So, in terms of what’s going on in the world, we're interested in narratives which are open to challenge and the thinking and motives of those in power, the media, and experts behind them. And particularly how the public watching and listening process these messages.
This is what Lord Sumption, former member of the English Supreme Court, said about Covid-19 on BBC Radio 4 recently:
"What I say to them is I am not a scientist but it is the right and duty of every citizen to look and see what the scientists have said and to analyse it for themselves and to draw common sense conclusions.
We are all perfectly capable of doing that and there’s no particular reason why the scientific nature of the problem should mean we have to resign our liberty into the hands of scientists.
We all have critical faculties and it’s rather important, in a moment of national panic, that we should maintain them".
Lord Sumption is right. Evidence comes in many forms: testimony, circumstantial, documents, and research or expert studies.
Talking Covid-19 as the current topic, it amazes me when someone says, “you seem to think lockdown is not necessary, it states on the news that it’s working, so what proof do you have that it isn’t?”
We probably don’t need to elaborate on this lazy thinking except to say that the onus is on those who assert to prove. So, the duty is on the government to show that lockdown is working by directly reducing infection, and most importantly, is necessary in the big scheme.
The media is a main channel to communicate such evidence, but statements of “we don’t know” or “it’s too early to tell” or “trust the science”, contradictions, and scare stories have been typical of the entire Covid-19 response.
Meanwhile, many sceptical experts and independent commentators have brought much to the table in terms of scientific studies and the questioning proportionality of lockdown measures.
The sceptics as yet have not had the same air-time to put forward their case. But people need to remember that the government has not discharged the onus of proof over Covid-19, and historically, rarely do over other events.
Today, we believe that the UK government is realising their lockdown response was driven by blind panic after receiving incorrect advice on potential mortality rates from their scientists.So, their main motive now is to prevent an angry backlash against the damage caused by lockdown...<<<Read The Full Article Here>>>...