The problem is that the article lazily conflates the usual alt-right attention seeker and 5G conspiracy types with some academics who have raised genuinely-held concerns about the costs vs benefits of the current approach.
It’s difficult to take these sort of articles seriously because “you are spreading disinformation” is a lot easier than a dispassionate analysis of the issue at hand.
Dispassion isn't hard, it just isn't as saucy... And people are passionate about this stuff. That's what they want.
These things are "conflated" in real life, not just in rhetoric and reporting... lazy or otherwise. That's kind of the point of this article. There is a ton of political power at stake here, and consolidation is how you win at politics.
Whether or not this article, the media, etc. give a fair shake to the (most rational/dispassionate version of) the opposing viewpoint is what.. it is what it is. The biggest reasons why a dispassionate opposition doesn't get much press is (a) the "ruling" version is the more relevant, practically, because it's in charge. and (b) the crazy version of the dissident position is saucier. This is true for both old and new media, just in different ways. There are also, obviously biases. But, we're also biased in our perceptions of bias. Bias is a mess... but I generally think we over-attribute to bias.
Anyway, the topic of this article actually is relevant. Covid/Lockdown and 2020 generally are massive multipliers for shady, exploitative attempts to acquire political power.
That has nothing to do with dispassionate analysis. It's all about channeling the passions that are already ignited. A lot of people got screwed by covid. A lot of shady cats want to channel those feelings into whatever their cause it.
Remember that lockdown/covid is temporary. Most of the actual political maneuvering is not actually about it anymore.
I guess it's a cliche to end with "the medium is the message." It's just so true here. None of these political actors care about the message (covid policies, good or bad). They care about the medium.
> genuinely-held concerns about the costs vs benefits
Very few of them are honestly saying "we should accept another few hundred thousand dead in order to keep the restaurants open". They're just lying about the costs.
The psychological cost of the lockdowns is starting to be significantly more than restaurants being closed. UK has more or less been locked down since last March (with minor interruptions).
We've had the worst of both worlds: the death toll is worse than Sweden, because the "lockdown" was so porous with so many exempt employers, so many people have been spreading it at work and school. But nonetheless we have the cost of lockdown.
It’s difficult to take these sort of articles seriously because “you are spreading disinformation” is a lot easier than a dispassionate analysis of the issue at hand.