It is already clear that the declaration is being used to legitimise a libertarian agenda. Indeed, some authors have questioned if it was ever anything about health, or whether its motivations were always purely economic; as the professor of political economy Richard Murphy put it, the declaration was “the economics of neoliberalism running riot … revealing in the process its utter indifference to the interests of anyone but those who can ‘add value’ within that system”.
Given that this is an approving quote then that settles it, doesn’t it?
It also neatly justifies the Ragging on Ritchie that so bores some around here.
Well OK Tim but we aren’t stopping the Fat Fuck are we?
He offers lies that leftist scum want to use. They will peddle those lies. Yes –if they try to debate his shit they lose badly. But lying Marxist/eco-virus freak shite is NOT about debate. How many “debates” did Gobbels –or Edward Bernays for that matter take part in? Just keep telling the same lies with endorsements from a crew of turds most of their idiot readers have never heard of anyway. And who don’t care how “expert” their “experts” are.
To answer the headline question, surely there’s no need to read down to where it says “Richard Murphy”.
You can draw the valid conclusion from the top of the screen.
(i.e. Where it says “www.guardian.com”)
The GB declaration admits that there are costs to their recommendations. There are no perfect solutions, but there are less bad ones than the present mess.
Imagining that a two week “circuit breaker” will work when a three month one didn’t is self evidently mad. Claiming that isolating the vulnerable for a short period is less damaging than isolating everyone for an indefinite period is fairer and more effective is a straightforward lie.
O/T, in yesterday’s Sunday Times 756 primary school heads wrote the lead letter to the editor. I assume they are aligned with NEU policy regarding extended half term, and they argue for scrapping SATS.
Their letter begins
“Primary schools have been on the front line of the Covid crisis since March, working to…”
How can we tell the article is bollocks? It contains a contribution from the Prof. I rest my case.
On circuit breakers, the outcome could run either way – it could lead to more mingling to take place in unregulated environments, or result in the intended less mingling. The ‘new normal’ though is that the onus is no longer on the one imposing the loss of liberty and resulting cost in enforcement to prove their case, but for those resisting it.
Similar to drugs – the classical liberal is expected to prove that decriminalisation is less harmful. Showing that the outcomes are about the same either way is not sufficient to justify being more free.
Those advocating lockdown know they can’t lose. If cases and deaths fall, they claim success, if cases and deaths rise, they claim it would have been even worse without a lockdown.
If there is no lockdown then every case and every death is blamed on the absence of lockdown.
You can tell it’s bollocks because Prof Gupta admits to being on the left of the political spectrum…
Mr Ecks, ignoring the Left is not a winning strategy. Some people believe their crazy, stupid shit. It’s good to know what some of the stuff is.