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)
"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.
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?
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
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.
> 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.
Yes - Reform UK is a far right populist party. They currently have 5 out of 650 MPs and are steadily gaining popularity - similar to the rise of other parties like AfD across Europe.
1. Nice cherry-picking. The US and Canada (and, in fact, a majority of world nations) are not signatories of the ECHR. Those countries seem to get on just fine without it. In particular they are able to deport dangerous foreign criminals without issue - meaning their citizens are safer. There's nothing extreme about leaving the ECHR.
2. The WHO is notorious for failures in policy e.g. Covid response, bends to political pressure from China (e.g. not respecting Taiwan as an independent entity), and is dependent on private donors like Bill Gates which means they have undue influence. A 2021 probe into the WHO found its staff were involved in sexual abuse during an Ebola outbreak in Congo. There are plenty of reasons for leaving it. There's nothing extreme about leaving the WHO.
3. We absolutely should get the oil and gas we need from our own reserves, rather than buying it from despotic regimes and shipping it half way round the world at great ecological expense. There's nothing "extreme" about using our own natural resources.
4. We know now that there were many serious side effects from the mRNA injections and that the contracts granting lifetime immunity to the manufacturers for harm were extremely suspicious. This is a totally novel form of medical intervention, administered to a large population in a hurry, under intense political pressure. There's nothing "extreme" about an enquiry on mRNA injection harms. What are we afraid of? Uncovering the truth?
"CV events such as thrombosis, thrombocytopenia, stroke, and myocarditis frequently occur with the mRNA vaccines studied. A significant number of studies included in our review reported BNT162b2 events, which presses the need to conduct more research into the CV implications of mRNA‐1273 (Moderna) vaccine."
What’s this about? Is it some mad “covid was a hoax” thing?