https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/01/04/its-the-pro-lockdown-lobby-that-is-spreading-fake-news/
The Kafkaesque quality of the lockdown was on full display at the weekend. We had the extraordinary sight of lockdown supporters accusing critics of the lockdown of spreading disinformation while they themselves were signal-boosting claims that were either categorically untrue or questionable in the extreme. This is the stage of lockdown authoritarianism we have now reached: anyone who questions the lockdown will be branded a liar and a hoodwinker who should be expelled from public life, while the cheerers of lockdown, those self-styled saviours of lives, can say whatever they want with very few repercussions.
The irony would have been delicious if it were not so serious and disturbing. Just as the lockdown fanatics were gunning for Karol Sikora, accusing the ‘positive professor’ of spreading disinformation, it became clear that they themselves have a somewhat difficult relationship with the truth. From both millennial leftists and tragic centrists, Sikora, a celebrated oncologist, has been getting it in the neck for quite a while, on the basis that he has committed the thoughtcrime of criticising harsh lockdowns and failing to predict there would be a second wave of the virus. Yet his accusers have some serious self-reflection to do, because their orgy of Sikora-bashing over the weekend coincided with an explosion of fibs from their own side.
First there was their vaccine disinformation (or, unlike them, let’s be generous: misinformation). Britain’s lockdown fanclub went wild over a New York Times piece which claimed that the UK is adopting a ‘mix and match’ approach to vaccination. This essentially means that this insane country some of us have the misfortune to live in will allow one vaccine to be given in a person’s first shot and an entirely different vaccine to be given for the second shot a few weeks later. The nutters! As the NYT’s haughty, startled headline put it: ‘Britain opts for mix-and-match vaccinations, confounding experts.’