Anyone who now has any opinion which questions the groupthink that is being heavily promoted by the government and mainstream media in relation to how we should behave during this pandemic, is now being branded a conspiracy theorist and even labelled in the most derogatory terms!

It goes beyond anti-maskers and is including links to anything that contradicts the prevailing general consensus that just falls into line with whatever we are being told. It’s as if any such views are being quietly airbrushed by the main social media platforms as well.
Recently I tried accessing a news item that featured prominently during the summer last where the WHO’s U.K. ambassador on visiting the U.K. heavily criticised governments for using repeated lockdowns as a first response to a pandemic. I simply couldn’t find anything about it!
Nor could I find the name of that ambassador who said it even though I checked the names of all WHO representatives/spokespersons. Strange one!
Local radio presenters have been constantly bringing on selected so called experts at busting the myths around this pandemic and labelling as Covididiots everyone who has a separate opinion as in denial that there is a serious virus around or a conspiracy theorist.
The BBC is no exception to grooming public opinion in favour of accepting that we must put our brain to sleep and stay indoors period. There is huge public disquiet at what our governments are up to. People of all ages are unhappy but not prepared to air their views too much.
We are being sold an Orwellian solution that repeatedly staying indoors when told to will eradicate every wave of this virus and getting vaccinated will stop its transmission. But what about if it is still around next winter?
Will our government pay for more annual vaccinations or just lock us in and them move to going into our homes, testing and removing to quarantine anyone who is testing positive for the virus?
This is a likely scenario as governments become more desperate or deliberate in controlling us to deal with this public health threat. Yet the U.K. government has avoided since very beginning of this pandemic dealing with the point of entry of this virus and its variants!
Yet here we are allowing foreign students, business travellers and others on daily flights into and out of our airports. This is a recipe for disaster and one which contradicts the whole point of containing this virus. Meanwhile entire local populations are being locked down.
We are also cultivating a tsunami of mental health issues across entire age groups including children and the elderly and anyone with underlying health conditions who are terrified of catching the virus. This threatens to overshadow the threat from this virus in multiple terms.
Children are in danger of not acquiring certain emotional and social skills that are necessary for relating to others and forming stable relationships later on in life when this pandemic is no longer around or will there be others with equally draconian restrictions put in place?
We are not in any new normal or anything that is tolerable or acceptable in the long term yet here we are in the middle of a third wave of infections and our government hasn’t a clue how to deal with it yet is stripping away our human rights and the media are silent on it! 🤷‍♂️
@threadreaderapp please #unwrap thanks

More from Government

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?