I don't know what you're talking about. Which part of my post do you actually disagree with?
What narrative? That Covid is deadly for everyone and we all need to hide under our beds? That's a straw man. No-one who has looked at the data believes that.The narrative is falling to pieces in front of your eyes.
As I said, there may have been some hysterical over-reactions. But the push back against that is now that this was just a sniffle and no action was necessary.
Why is everything so binary with you? There's a huge middle ground between "we needed to lock everything down for a year" and "it was just a sniffle".
You seem to be claiming the latter, but you are using meaningless data to justify it.
Not many people died just from Covid. OK, so what? There's a significant percentage of the population who are elderly and/or have comorbidities and are thus at risk. Should we have just thought "sod 'em, they shouldn't be so old or ill!". Should we have tried to just protect them and let the rest of us get on with it? That's an approach I think makes sense in principle, but in practice in a complicated interconnected society it's not simple to do that.
They have clearly been following the data. If you look at the data and when restrictions have been imposed and relaxed then the correlation is clear.But you claim it's because the state has been following data (that is being discredited as we speak by the very same organisations that blasted it out 24/7) and it's perfectly reasonable restrictions are being lifted (not that we were talking about restrictions, but whatever).
That doesn't mean I think they've got things right. Shutting down the country for a year was an overreaction which will cause more harm than it did good.
But I do think some response was required.
Of course it isn't. He's finally under some real pressure, it looks like there might actually be some consequences for him this time (although gut feeling is he's going to get away with it. Again). So sure, the timing of this announcement is suspicious. But the point you are repeatedly failing to acknowledge is that the restrictions have come and gone as the situation has changed. Your claim was that this was a slide into totalitarianism - checkpoints, curfews, the army on the streets. That didn't happen. It was never going to happen. Because our government aren't interested in controlling or oppressing us in the way you suppose - that's the underlying assumption which you are wrong about and that's what led you to the wrong conclusions.It's just another one of those wild coincidences that Boris the libertarian has leaped into action at this particular moment.
You've said this a load of times and every time I've responded the same way so I guess I'll do so again. No, of course it's not a coincidence. Of course any situation like this will be used by certain people to enrich themselves.So many coincidences. A few people got rich. Happens. Again. And again. And again. It's the constancy of coincidence, that makes it so commonplace. Really. There's nothing to see.
Who are you arguing against here?