3 ms·

Reform UK don't believe Covid was a hoax. Reform UK believe that the purported efficacy of the mRNA vaccines at preventing transmission was massively exaggerat

by cbeach 2y ago

Reform UK don't believe Covid was a hoax. Reform UK believe that the purported efficacy of the mRNA vaccines at preventing transmission was massively exaggerated (we now know it was). https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00768-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... Reform UK believe that the detrimental side effects of lockdown policy outweighed the benefits of lockdown policy (again, there's evidence to support this view) https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature... "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument." We need more voices that are willing to state these truths in Parliament IMO.

Aachen 2y ago
In this other comment I read a rather different story about what ReformUK wants https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42971836 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42971836 Your comment makes it sound like they're all about research, but they also want to ditch human rights and the world health organisation? This conflict of logic makes me think there's probably more to it than just research and doing good in the world. Can it be that they speak of e.g. lockdowns having been bad based on that ReformUK voters were particularly badly affected by that policy and that this study after the fact found that, indeed, they did more harm than good? Ignoring that this wasn't necessarily knowable at the time, but it reflects badly on the government to have made a mistake with hindsight and so they can gain votes since they weren't in power back then and thus the fallacy is to think they'd have known better?
- cbeach 2y ago
  Please see this response: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42973646 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42973646
  - Aachen 2y ago
    Thanks for confirming that they're indeed extremist, right in point#1 of that link. "Nothing extreme about disavowing a human rights convention" my ass, lol
    - cbeach 2y ago
      Replacing one human rights convention with another human rights convention is not "extremist" any more than it was extreme for the UK to enter the ECHR in the first place (which necessarily meant changing our existing human rights laws). It is disingenous at best to claim that leaving the ECHR means that the UK will abandon or downgrade human rights, unless you have detailed insider information on the proposed British Bill of Rights, and if you're in a position to analyse the relative strength of the ECHR vs the BBR. I am confident that a new-found ability to send rapists and murderers out of the UK and back to their home country will IMPROVE the human rights of UK citizens.
anonymars 2y ago
> Reform UK believe that the purported efficacy of the mRNA vaccines at preventing transmission was massively exaggerated (we now know it was). Okay, let's check the paper. > Thus, the current evidence suggests that current mandatory vaccination policies might need to be reconsidered, and that vaccination status should not replace mitigation practices such as mask wearing, physical distancing, and contact-tracing investigations, even within highly vaccinated populations. I must conclude, as a party dedicated to the science, that Reform UK therefore would be on board with the above mitigations, if they are genuinely interested in pursuing at least the simplest / cheapest effective mitigations for Covid. Was that the case?

by cbeach 2y ago

Aachen 2y ago

In this other comment I read a rather different story about what ReformUK wants https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42971836 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42971836 Your comment makes it sound like they're all about research, but they also want to ditch human rights and the world health organisation? This conflict of logic makes me think there's probably more to it than just research and doing good in the world. Can it be that they speak of e.g. lockdowns having been bad based on that ReformUK voters were particularly badly affected by that policy and that this study after the fact found that, indeed, they did more harm than good? Ignoring that this wasn't necessarily knowable at the time, but it reflects badly on the government to have made a mistake with hindsight and so they can gain votes since they weren't in power back then and thus the fallacy is to think they'd have known better?

cbeach 2y ago
Please see this response: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42973646 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42973646
- Aachen 2y ago
  Thanks for confirming that they're indeed extremist, right in point#1 of that link. "Nothing extreme about disavowing a human rights convention" my ass, lol
  - cbeach 2y ago
    Replacing one human rights convention with another human rights convention is not "extremist" any more than it was extreme for the UK to enter the ECHR in the first place (which necessarily meant changing our existing human rights laws). It is disingenous at best to claim that leaving the ECHR means that the UK will abandon or downgrade human rights, unless you have detailed insider information on the proposed British Bill of Rights, and if you're in a position to analyse the relative strength of the ECHR vs the BBR. I am confident that a new-found ability to send rapists and murderers out of the UK and back to their home country will IMPROVE the human rights of UK citizens.

anonymars 2y ago

> Reform UK believe that the purported efficacy of the mRNA vaccines at preventing transmission was massively exaggerated (we now know it was). Okay, let's check the paper. > Thus, the current evidence suggests that current mandatory vaccination policies might need to be reconsidered, and that vaccination status should not replace mitigation practices such as mask wearing, physical distancing, and contact-tracing investigations, even within highly vaccinated populations. I must conclude, as a party dedicated to the science, that Reform UK therefore would be on board with the above mitigations, if they are genuinely interested in pursuing at least the simplest / cheapest effective mitigations for Covid. Was that the case?