A group of health experts who believe the Government’s lockdown response has been too harsh say… They’re concerned the Government is getting all its scientific advice from an echo chamber as it prepares to decide our immediate future on Monday.
April 11: The government faces a chorus of cross-party calls on Sunday for the urgent recall of parliament in “virtual” form as MPs and peers demand the right to hold ministers to account over the escalating coronavirus crisis.
March 22: Aaron Ginn wrote a long, charts-and-statistics-filled blog post at Medium arguing that the available public health data shows that COVID-19 is less easily transmitted, less fatal, and more likely to fade away with the hot weather than the conventional wisdom would have you believe. Medium deleted the post, which is now hosted at ZeroHedge. Deleting arguments like Ginn’s is a bad and dangerous way to handle the still-roiling debate over what governments and society should do in order to react to the disease.https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/coronavirus-pandemic-lockdown-debate-requires-transparent-disagreement/
New York Times opinion piece on 24 March weighs up pros and cons of the fight against Covid19.
As the country tallies up the economic cost of its first week of fighting the coronavirus pandemic — potentially millions of job losses, a plunging stock market and apprehensions of another Great Depression — an unspeakable thought has become a whisper, and the whisper an all-caps tweet: What if we just didn’t?