Ten Reasons to be Anti-Lockdown

26 December 2020  /  Updated 7 March 2021

by Jonny Peppiatt

  1. The research: While those who oppose lockdowns have rigorously sought to justify their position with research – and can reference tens of studies as to the lack of efficacy of lockdowns (or stringent measures under different names) – the Government has been capable only of publishing one graph in their cost-benefit analysis of the tiers which appeared to show a correlation between Tier 3 measures and a reduction in cases (since discredited).
  1. The use of data: While those who oppose lockdowns have analysed all data in as close to real time as possible, the ‘data’ used to justify lockdowns have been cherry-picked and often predictive, while being based on spurious assumptions that have repeatedly been proved inaccurate.
  1. The source and balance of information: While those who oppose lockdowns possess no bias in obtaining their information, the Government is informed on the risks by a number of committees (Sage, Nervtag, SPI-M) whose sole responsibility is to consider the virus and present the risks of that virus.
  1. The expertise of sources: While those who oppose lockdowns have been entertained by commentators, cartoonists, comedians, and so on, they have been informed by scientists and medical professionals (Gupta, Heneghan, Spector, Yeadon, Craig, et al.). The Government, however, has a disturbing proportion of social scientists or behavioural scientists (with no relevant expertise) informing each of their actions. Devi Sridhar, one of the chief “scientific” advisors to the Scottish Government, has a PhD in social anthropology.
  1. The fear campaign: While those who oppose lockdowns have sought to bring joy, maintain sanity, spread compassion, and care for people – all people – the Government has operated a campaign of fear and propaganda unlike anything we have seen before in this country. Were this situation a severe threat to life, the message would undoubtedly be one of “Keep Calm and Carry On”; there is a reason that the first piece of advice in any crisis is always to not panic: level-headedness leads to good decision making.
  1. The costs (part 1 – health): While those who oppose lockdowns plead to the masses to understand how depression has tripled in 16-39 year-olds this year, how still births have potentially quadrupled this year, how the largest underlying factor in deaths of those suffering with dementia or Alzheimer’s (which contributes to c.10% of deaths in the UK each year) is loneliness and that the treatment of the suffering elderly – stripping them of dignity, of compassion, of their grip on reality – has been a death sentence in and of itself, how domestic abuse has soared, and many other factors, the Government appears blinkered to any health costs that are not Covid related.
  1. The costs (part 2 – economy): While those who oppose lockdowns seek to understand the economic costs, and seem to understand that economic costs cannot simply be separated from health costs (killing small businesses kills livelihoods, drives up depression, drives up inequality – which has been shown to be more correlated with Covid-related deaths than the severity of lockdown measures, drives down tax revenues, drives down potential spending on healthcare, drives down life expectancy), the Government seems content to prioritise health over the economy (which doesn’t make sense as explained).
  1. The costs (part 3 – culture): While those who oppose lockdowns seek to support the culture of this country – be that in supporting small businesses, art galleries, museums, music, pubs, or sport – the Government seems content to simply erase what it means to be British.
  1. Censorship and debate: While those who oppose lockdowns are constantly appealing for open debate and free speech, the Government avoids open debate, seeking instead to censor dissenting voices. Further, as there is a push to censor any “misinformation”, one can quite easily conclude that the mass of information available, and uncensored, from dissenting voices must therefore be much closer to irrefutable having had to pass a much higher standard in order to simply be available.
  1. Motivation: While those who oppose lockdowns have invested time and effort, the Government has invested near on half a trillion pounds of the people’s money in their “fight against the virus”. Should that be proven to be a waste, it would lose power, lose credibility, lose everything. While those who oppose lockdowns and those who support lockdowns alike have been able to achieve some degree of fame and notoriety through positioning themselves centre-stage, those who oppose lockdowns have been subject to ridicule, defamation, slander, and abuse; they have risked their careers and reputations. They have done this for what they have believed is right and worth fighting for; they have done this to fight for each and every one one of us; they have done this in the name of compassion.