to add to the list of interests that can access your childrens data through secondary legislation avoiding parliamentary scrutiny
3/ The Bill also permits 14-18 year olds to be targeted with political marketing
3/ More and more evidence emerges of the long term harms caused by covid, but the UK govs preferred paedatricians continue to peddle claims that with enough infections children will develop lasting immunity
Said this would occur after 1 infection, what is it now? 5? 7? 10?🤷♂️
🧵Cass Review
Not had a chance to read the whole thing yet, but have had time to look through the main points
What positives can be taken from it? The time spent on waiting lists was identified as a major issue, all children's services are massively underfunded at the moment
2/ I would like to think that this will lead to an investment in all children's support services like CAHMS, more pastoral support in schools etc
That would be a positive outcome, regardless of what else is included in the review, unfortunately real terms cuts are the reality
3/ What matters is how government interprets the review and what it chooses to implement, additional funding for children isn't going to be prioritised over tax cuts to appease RW papers
Imagine if the billions from last round of tax cuts had instead been invested in children