Has the wearing of face masks become a left/right issue?

[yorkie]

I thought the "culture war" was a trope used by Pat Buchanan, a US the early '90s, no? He ran for president and I remember one of the teachers warning of the danger such people represent at my school (here in UK).

No idea; never heard of the person, and have no idea what you are saying without any context being provided. I doubt it's relevant to this issue though. Culture wars come and go; this is the latest but it won't be the last.

If there is one occurring now, I do not understand why this forum is the theatre of combat. I feel this forum has become a shadow of its former self and anyone starting from the rail specific parts increasingly find themselves in a hotbed of conspiracy theories, contrarianism and other nonsense.

What conspiracy theory are you talking about? What is the nonsense you talk of?

It is especially disappointing that one of the main moderators - whilst entitled to opinions outside their moderation duties - has been instrumental in creating this environment.

Creating what environment? If you want to see the true environment of the heat of the battle of this culture war, take a look at Twitter.

There are a lot of words in your post but no substance. I don't know what your point is; there seems to be a lot of bluster but no actual discernable meaning to be gleaned. Can you clarify what points you are making as it makes no sense to me.

 

[squizzler]

You have created many of the threads which argue, very stridently in my view, against the government measures to control coronavirus. My particular beef is your constant allusion to some agenda of "totalitarianism" (your word). Yet I feel you moderate the forums, shall we say, with a rod of iron. Whilst I said already that being moderator does not rule out having personal opinions, perhaps we can all see the hypocrisy in this?

Clearly the need for standards of conduct matter in the forum, so why not in real life? Whilst I don't have the current cabinet in high regard, it is the job of government is trying to keep us safe against a dangerous illness. By contrast nobody is going to die if a Rail Forum thread goes a bit off topic. I would also point out that your frequently stated views on masks are at odds with those I understand to be held by unions who represent front-line rail staff. As a forum where many rail staff (used to) hang out, if you are trying to prosecute a "culture war" (whatever it is, it sounds rather aggressive!), many valued forum members are going to decide they want no part of it and leave the forum.

 

[yorksrob]

You have created many of the threads which argue, very stridently in my view, against the government measures to control coronavirus. My particular beef is your constant allusion to some agenda of "totalitarianism" (your word). Yet I feel you moderate the forums, shall we say, with a rod of iron. Whilst I said already that being moderator does not rule out having personal opinions, perhaps we can all see the hypocrisy in this?

Clearly the need for standards of conduct matter in the forum, so why not in real life? Whilst I don't have the current cabinet in high regard, it is the job of government is trying to keep us safe against a dangerous illness. By contrast nobody is going to die if a Rail Forum thread goes a bit off topic. I would also point out that your frequently stated views on masks are at odds with those I understand to be held by unions who represent front-line rail staff. As a forum where many rail staff (used to) hang out, if you are trying to prosecute a "culture war" (whatever that is - it sounds rather aggressive), many valued forum members are going to decide they want no part of it and leave the forum.

I'm afraid that a lot of rail users disagree with the position of the rail unions and this forum is as much here for them as for staff.

Not just on face coverings, but also their agitation for endless stay at home orders and lets not forget that many of us have endured incessant strike action in the run up to covid.

 

[nedchester]

You have created many of the threads which argue, very stridently in my view, against the government measures to control coronavirus. My particular beef is your constant allusion to some agenda of "totalitarianism" (your word). Yet I feel you moderate the forums, shall we say, with a rod of iron. Whilst I said already that being moderator does not rule out having personal opinions, perhaps we can all see the hypocrisy in this?

Clearly the need for standards of conduct matter in the forum, so why not in real life? Whilst I don't have the current cabinet in high regard, it is the job of government is trying to keep us safe against a dangerous illness. By contrast nobody is going to die if a Rail Forum thread goes a bit off topic. I would also point out that your frequently stated views on masks are at odds with those I understand to be held by unions who represent front-line rail staff. As a forum where many rail staff (used to) hang out, if you are trying to prosecute a "culture war" (whatever it is, it sounds rather aggressive!), many valued forum members are going to decide they want no part of it and leave the forum.

I happen to agree with much of that and I do find the “authoritarian” comment rather amusing and point to an obsession with the subject. Some lurkers from other fora also find it funny…….

That said I do find that some rail staff/unions clamouring for further restrictions may well be shooting themselves in the foot as if the passengers are put off rail travel then there will be less rail travel and less jobs for the rail workers……..

 

[seagull]

Most rail staff I know are as much against ineffective mask wearing as anyone else, and don't feel the stated Union positions represent their views.

 

[yorkie]

You have created many of the threads which argue, very stridently in my view, against the government measures to control coronavirus.

I have? Which threads are they then?

The irony here is that the Government is not currently mandating masks to control the spread of Sars-CoV-2 and this debate is about people who are seeking to change Government measures; I am not seeking to change these measures and am arguing against people who are lobbying for the Government to change its position.

My particular beef is your constant allusion to some agenda of "totalitarianism" (your word).

I've not used the word 'totalitarian' in the past 9 months and can find no record of me using the term 'totalitarianism'.

Yet I feel you moderate the forums, shall we say, with a rod of iron.

If you are unhappy with any moderation decision, you need to contact us directly; it's not for discussion on forum threads.

I'm not forcing anyone to use this website; if you choose to use any website then the terms of that website apply. I don't see what this has got to do with the topic though; the original poster raised a very good point that the matter of face masks has become a hot topic and there is a debate to be had over whether it is left vs right or authoritarian vs libertarian ideology or something like that.

I do not see how such a debate has anything to do with whether anyone likes or dislikes the way any website is run; people are free to use (or not use) any website they wish, in accordance with the T&Cs of that website.

Whilst I said already that being moderator does not rule out having personal opinions, perhaps we can all see the hypocrisy in this?

If we are speaking as moderators we will use red text. Moderators are allowed to have personal opinions in the same way as anyone else.

Clearly the need for standards of conduct matter in the forum, so why not in real life?

Of course we do; I am not suggesting that in "real life" (as if to say this website does not exist in real life!) anyone can do what they want; no-one here has said that. It's a false equivalence and strawman argument to suggest that people are saying that. But the freedom to simply exist as a human being and live a normal life is currently under threat. This is hardly the same thing as having laws against things like racism.

I suggest you look again at the topic of this thread, and read the original post as I think you are confused about what this debate is about.

Whilst I don't have the current cabinet in high regard, it is the job of government is trying to keep us safe against a dangerous illness.

Sars-CoV-2 is not a dangerous illness in any meaningful sense of the term, except for people who are unvaccinated and aren't young/healthy. The Government cannot keep people safe against an endemic infectious respiratory virus and even if it was possible, face masks will not do so, unless they are of the tight fitting kind that are designed to filter aerosol particles

By contrast nobody is going to die if a Rail Forum thread goes a bit off topic.

This is a false equivalence

I would also point out that your frequently stated views on masks are at odds with those I understand to be held by unions who represent front-line rail staff.

Rail Unions views are not representative of their members. The Unions act disgracefully and I know many rail staff who are fed up of them.

As a forum where many rail staff (used to) hang out, if you are trying to prosecute a "culture war" (whatever it is, it sounds rather aggressive!), many valued forum members are going to decide they want no part of it and leave the forum.

It is not me who is trying to 'prosecute' (?) a culture war; I am merely observing its existence.

If anyone wishes to leave because they believe that loose fitting flimsy masks are effective and cannot stand being part of a forum in which the founder believes they are not effective, that is entirely their choice.

Most rail staff I know are as much against ineffective mask wearing as anyone else, and don't feel the stated Union positions represent their views.

That is absolutely the feedback I am getting too.

It was the same with my (non-rail) Union, so I quit them.

 

[nedchester]

Covid 19 can be a dangerous illness to a number of previously healthy people. The evidence bears that out. Vaccination reduces the risk to those healthy people massively.

 

[35B]

I thought the "culture war" was a trope used by Pat Buchanan, a US the early '90s, no? He ran for president and I remember one of the teachers warning of the danger such people represent at my school (here in UK).

No idea; never heard of the person, and have no idea what you are saying without any context being provided. I doubt it's relevant to this issue though. Culture wars come and go; this is the latest but it won't be the last.

Just on a point of detail, Buchanan was a Republican presidential hopeful who energised the conservative right 20 and 30 years ago, creating a narrative of culture war. One thread - of several - in the political battles around vaccination and masking is the determination of the Republican right and their imitators elsewhere to object to any and all public health measures introduced to deal with Covid. This is absolutely being done in a partisan way, by politicians to try to create a supportive bloc.

For an example of the intellectual incoherence that surrounds this, the state of Mississippi will serve as an example. The State authorities there have barred any kind of Covid vaccine mandate within the state, despite Mississippi having some of the widest childhood vaccine mandates in the USA. The purpose of the action in Mississippi is not to do with Covid, or freedom, or anything else beyond pure partisan politicking.

 

[Cdd89]

Covid 19 can be a dangerous illness to a number of previously healthy people. The evidence bears that out. Vaccination reduces the risk to those healthy people massively.

I suppose the counterpoint to that would be whether you’d like to see 11-year-olds vaccinated (after all covid can be dangerous to a number of previously healthy kids). The risks don’t suddenly change from 11 to 12, so why are 11yo’s excluded? We may well end up following other countries and doing so, but current opinion in the U.K. is that it is not sufficiently beneficial.

Personally I would have a hard time telling someone under 30 that they must consider vaccination. I would not have a hard time telling someone over 50 that they really really should get vaccinated. But there’s a grey area in the middle, and that’s just one person’s risk judgment.

 

[yorkie]

Just on a point of detail, Buchanan was a Republican presidential hopeful who energised the conservative right 20 and 30 years ago, creating a narrative of culture war.

I would say this time round, those who are creating the culture war are those who are trying to impose measures such as mandatory masks (and other measures beyond the scope of this thread such as domestic vaccine passports etc); generally speaking these people tend to be the opposite of Conservatives (but, as the OP correctly says, it's not as simple as that, at least not in the UK)

One thread - of several - in the political battles around vaccination and masking is the determination of the Republican right and their imitators elsewhere to object to any and all public health measures introduced to deal with Covid. This is absolutely being done in a partisan way, by politicians to try to create a supportive bloc.

For an example of the intellectual incoherence that surrounds this, the state of Mississippi will serve as an example. The State authorities there have barred any kind of Covid vaccine mandate within the state, despite Mississippi having some of the widest childhood vaccine mandates in the USA. The purpose of the action in Mississippi is not to do with Covid, or freedom, or anything else beyond pure partisan politicking.

Yes things are much worse in the USA; there are examples of Democrats and Republicans acting in an abhorrent way.

But in the UK it is very different; over here the proportion of people who are against vaccinations is very small compared to the US (around 10% of the UK adult population are unvaccinated but I believe the majority of these are more hesitant than anything else) and the majority do not have any interest in wearing masks, though a significant proportion will do so if they are forced into it.

In other words the prevailing UK opinion is positive towards vaccinations and negative towards masks, but most people just quietly get on with things. This makes absolute sense of course.

In the USA, it's a very different picture and people tend to be very much pro or anti, with people typically being both pro-mask and pro-vaccine or anti both. That makes no sense to me.

I suppose the counterpoint to that would be whether you’d like to see 11-year-olds vaccinated (after all covid can be dangerous to a number of previously healthy kids). The risks don’t suddenly change from 11 to 12, so why are 11yo’s excluded? We may well end up following other countries and doing so, but current opinion in the U.K. is that it is not sufficiently beneficial.

Personally I would have a hard time telling someone under 30 that they must consider vaccination. I would not have a hard time telling someone over 50 that they really really should get vaccinated. But there’s a grey area in the middle, and that’s just one person’s risk judgment.

I'm sure I've posted my view on this in an appropriate thread but it's going wildly off topic so won't answer again here but will link to it, if I find it.

Back to the original topic, it is a very interesting question posed by the OP; does anyone else have any thoughts on that?

 

[35B]

I would say this time round, those who are creating the culture war are those who are trying to impose measures such as mandatory masks (and other measures beyond the scope of this thread such as domestic vaccine passports etc); generally speaking these people tend to be the opposite of Conservatives (but, as the OP correctly says, it's not as simple as that, at least not in the UK)


Yes things are much worse in the USA; there are examples of Democrats and Republicans acting in an abhorrent way.

But in the UK it is very different; over here the proportion of people who are against vaccinations is very small compared to the US (around 10% of the UK adult population are unvaccinated but I believe the majority of these are more hesitant than anything else) and the majority do not have any interest in wearing masks, though a significant proportion will do so if they are forced into it.

In other words the prevailing UK opinion is positive towards vaccinations and negative towards masks, but most people just quietly get on with things. This makes absolute sense of course.

In the USA, it's a very different picture and people tend to be very much pro or anti, with people typically being both pro-mask and pro-vaccine or anti both. That makes no sense to me.

It also makes no sense to me, but a trawl of social media will quickly find examples. My main conclusion is that the opposition is to public health efforts, and that opposition to masks and vaccines aligns there.

For that reason, though I agree that the extremes are less evident here than in the US, I don’t share your optimism about Britain being insulated from the effect of trans Atlantic currents. It’s worth note that the originators of the Great Barrington Declaration included a British epidemiologist, with a number of prominent British signatories, and that the focus of effort of GBD has included opposition to vaccination. Similarly, and overlapping, groups like HART have been British centred and actively opposed the use of vaccines.

I have seen many posts on this forum that reflect the lies being put about by such campaigners, and the miasma of conspiracism that surrounds them.

 

[yorkie]

It also makes no sense to me, but a trawl of social media will quickly find examples. My main conclusion is that the opposition is to public health efforts, and that opposition to masks and vaccines aligns there.

It's a completely different sense of logic to what we see in Europe, where vaccines are overwhelmingly seen as the way to get back to normal life, rather than the extreme of demanding vaccines in addition to other measures and resisting normality.

I think that the way the Biden administration has acted has encouraged people to push back; indeed the push back against masks (Biden lied about "100 days" of masking) was entirely predictable and logical but the push back against vaccines is a travesty, which the Democrats are party responsible for, as trying to mandate things is never going to go down well in a country like the USA.

For that reason, though I agree that the extremes are less evident here than in the US, I don’t share your optimism about Britain being insulated from the effect of trans Atlantic currents.

I don't think we are insulated as such but I don't think many people look at the USA as an example of how things should be done, at least not on health matters.

It’s worth note that the originators of the Great Barrington Declaration included a British epidemiologist, with a number of prominent British signatories, and that the focus of effort of GBD has included opposition to vaccination.

I am not aware of their opposition to vaccination? Their main objective was to oppose Zero Covid strategies and to point out that inevitability of the virus becoming endemic and the harms of lockdowns. They were right.

The only legitimate criticisms could be that, as vaccines were developed more rapidly than many experts thought possible, many aspects of GBD effectively became superseded by events and became redundant. But, make no mistake, if we had not had such successful vaccines so soon, the only option would be to do what they advocated all along.

They also did say that vaccinations would help reach high levels of population immunity; they were not anti-vax.

Similarly, and overlapping, groups like HART have been British centred and actively opposed the use of vaccines.

I have seen many posts on this forum that reflect the lies being put about by such campaigners, and the miasma of conspiracism that surrounds them.

I don't think many people are fooled by anti-vax narrative; from what I have seen on this forum, those who are not on board with vaccines are more hesitant than anything else, with only a few exceptions.

Unfortunately the actions of the pro-restriction lobbyists are doing a lot to harm confidence in vaccines; I've seen people say 'why bother with the vaccine if it won't get us back to normal?'; I try to convince people that the vaccines do allow us to get back to normal but it is frustrating that the pro-restriction brigade sow the seeds of doubts in the minds of some people.

Some of the most vocal pro-mask lobbyists go round discrediting vaccine effectiveness in order to further their pro-mask aims; I find this absolutely despicable.

 

[hst43102]

For that reason, though I agree that the extremes are less evident here than in the US, I don’t share your optimism about Britain being insulated from the effect of trans Atlantic currents.

Hence the title of this thread. I would completely share your opinion on this - I think that the UK as a whole is becoming very polarized like the US, not just on topics like face masks but in general. I for one absolutely hate this change.

 

[yorkie]

Hence the title of this thread. I would completely share your opinion on this - I think that the UK as a whole is becoming very polarized like the US, not just on topics like face masks but in general. I for one absolutely hate this change.

It's not on anywhere near on the scale of the USA, and it is not along clear party lines, but I agree there is increasing polarisation and it's not a good thing.

 

[MikeWM]

Whilst I don't have the current cabinet in high regard, it is the job of government is trying to keep us safe against a dangerous illness.

But is it? This is a view held by almost everyone nowadays, it seems, but actually this is a fairly new belief and I believe it is at the root of all the problems we've seen over the past 20 months.

My view is that the government should put in place a decent healthcare system, put out public health *information*, and strongly incentivise the rapid development of treatments and/or vaccines. And that's it. Which is what pretty much every government everywhere has done when a pandemic has struck since time immemorial, until the last 20 years or so when suddenly every bad thing that happens is the result of someone or something doing something or not doing something. Nothing can 'just happen' anymore, there is always blame and always 'something must be done'.

In the same way I think a government should make building codes offer some protection from earthquakes - but they shouldn't be trying to prevent the earthquakes in the first place, not least because they'll fail miserably, just as they have with the current virus.

 

[bramling]

Hence the title of this thread. I would completely share your opinion on this - I think that the UK as a whole is becoming very polarized like the US, not just on topics like face masks but in general. I for one absolutely hate this change.

I agree the polarisation is becoming very evident, and it’s not a good thing at all.

Whilst some of it is an American import, I tend to think that it more goes back to the New Labour years. Watching the recent Blair/Brown programme, I couldn’t help but hollow laugh. What New Labour did was pigeon hole the country into factions - so you could be, for example, someone in the Home Counties fortunate enough to own a house which has gone up by perhaps 12x its 1990s value now, someone with the same house in the north-east where it will have increased but by nowhere near as much, and someone without a property (perhaps in some cases because they simply weren’t old enough to be on the ladder at the time) who now essentially has nothing. Then, equally objectionable, the country was pigeon-holed up into London, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and everywhere else. It’s interesting to see the numbers of people saying they’ve now had it with Labour, perhaps it shouldn’t come as a surprise that much of Labour (with some honourable exceptions) has often been a case of “thanks for your votes guys, see you in 4 years”. Other elements of Labour have been simply a crusade for personal shoulder-chips. Meanwhile we’ve now been lumbered with an equally objectionable Conservative government.

As has come up here before, a leader with a sharpness and scientific background was what we needed. Instead we have a cross between a spin doctor and an after-dinner entertainer. No wonder the whole thing is a shambles.

 

[35B]

It's a completely different sense of logic to what we see in Europe, where vaccines are overwhelmingly seen as the way to get back to normal life, rather than the extreme of demanding vaccines in addition to other measures and resisting normality.

I think that the way the Biden administration has acted has encouraged people to push back; indeed the push back against masks (Biden lied about "100 days" of masking) was entirely predictable and logical but the push back against vaccines is a travesty, which the Democrats are party responsible for, as trying to mandate things is never going to go down well in a country like the USA.


I don't think we are insulated as such but I don't think many people look at the USA as an example of how things should be done, at least not on health matters.


I am not aware of their opposition to vaccination? Their main objective was to oppose Zero Covid strategies and to point out that inevitability of the virus becoming endemic and the harms of lockdowns. They were right.

The only legitimate criticisms could be that, as vaccines were developed more rapidly than many experts thought possible, many aspects of GBD effectively became superseded by events and became redundant. But, make no mistake, if we had not had such successful vaccines so soon, the only option would be to do what they advocated all along.

They also did say that vaccinations would help reach high levels of population immunity; they were not anti-vax.

I think, sadly, you give them too much benefit of the doubt. The AIER (the neocon think tank that fostered GBD) has been actively anti vax, while this BMJ article is clear that the thinkers have opposed vaccination:

Nor did the GBD authors limit their efforts to national governments. For example, in March 2021 Florida Governor Ron DeSantis hosted a video roundtable with Atlas, Gupta, Kulldorff, and Bhattacharya, where they expressed opposition to masks, testing and tracing, physical distancing, and mass vaccination.

 

[yorksrob]

I think, sadly, you give them too much benefit of the doubt. The AIER (the neocon think tank that fostered GBD) has been actively anti vax, while this BMJ article is clear that the thinkers have opposed vaccination:

Maybe in some of the more extreme areas of social media that may be the case, but experience doesn't bear out the idea that the UK is a hotbed of anti-vaccination beliefs. By contrast, at least half of the population seem to have concluded that facemasks aren't of much value.

 

[35B]

Maybe in some of the more extreme areas of social media that may be the case, but experience doesn't bear out the idea that the UK is a hotbed of anti-vaccination beliefs. By contrast, at least half of the population seem to have concluded that facemasks aren't of much value.

That’s true - but the links do exist

 

[big_rig]

I think, sadly, you give them too much benefit of the doubt. The AIER (the neocon think tank that fostered GBD) has been actively anti vax, while this BMJ article is clear that the thinkers have opposed vaccination:

Can you do us a favour and pull out from your link where the GBD authors oppose vaccination? I have read the linked Twitter thread of it and your interpretation is typically dishonest. You also seem to be wilfully and maliciously mixing up the GBD authors who yorkie is referring to and some other people. If you’ve gone to the effort of finding this information at least represent it in its entirety.

The second tweet in that linked piece is “the good news is that the GBD supports the covid 19 vaccine.” Had you even read it or were you too busy scrabbling round for something to find?

Also where is the AIER ‘actively anti vax?’ Please provide some evidence. It must be easy to back up such a bold claim.

 

[Yew]

Also where is the AIER ‘actively anti vax?’ Please provide some evidence. It must be easy to back up such a bold claim.

Let's also disambiguate between 'anti vacs' in the traditional sense, and 'anti vaccine mandates' or even 'anti mass vaccination of low risk groups before high risk groups in other countries have had the chance'.

 

[35B]

Can you do us a favour and pull out from your link where the GBD authors oppose vaccination? I have read the linked Twitter thread of it and your interpretation is typically dishonest. You also seem to be wilfully and maliciously mixing up the GBD authors who yorkie is referring to and some other people. If you’ve gone to the effort of finding this information at least represent it in its entirety.

The second tweet in that linked piece is “the good news is that the GBD supports the covid 19 vaccine.” Had you even read it or were you too busy scrabbling round for something to find?

Also where is the AIER ‘actively anti vax?’ Please provide some evidence. It must be easy to back up such a bold claim.

The linked article refers, quite literally, to the authors of GBS - Gupta, Kulldorf and Bhattacharya. Who are the ones described in the tweets at that round table.

As for AIER, my primary evidence is in their appointment of well known left wing feminist Naomi Wolf following her extensive promotion of anti vax. As her account’s been taken down for misinformation, providing links is a wee bit challenging.

Let's also disambiguate between 'anti vacs' in the traditional sense, and 'anti vaccine mandates' or even 'anti mass vaccination of low risk groups before high risk groups in other countries have had the chance'.

It’s a fair distinction, but one that AIER don’t make. Their opposition is to public health measures in general.

 

[big_rig]

The linked article refers, quite literally, to the authors of GBS - Gupta, Kulldorf and Bhattacharya. Who are the ones described in the tweets at that round table.

As for AIER, my primary evidence is in their appointment of well known left wing feminist Naomi Wolf following her extensive promotion of anti vax. As her account’s been taken down for misinformation, providing links is a wee bit challenging.


It’s a fair distinction, but one that AIER don’t make. Their opposition is to public health measures in general.

The link contains a tweet thread, the second tweet of which is ‘the good news is the GBD support the covid 19 vaccine.’ There is literally no anti vaccine content in any of it. I asked you to provide specific evidence from your link to the contrary which you have failed to do so, which is entirely unsurprising. Why can’t you pull out a direct quote from them opposing vaccination, your words? Back up your assertions!

It is also unsurprising to see that your characterisation of this other group relies not on say, any documented evidence (if they hate vaccines so much surely you could find a relevant article from their website? Is there not one titled ‘we hate vaccines’) but some random statement about them once hiring somebody unsavoury and something about ‘opposing public health measures in general.’ Usual intellectual dishonesty.

 

[yorkie]

Also the BMJ is published by a Trade Union; hardly a reliable source. The GBD website does appear to be for vaccinations; the only difference appears to be that they only favour targeted vaccinations rather than vaccinating everyone. Í don't see how this makes them anti-vax and I don't see how it is on topic for this thread.

The truth is that, when you look at the bigger picture, there were two broad strategies: either eliminate the virus or accept it will become endemic; yes you can narrow it down further beyond those two basic principles and yes the methods can vary hugely. But they were quite right all along that the virus could not be eliminated.

I think that attempts to belittle them are sour grapes from some people who are pro-harsh restrictions and an attempt to deflect attention from the real issue of this thread, which is about how divisive mask mandates have been and about how some people treat mask wearing as some sort of amazingly wonderful behaviour that indicates they are superior human beings to the majority of the population. The behaviour of some companies (including some train companies such as LNER) and individuals is absolutely disgraceful in this area and this behaviour must be stopped now before things get out of hand.

 

[35B]

The link contains a tweet thread, the second tweet of which is ‘the good news is the GBD support the covid 19 vaccine.’ There is literally no anti vaccine content in any of it. I asked you to provide specific evidence from your link to the contrary which you have failed to do so, which is entirely unsurprising. Why can’t you pull out a direct quote from them opposing vaccination, your words? Back up your assertions!

It is also unsurprising to see that your characterisation of this other group relies not on say, any documented evidence (if they hate vaccines so much surely you could find a relevant article from their website? Is there not one titled ‘we hate vaccines’) but some random statement about them once hiring somebody unsavoury and something about ‘opposing public health measures in general.’ Usual intellectual dishonesty.

Thank you for the constructive criticism, as usual.

Regarding your dismissal of my reference to engaging Naomi Wolf, I take the view that actions speak louder than words. Wolf is not just “somebody unsavoury” (though that’s a good description of her), but has been a very high profile campaigner against all measures to do with Covid. I might also add that she was the author whose book had to be pulped after an interview on Radio 3 showed that the whole basis of her thesis (a phrase in court records) meant precisely the opposite of what she said it did; this on top of questionable (at best) data for her previous books. I’d say that’s ample evidence of the position of AIER, and good corroboration of the astroturfing credentials of GBD, especially when combined with the positioning of Kulldorf and Bhattacharya (Gupta seems mercifully quiet these days).

 

[big_rig]

Thank you for the constructive criticism, as usual.

Regarding your dismissal of my reference to engaging Naomi Wolf, I take the view that actions speak louder than words. Wolf is not just “somebody unsavoury” (though that’s a good description of her), but has been a very high profile campaigner against all measures to do with Covid. I might also add that she was the author whose book had to be pulped after an interview on Radio 3 showed that the whole basis of her thesis (a phrase in court records) meant precisely the opposite of what she said it did; this on top of questionable (at best) data for her previous books. I’d say that’s ample evidence of the position of AIER, and good corroboration of the astroturfing credentials of GBD, especially when combined with the positioning of Kulldorf and Bhattacharya (Gupta seems mercifully quiet these days).

As usual, no evidence for your slurring of the GBD folks then. Strange you refuse to cite the document you yourself had provided, I imagine because it had not been read and now that it has it doesn’t fit the slur. Sounds like the discussion is over. I would be more careful in future

 

[35B]

Truth is no slur

 

[yorkie]

This is an attempt to distract and sidetrack from the question raised by the original poster.

I have therefore replied in the appropriate thread:

The great Barrington declaration

Has any country ever considered The great Barrington declaration? Although I can’t see the UK doing it unfortunately I’m wondering if any other country had considered it or likely to at some point in the near future. https://gbdeclaration.org/ Coming from both the left and right, and around...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[duncanp]

The shadow Transport Secretary, JimMcMahon MP, has put out a tweet urging everyone to wear a mask on public transport, along with a virtue signalling picture of himself sitting on a bus wearing a face nappy.

Don’t wait for the Government to catch up and insist. Buses, trams and trains are getting busier and infections are on the up. Please wear a face covering on public transport.

https://twitter.com/JimfromOldham/status/1452557721048428544?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1452557721048428544%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.sky.com%2Fstory%2Fcovid-sky-news-live-blog-uk-coronavirus-latest-daily-cases-plan-b-restrictions-12443026

 

[Yew]

The linked article refers, quite literally, to the authors of GBS - Gupta, Kulldorf and Bhattacharya. Who are the ones described in the tweets at that round table.

As for AIER, my primary evidence is in their appointment of well known left wing feminist Naomi Wolf following her extensive promotion of anti vax. As her account’s been taken down for misinformation, providing links is a wee bit challenging.


It’s a fair distinction, but one that AIER don’t make. Their opposition is to public health measures in general.

You still seem to have not provided a primary source for these assertions that the GBD, or the leading scientists behind it were anti vaccine.