Thread by @bobscartoons

This is really important and I hope @AlStewartOBE will be good enough to engage.
The basis for taking a position against lockdowns, masks, mass testing and later experimental injections, was as follows:
The apparent new illness did not present an unprecedented threat for almost

https://twitter.com/AlStewartOBE/status/1536287575501152257

everyone in society.
The policy of placing 70 million people under house arrest for months on end, denying children the right to education, separating families, shutting down frontline care, ruining businesses and destroying the economy was entirely without precedent.

It was also scientifically illogical, based on long established ideas about these sorts of illnesses interact with humans. There was no reason to think these measures would achieve the stated goal.
Additionally, there were many, many other measures available, that had a much

greater likelihood of achieving said goal, without causing any of the horrific harms listed above. None was even mentioned.
The measures implemented were not legally permitted under the legislation. Quarantining of healthy people has never been within the government's power.

These measures, regardless of how well you thought they could stop the spread of a virus, would undoubtedly lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. Direct action, taken by ministers, that would kill people. And they knew it would.
This was not,

then, a case of 'saving lives'. This was a matter of trading lives. "We're killing you, because there's a tiny chance it will stop these people dying."
Anybody with an ounce of moral understanding knows this to be ethically disgusting. In any and all circumstances. It also should

be clear to any thinking person that once you allow a government to adopt these tyrannical, morally inexcusable policies, you are headed down a one way street that can only end in a very, very dark place.
Having understood these things and observed politicians, scientific

advisors and journalists continuing with the measures for months on end - Having seen them lie about the nature of the situation and refuse to address any moral aspect of what they were doing - We were then told they had created a 'vaccine' in record time. A vaccine that some

of the best minds in science had failed to succeed in producing, despite decades of trying, had now been cracked by, not one, but several different labs around the world. No journalists bothered to ask how the scientists had overcome the many previous issues with these drugs.

These injections were unlike any kind of treatment that had ever been administered to human beings. And they were going to be given to millions of people before the trials had been properly completed. It was clear by this stage that we did not need a vaccine. The virus was not

dangerous for the vast majority of people and many very safe and effective treatments had been proven for those who were 'vulnerable'. It was also clear that every single thing that politicians and scientists had implemented had been dangerous, illogical and ineffective.

There was no reason at all to assume that the injections would be any different. This proved to be the case within weeks of their initial rollout.
No subscription to any conspiracy theories is necessary in order to arrive at this position. Just straightforward critical thinking

and adherence to fundamental moral principles.

I would be grateful if you would point out which aspects of this you define as 'simply bonkers'.