TH Backs Global Governments' Lockdowns l Cambridge Union Online
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 окт 2024
- WANT TO KNOW MORE:
SUBSCRIBE for more speakers: / @cambridgeunionsoc1815
Find out when our next event is on FACEBOOK: / thecambridgeunion
ABOUT THE MOTION: TH Backs Global Governments' Lockdowns
Across the world, many governments have taken aggressive action in recent weeks to curtail freedom of movement and enforce social distancing in order to slow the spread of the coronavirus. Starting in Hubei in January, billions of people have been impacted by both the virus and these downstream effects. For the first debate of this unprecedented online-only Easter term at the Cambridge Union, join us to discuss the effectiveness and ethics of these lockdown measures.
ABOUT THE SPEAKERS:
PROPOSITION
Dr John Edmunds OBE
Dr John Edmunds is a Professor in the Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.
Dr Christl Donnelly FRS CBE
Dr Christl Donnelly is a Professor of Statistical Epidemiology at Imperial College London and a Fellow of St Peters, Oxford.
Dr Karol Sikora
Dr Karol Sikora is an oncologist and Dean of Medicine at the University of Buckingham. He is a graduate of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.
Dr Paul Hunter
Dr Paul Hunter is Professor in Medicine at the University of East Anglia.
OPPOSITION
Dr Anders Tegnell
Dr Anders Tegnell is the State Epidemiologist of the Swedish Public Health Agency where he leads the government’s response to the pandemic.
Peter Hitchens
Peter Hitchens is a journalist who writes for The Mail on Sunday.
Dr Leonid Eidelman
Dr Leonid Eidelman is the Chair of the Division of Anesthesia and Intensive Care at Tel Aviv University and has served as President of both the Israeli Medical Association and the World Medical Association.
Dr Mushfiq Mobarak
Dr Mushfiq Mobarak is a development economist and Professor at Yale University.
ABOUT THE CAMBRIDGE UNION: From its small beginnings as a debating society, the Cambridge Union is the oldest debating society in the world and the largest student society in Cambridge. The Union remains a unique forum for the free exchange of ideas and the art of public debate.
Peter Hitchin's making the most sense here in my humble opinion.
And his bow tie is excellent.
Peter Hitchens said that we should have a proper debate about this after we have eased this ridiculous lockdown. We won't! This is 2020 Britain. I have been voicing criticisms of the statistics and models for months now, and I either get patronised, insulted or talked down to like some a nursery student. People will believe this was the right thing to do even as the damage to our country becomes clear.
Your final sentence is quite right. I believe it is a characteristic of collective fantasy that people cling to the erroneous belief even when it is obvious what its effects will be. To take the example of another collective fantasy, mass immigration, in the final chapter of his book The Diversity Illusion Ed West likens it to a millenial cult where, when the alien messiahs fail to appear, the cult's membership, the cult's membership doubles.
@@seancoleman5021 my debates against mass immigration goes the same way. You point out the holes in the arguments of the pro massimm side and you're just called racist and stupid. Even as the same people complain about rent prices, housing shortages lower wages and ( cough cough) certain types of crimes. They never make the connection.
@@2506JJhudson1990 people are going to have to continue believing that this virus is the worst ever otherwise they have to admit to being conned into hiding under their beds for months on end over nothing
@@2506JJhudson1990 probably because your on post about a virus. Im surprised you guys havent found stats to show immigration correlates to to the lockdown.
@@jaydee4988 You just proved his point.
Peter Hitchens spoke the most sense.
No surprise there
He’s a realist person. Thinking of repercussions is always smart
Peter hitchens is right
"Stay home save lives" the most loaded statement I've ever heard
@@SM-mz2hz good thing it's far from being overran.. But with a trashed economy and falling revenue, it could go bye bye
The obvious irony is we were told to stay in to save the NHS and protect our vulnerable, whilst at the same time entering into a stage of economic disaster that will overwhelm the NHS and at the same time, have had our elderly contacted by their GP practices and asked to have a DNR put in place, so regardless of whether they got covid, no attempt would be made to save them should they go into cardiac arrest!!!!
Pretty poor showing from the pro side. Mostly they stuck to old and largely discredited speculations about huge death numbers, without even attempting to address the other side of the cost/benefit calculation. If you just state the supposed benefits of a proposed action (lockdown) in supposedly avoided deaths, and don't even make an attempt to assess the costs and weigh them against the benefits, then you haven't even begun to make a case for the course of action proposed.
They also failed to research and address the vitally important counter example of Sweden, whose experience so far, on its face, directly refutes the huge numbers used to justify the lockdown. Where they did try to deal with Sweden's example, they did so by falsely implying that Sweden's death rates are still climbing week on week. Fortunately this was directly refuted by the most qualified man in the world to do so, Anders Tegnell. If he hadn't been in the debate, viewers might have been left with a wholly false impression. Peter Hitchens made the same point, but clearly did not have the force of being the actual man on the spot in Sweden to give direct information.
Nor did they adequately address the evidence that is already around suggesting that the epidemics were brought under control, in the UK and elsewhere, by the measures in place before the coercive lockdown.
Hunter did at least make reference to this issue.
Nor really did they deal with the self-evident inherent problem of lockdown, which is the issue of how to come out of it. If it works to cut infections dramatically, you come out at the end of it in almost exactly the same position you were in before you went in, as far as vulnerability to the disease is concerned. Hunter did concede that lockdown is "unsustainable", which rather conceded the whole debate.
That said, many good points were made by both sides, and it was a very useful exercise.
At the moment, Sweden's example stands as a direct refutation of any claim that the UK needed to go to coercive lockdown on 23rd March. Broadly, Sweden's policy has been what the UK government's policy was before it panicked, and broadly it has worked and has not resulted in a catastrophic runaway epidemic, nor has it resulted in the overwhelming of their health service. This is not open to honest question at the moment, in view of the direct evidence of Anders Tegnell in this debate. Things might change in the future, but as they stand, that is the position.
I actually felt both sides made their points quite well.
I guess as individuals we are listening to different things.
*largely discredited speculations*
What does that mean? Epidemiologists looked at the information from China and Italy to come up with models predicated on what would have if nothing was done about the pandemic. Obviously the deaths are much lower because something has been done about it!
Let me get to the main point: I assume you're British. So my answer go in that way.
It's illogical to say that the Swedish model refutes what's been done in the UK. These two countries are vastly different in character.
Swedish people have much higher confidence in their government and authorities. Swedes are also quite trusting of their fellow citizens. The level of personal social responsibility citizens feel in Sweden is also high.
Even more fundamental: Sweden has only about one metropolitan area. Almost 60% of Swedish households are single-person. Swedes work from home more than anyone in Europe. Their infrastructure such as the internet is as good as can be predisposing a good part of the workforce to be functional from their homes. All these things make Sweden achieve social distancing, without which the infection runs amok, much easier than in the UK. This also makes impacts on the economy much less severe.
Life isn't as everyday in Sweden. For example, there is about 75% reduction in movement in Stockholm. During Easter, the traditional popular journey to Gotland dropped by 96%.
Let me mention also the healthcare part. As spoken by Prof Tegnell, the Swedish ICU capacity still has 20% capacity left. They have more hospital beds per capita than the UK. Do you honestly think with this strategy the NHS wouldn't be overrun?
Everyone accepts that the lockdown should come to an end. One thing it has achieved is that people in countries with less socially-responsibility and more cynicism than the Swedes now know what's at stake.
I like in the Czech Republic. We have had a lockdown since March the 16th. Now it is over today the 24th of April. But the lessons continue: face masks, social distancing, hand-washing, unnecessary travels. We've had some 600 deaths. The infection rate is now below 1. Yesterday we had about 50 infections.
So now with the lessons learned in many places we march forward.
I want to emphasise that Hitchen's point about freedom is important. The ending of the lockdown in the Czech Republic is partly due to the courts ruling that the state cannot limit its citizen's right to movement without a state of emergency. There isn't one and the government wouldn't dare call one.
That's my two krowns.
@@kundakaps And this increases the significance of the vital point that needed to be addressed and wasn't at all by the pro side in the debate here: the colossally increased costs of coercive lockdown over voluntary lockdown must be justified by the benefits only of the difference between disease effects in those two situations,. not by reference to a fantasy hypothetical "no action" situation. As I noted, the pro side didn't even begin to consider what the costs are, let alone make any attempt at cost/benefit argument. Since it looks as though, as one would expect, most of the benefits accrue to the voluntary measures anyway once there is a general awareness in the population of a real issue, that leaves the justification of the coercive lockdowns looking very thin indeed.
@@markmarksson6361
I see it differently.
The moment the Chinese government locked down Wuhan, every country should have at least closed their borders and done forced quarantine and tracing of all contacts. South Korea and Taiwan have done this very well.
Once this was not done and as we witnessed Wuhan and then Italy get overrun, a lockdown was inevitable for the simple reason that hospitals would be overrun. There is no way around that.
In your scenario, are hospitals in the UK overrun?
Lockdowns especially of metropolitan areas such as London and New York are a necessary evil.
We just don't have Swedish attitudes to get away from an Ro=2 or even more. My goodness, we can't even make enough medical equipments and accessories.
I am sure even the biggest opponent of lockdowns can admit that some places need to be shut out.
@@kundakaps Closed borders and targeted quarantine and tracing etc are arguably viable strategies before a disease has become established. That was not the case in Europe by February, let alone March.
For the rest, the evidence is simply against you. At the moment, the evidence seems to suggest that by the time governments considered coercive lockdowns, the popular awareness of the problem was already sufficient for most of the benefits of the coercive lockdown to already have been achieved, at a fraction of the cost. And this seesms likely to have been true throughout much of western Europe, regardless of cosy fantasies about uniquely responsible Swedes. And we have managed to more than keep pace with increasing critical healthcare capacity in practice, including in places where coercive lockdowns were either absent or so loose as to be more similar to the places without than the places with more absurdly overblown coercive lockdowns such as the UK, where we have seen police having to be reined back from bullying old ladies for sitting on park benches and threatening to check the contents of shopping trolleys.
@@markmarksson6361
I really can't follow train of thought on your last comment.
You have to put up empirical evidence here. What were the R0 figures before and after the lockdowns?
You can't also talk of "evidence" of the measures before the lockdown as working when tests done then were very few. The number of pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic people can't be ascertained with the meager tests the UK had done in March.
Since late March, the UK has has a over 4000 infections per day. Hospitals ICUs in London have been full.
So this talk of "seems" or "suggests" doesn't just cut it.
How many people specifically in London and the UK in general can work from home? How many of them live alone?
You're being very charitable with your position.
The interest of epidemiologists is making sure that hospitals are not overrun. You have yet to provide me with evidence that this wouldn't have gotten worse.
I am not here to support police brutality.
The main thing I disagree with Hitchens on here, is his assertion that the people on both sides of the argument have good intentions.
Ragnar Danneskjöld pretty sure he meant to say they THINK they have good intentions
@@TONYxndHAWK Heh.
I certainly wonder about this myself.
51.20 secs: Epidemiologist says 'We don't know if doing anything makes any difference.' Not exactly a ringing endorsement of his profession.
This isn't really a debate, it's merely statements with no chance of rebuttal?
Why is this nice lady reading us her homework?
I watched this live when there was in screen comments. They were turned off after the first 3 speakers. Overwhelmingly the comments were anti lockdown and anti government policy. Its disgraceful that they were removed and at that point there was 1700 people watching live. Shame on you for your bias.
Thak you for letting us know about that.
There is no independent evaluation whether the lockdown is effective or not. However, millions of people became unemployment and homeless. They will starve to death.
Well, something like 25000 are dead, far more would be dead if not for lockdown, add in an overwhelmed NHS and even more would die than just the disease would kill.
But if you think it's all a nothing burger, go outside, refuse to do social distancing, see how immune you are.
@@-The-Darkside "But if you think it's all a nothing burger, go outside, refuse to do social distancing, see how immune you are."
Are you aware that most likely, unless he's very elderly or otherwise ill, the risk of death for the person you are addressing if he or she does catch this disease is essentially zero, that the risk even of serious illness is very low, and that there's a very high likelihood that he could catch it, recover, and not even have noticed? But by all means go on living in your evident state of absurdly abject terror of this not particularly dangerous disease, if that's what floats your boat.
VALIS Machine you need to do some proper research, the chances are tiny, lockdown will kill more people than the virus and is a disgusting erosion of our Human rights we live in a police state, what’s wrong with you man.
@@-The-Darkside you're entitled to your opinion, but this attitude 'YOU go outside, see how YOU like it when your grandma is struggling for breath' etc etc is not going to win anybody over. It's childish, and it seems to be one of the main tactics of argument from your side.
I am in Japan where we can go out . But there is nothing much to enjoy except flowers as most shops are closed. Only supermarkets and a few restaurants are open for limited hours. Schools and universities are closed. I am going today to the city hall to pay my tax and to enquire how can I get my 100,000 yen gift from the government for the suffering we have endured.
Wonder if they will bring in the term...died with lockdown.
An interesting thought - Or died with Lockdown Syndrome.
@@williamjohnston7857 . The government seem at a loss at what to do next or what to say. They seem afraid. And this worries me. I've a feeling there will be civil disobedience somewhere along the line especially coming into june william.
@@johndixon3987You may well be right. The problem is that it would be aimed at the Government - But it is the State that is the real problem - "Everything for the state. Nothing against the state. Nothing outside the state ". What I mean is that the world has been slowly becoming fascist. We have woken up and are at a tipping point.
Thats a good point Dixie, but I doubt it!!
Everyone seems to be pretending Taiwan doesn't exist. No economic shutdown and no social distancing. Yet, almost no deaths. The masks probably helped a bit because the country is so densely populated, but they're more effective in a controlled clinical setting, and this alone cannot explain the country's enormous success at combatting the illness.
Taiwan developed its own test, one which didn't just generate a bunch of false positives, and it didn't change its reporting methodology for cause of death. In other words, perhaps the main reason Taiwan did so well is they didn't commit statistical fraud the way everyone else did.
Inescapable conclusion: the pandemic is largely illusory.
@Niconoclastic Neoc Yep, I'm reminded of Geoffrey Cox who gave a rousing-and now famous-"Turkey" speech condemning the Remoaners in parliament, after sending Tommy Robinson to prison for the crime of journalism (in spite of his case being thrown out by the high court).
Still, the Conservatives are better than labor. And UKIP is dead, having been destroyed from the inside by liberal infiltrators. The Brexit party is probably the most inline with the people, but do they know this? The party doesn't have enough support on issues beyond Brexit.
You'll never have political change until you get a true capitalist to stand forth, one who's skilled enough to defend his ideas, and destroy his opponents'. The problem is, as you point out, that many so-called conservatives have already capitulated to collectivism and altruism.
Was there a poll before and after? Who 'won' the debate?
Cambridge Union tweeted about it. Regrettably, only ~30 members (of Cambridge Union) took part in the poll. But of them, 89% agreed with the motion in favour of lockdowns prior to the debate. However, after the debate, it was 46% in favour, and 40% opposed (I imagine the rest were 'not sures').
I believe it was 89% for the proposition at the beginning, , and 49% for to 46% against afterwards.
the root of this problem is that the NHS cannot cope with a slight increase in demand let alone a large demand.
Germany on the other had has a medical system that is coping really well
in march Germany had 4X more critical cases with an outcome of 95% recovery and 5% death rate whereas the Uk had the 95% death rate and a 5% recovery rate (worldometers)
notably the Uk recovery figures have been stopped from being published!
Germany are testing, tracing and providing quicker health care for critical sympton types. with better
infrastructure and equipment.
The uk is struggling because successive governments have failed to reform the NHS, reduce red tape and empower front line service , to provide a health service fit for the 21st century.
with regard to the lockdown it is happening because of panic and models based upon opinion from models by IMP COLL which has proved flawed in past events
a more sensible calculated approach would is identifying the vulnerable, protecting them with social and medical isolation, developing tresting and tracing which would allow the healthy to keep functioning, and maintain the economy to provide the finance to fund our future needs.
The action that the Uk has taken is difficult to exit and we will have to face our next crisis within a few years which we will not be able to fix with social distancing. it will be a financial crisis and it will affect the quality of life for the same peop[le who suffer everytime a crisis occurs or should i say is created by those who will not have to suffer
P Hitchens is correct, is the action taken proportionate
@@bornforbanning i absolutley agree with you, but i was comparing the death rates from outcomes between germany and the uk. it seems that the german health care system is showing itself to be an example of how to deal wiith this virus.
it has reacted more quickly with testing and identification of cases, has better infrastructure , has better resources and is producing a high recovery rate. and of course is funded differently
i am pleased that you had the courage to point out what we are actually seeing in the uk. the NHS has been sold to the public as a holy cow to worship
@chris buckingham i agree i was not suggesting that they are run off their feet but drawing attention to their performance and notably that the recovery figures for the UK have been discontinued on woldometer because the data is not available.
i wonder why?
The NHS cope under stain every flu season...they don't have time for dance videos then.
You’ve lost a lot of view count by editing the recording. I wasn’t able to watch live, but watched very shortly after and the view count was MUCH higher than what is showing here. Regardless, good job. Thank you, and keep trying to make this online format serve your needs and purpose. 👍🏻👏🏻
Every country has to choose some level of activity and openness between Total Lockdown (TL) and Total Opening (TO) that minimizes the Total Damage (TD). TL and TO both have economic and human-life costs, and of course part of the problem will be the defining the cost of human-life in money (or, alternatively, defining the cost of money in human-lives).
It would be nice to see someone actually address the different components of this equation, as well as the issue of substitutability between lives and money.
Peter Hitchens is once again the sole voice of reason in a mad, panic-stricken world
Typically, Peter Hitchens was stellar and I'd hang my hopes upon his assertions any day over a scientist.
In order to save valuable time what were the conclusions? Did they speak their minds or (apart from PH, obviously) fear social media reprisals, attenuating their opinions accordingly?
This discussion or something similar should have taken place much sooner. I'm also disappointed it has so few views compared to other related and far less balanced material that is getting views in the millions.
Very convincing script-reading from Dr. Edmonds there
And by Dr Donnelly - cherry picking the example of San Marino for shock value was particularly disingenuous.
Dr. Leonid Eidelman resonated with me ~ saying that in times of austerity the public health system is the first to suffer. This statement sharply contradicts the present line that lockdowns are necessary to, "save," the public health system. As Western democracies are destroying their economies by imposing lockdowns, these measures will usher in future austerity and the diminishment of health funding. The statements of our politicians and health officers are manifestly deceptive and I thank Dr. Eidelman for raising a significant issue.
Sadly disappointing given the illustrious institution that published this. Not really a debate - just a series of opening statements with no rebuttal, discussion or Q&A, and no vote (at least none communicated). And very few views. Given the importance of the subject matter and the gravitas of the speakers, a shame.
Definitely just a start. It would certainly be fantastic to see a full moderated debate involving people at this level. Getting Anders Tegnell was absolutely top notch, as he is the man in the hot seat, at probably the most important location for this particular issue in the world, at the moment.
I think it unfair to judge this too harshly. The Cambridge Union did at least hold the event .Its officers were reluctant to risk points of information etc having gathered some pretty distinguished scientists who are mostly unused to the debate format. I may have bene the only participant actually to have spoken in a real CU debate. I think, if they are forced to use zoom again for a debate, they will become more adventurous. Be generous. .
Disagree. This was a good jumping off point into unfamiliar waters in terms of speakers and medium. I’m with Hitchens here. We need these discussions to continue, so let’s be supportive.
@@CrystolW88 Sorry. I may have come across as overly negative. I certainly want to be supportive, just think they could have made more of it. Let's hope for more, with perhaps a more interactive element.
@@peterhitchens4240 I rather fear that this won't be the last debate via Zoom. I can't see any technical reason why an interactive element couldn't have been included - at least among the panel and possibly with an audience too. Zoom certainly supports those kind of features. It would be great to see a follow up, with speakers addressing each other's arguments. I wish you all the best in your efforts.
I've looked through the comments section and the video description for the result of the voting change but nothing is posted. Is this normal? Was it to embarrassing for the government to be lambasted by this illustrious debating society?
Please Mr Chairman wil you please post and pin the result to the top of the comment section or place at the foot of the video description? Alternatively a link to your debating society page that publishes the result. Currently I can't see a one!
The results of the vote are shown at 1:01:58, for more details visit our Facebook page facebook.com/TheCambridgeUnion/
OK, So can someone please explain to me that in the UK we have been in Lockdown for five weeks and even two weeks before that was enforced were being told to stay at home unless we need to go out which many of us did.
So if we have all be at home for five weeks and have had little or no exposure to this virus where are all of these case of COVID-19 that have caused deaths come from?
If at the start of this crisis most people were ignorant of how it was contracted,
Surely by now we mostly all know that you don't cough without covering your mouth , don't touch door handles and the like and then touch you face, and use hand sanitizer.
So if we were allowed to get back to our lives and practise better personal hygiene, (wear a mask) the surely this virus wouldn't spread at the same rate as id did when we were ill informed
It is important to remember that it is ones society that needs to continue not necessarily oneself! In a war we understand that some people have to sacrifice themselves so that the country as a whole may continue. Here we are sacrificing the many to save the lives of the few!
Dr. John Edmunds say's at 33:33 that, "other methods of trying to control this epidemic have failed...frankly." Really? Whatever happened to immunology and population immunity? Wherever I see an Epidemiologist pontificating in any news bulletin I know there's trouble. He quotes the darkest figures and scenarios which proved false.
Stay home, stay slaves.
alan macey For how long?
alan macey and protect the NHS’ privatisation
Beautifully put.
Another moronically dribbling at the mouth regurgitator of state-corporate propaganda!
Paul Hunter's use of the ''upward inflection'' ''up talk'' is woeful.
Edmonds does not seem to admit even the possibility that a large fraction of the UK pop have already been exposed? Surely we need to answer that first and test subsequent immunity in humans. Whatever the answer, as a world we cannot all sit at home for months (not going out in the sun, making us stressed and impairing our immune system to boot) as the economy will collapse. We need to edge out of this at least. Sikora wants it to run hot for a few week and see, he may be right, but I would "dial it back" if I was in Johnson's shoes.
Sweden's approach is interesting, keeping the population safe and keeping their economy buoyant, however 100% tracking a person for 30 days would not be acceptable in the UK.
They dont track as in where you go but as I understood they track where you are in the healthcare system and what your health status is. Right?
Rather comical to suggest that we would balk at tracking when we have enthusiastically accepted virtual house arrest and policemen bullying old ladies for sitting on park benches!
Sweden's numbers have been growing day by day the last week, 2000 dead, more than 5 of their closest neighbors combined.. such as Finland, Denmark etc.
Quietly they are admitting they got it wrong and are close to locking down
@@-The-Darkside nonsense. They have lots of deaths in carehomes, which massively inflates the figures. If you look at deaths per capita, Sweden is not doing bad at all. Also, once the lockdown is lifted in Finland and Denmark, you will eventually see similar deathrates. Nobody can sustain a lockdown indefinetely. The people that now die in Sweden, would have died anyways, but somewhat later had they introduced a lockdown.
@@-The-Darkside "Quietly they are admitting they got it wrong and are close to locking down"
This is clearly false. Indeed, it is directly contradicted by the evidence provided by Anders Tegnell in this very debate.
Most people came here for Peter Hitchens haha
oh god. that thumbnail. 'and people call us smug!'
OMG they changed it!
Plandemic
Anybody care to mark Hitchens times with time stamps?
36.55 - 44.28
Really instructive interventions, especially Dr Mobarak and Dr Tegnell. A great new perspective. Glad the union is continuing its high profile events adapted to these times.
It seems Dr Mushfiq Mobarak doesn't understand the difference between causation and correlation. He talks about there being more older people in richer countries, and therefore we should have stricter lockdown policies in richer countries, however, the coronavirus death correlation to age is more likely to be down to the fact that older people tend to have worse health. Surely then, poorer countries have worse health thereby negating his assumptions based on age.
Were the bow ties really necessary..?
No, but it's nice to see men dressed smartly for a change, instead of in open-necked shirts showing scrawny necks.
I think the least plausible figure in this debate was Peter Hitchens while my favourite contributors were Christi Donnelly and Paul Hunter. I live in Brisbane. Our near neighbour New Zealand SEEMS to have fewer than 40 active COVID cases now (that's the number of confirmed cases, minus the number of people who've recovered and the number of people who've died) and clearly New Zealand's strategy is to detach people from the source of disease and become pretty much the first community in the English-speaking world to be COVID-free. Australia will probably be the second COVID-free community and that will mean quarantine-free international tourism and business travel between the two countries will be able to resume in just a few weeks. It will also mean all the NZ and Australian nightclubs, theatres, pubs, restaurants, elevators, underground trains, buses that can't operate cost-effectively, that can't generate the buzz that comes of having people standing cheek by jowl next to one another, will be able to operate as if COVID had never existed. COVID is an appalling, disastrous viral illness, but there's an obvious way of minimising the harm it causes. Peter Hitchens indicates time and again that he doesn't believe in separating people from one another so that virus-laden droplets from one person can't be inhaled by another and keeping people indoors, so the virus can't be shed onto door handles and grocery items. Distance plus face masks, gloves and other protective gear are appropriate, effective ways of reducing the spread of this airborne virus just as condoms are appropriate and effective barriers against HIV, syphilis and gonorrhoea transmission. Hitchens should find other, less mischievous ways of escaping his brother's shadow and propping up his ailing journalistic career.
Classic Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy. Now class, get out your atlases. Can anyone think of *another* reason why New Zealand has had very few Covid-19 cases?
@@peterhitchens4240 presumably you think it's purely because it's a long way from your home at the centre of the known universe? You're right. Isolation/social distancing / lockdowns / remoteness from the sources of infection actually works to reduce the spread of viruses. I think you need to reconsider what a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy actually is.
@@oliverc1961 You just came on here to insult Hitchen's but not offer any substantive arguments. Did you even listen to the debate? The first speaker who was in favour of the lockdown admitted that it was destroying the economy and peoples mental and physical health with a cancer catastrophe on the horizon that alone will put c19 in its shadow!
Hi @@stephenglasse2743, no actually I didn't just come on here to insult Hitchens. I don't know why you single me out for not offering substantive arguments - most people commenting here (yourself included) don't do that, and I've clearly indicated which of the speakers most impressed me. Why didn't you complete the thought you started at the end of your post? Why did you let it just taper off in three dots?
One thing I'm adamant about is that discussing something an important issue should be more than a parlour game. Today on Twitter, Peter revealed that he sees his role as being to present ONLY one side of any argument - the anti-government side. It doesn't seem to matter to him that that, in some cases, is going to involve giving a vastly disproportionate amount of publicity to incredibly small fringe elements, sometimes to people like himself who are motivated not by a genuine desire to contribute but by a pathological need to get other people's undivided attention.
@@oliverc1961 "I think the least plausible figure in this debate was Peter Hitchens"/"Peter Hitchens indicates time and again that he doesn't believe in separating people from one another so that virus-laden droplets from one person can't be inhaled by another and keeping people indoors, so the virus can't be shed onto door handles and grocery items"/"Hitchens should find other, less mischievous ways of escaping his brother's shadow and propping up his ailing journalistic career."/"people like himself who are motivated not by a genuine desire to contribute but by a pathological need to get other people's undivided attention."
The above are your own assertions and they clearly demonstrate that you have no regard for substantive arguments or truth but simply want to insult Mr Hitchens. Hitchens has stated again and again that people should follow government guidelines. Hitchens has stated that he himself practices social distancing and even wraps a scarf around his mouth when in the supermarket (do you do that?) in order to comfort and protect people. Mr Hitchens has warned about the dangers posed by doorhandles in connection to infection!!! Hitchens has only scorn for his brothers atheism, support for the Iraq WMD fiasco, and Marxism so why would he need to escape from his brothers shadow?
So everything you accuse him of is wrong.
You fail AGAIN to notice that the people on the Cambridge debate were not fringe elements but world renowned experts AND that even those who supported lockdown acknowledged that unless we get out of it quick the 'cure' will be worse than the disease!
If your real problem with Mr Hitchens is his belief in God or his scorn for cannabis then you should just say so...