Read on Twitter
This is indeed a very *simple* claim. But it is not one that can be credibly defended as accurate. Are @LBC presenting this as polemical commentary or as a factual claim? The host seems to be claiming it is an undeniable fact. It's a highly contentious (implausible) polemic. https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1343506871257346049
"Lockdown kills. [Its as simple as that]" is a much bigger claim than "lockdown doesn't work" or "the evidence for lockdown is contested".
Those latter claims need to be debated. But this statement seems to be a factual claim, with no credible claim to be accurate.
Those latter claims need to be debated. But this statement seems to be a factual claim, with no credible claim to be accurate.
This is SAGE study (August) on evidence & methods for estimating indirect impacts on death rates of lockdown policies (both negative and positive) alongside estimates of the impact of lockdown itself on cases, hospitalisation & deaths https://twitter.com/whippletom/status/1291752532545544199?s=19
I do not think anybody serious would disagree on what a "lockdown kills" claim is arguing - that lockdown does more harm than good when it comes to deaths https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1343674252764045312?s=19
Debating lockdown is necessary. What seems increasingly dangerous in MN's public advocacy is his righteous certainty. May be righteously right & righteously wrong on different issues. But invariably casts all disagreement with him as part of a deliberate effort to mislead/silence
MN has a liberal anti-authoritarian self-image since he left extreme Hizb-ut-Tahrir network 13 years ago. This still seems a charismatic authoritarian style, for mix of liberal (Uighur genocide),libertarian (lockdown)& anti-democratic causes (boost QAnon/pro-Trump misinformation)
Nawaz makes the factual assertion that the government has never published any report on indirect impacts and deliberately refuses to do so.
He is mistaken about that. Here is an ONS overview of a Sage report on the indirect impacts
https://www.ons.gov.uk/news/statementsandletters/estimatingtheimpactsofcoronavirusonenglandsmortalityandmorbidity
He is mistaken about that. Here is an ONS overview of a Sage report on the indirect impacts
https://www.ons.gov.uk/news/statementsandletters/estimatingtheimpactsofcoronavirusonenglandsmortalityandmorbidity
Good if somebody who is a subject expert would submit re inaccuracy to @lbc and @ofcom
1. Govt Sage & ONS did published on this. Alleged conspiracy to not publish is false.
2. Conclusion is not what MN claims
3. ? Claims re financial interests at end https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1343898825510027265?s=19
1. Govt Sage & ONS did published on this. Alleged conspiracy to not publish is false.
2. Conclusion is not what MN claims
3. ? Claims re financial interests at end https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1343898825510027265?s=19
Nawaz ends with some loose claims about the financial interests in lockdown. I don't understand how he makes the link to lockdown policy from the claims that he makes, since they are about other aspects of the pandemic.
Nawaz alleges two conflicts of interest on lockdown policy.
1) Matt Hancocks mate, a pub landlord, getting a PPE contract.
2) Rishi Sunak's hedge fund that he founded "having the majority share in vaccines".
1) Matt Hancocks mate, a pub landlord, getting a PPE contract.
2) Rishi Sunak's hedge fund that he founded "having the majority share in vaccines".
1) procurement of PPE merits scrutiny. The NHA needed PPE due to the pandemic. That need is not generated by lockdown policy. (If successful, lockdown might mitigate this need. But this is a different issue. The claim PPE creates a financial interest in lockdown is nonsense).
2) I don't know what the Sunak claim is about. It sounds unlikely on several grounds. Maybe defamatory.
Again, desirability of a vaccine has nothing to do with the pros/cons of lockdown as a policy. This seems v confused nonsense as a explanation (corruption) of lockdown policy.
Again, desirability of a vaccine has nothing to do with the pros/cons of lockdown as a policy. This seems v confused nonsense as a explanation (corruption) of lockdown policy.
I have emailed LBC directly with my concerns about the factual inaccuracies in this 6 minute segment. I have said that I am unsure whether to also file the complaint directly with Ofcom in the first place, but may see what the initial response is https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1344012139070185475
Mr Nawaz is going to republish his "lockdown kills" monologue daily https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1346095208996499459?s=19
Nawaz republishing 'Lockdown Kills'. He also claims to believe that falls in transmission during lockdowns are "correlation, not causation".
I did not hear anything from @lbc yet about their internal complaints process, so have put the central point about this to @Ofcom
LBC have acknowledged. They advise that their estimated timeline for a response is 15 days. This will also now be an opportunity to compare how the internal and the Ofcom processes deal with submissions.
