A troubling aspect of media coverage of the coronavirus has been that commentators sceptical of lockdown restrictions (for a variety of health, economic and educational reasons) have consistently been denied space to air their views on mainstream media channels. It forms one part of much wider attempts to shut down free speech

Diverging opinions

You would think, watching news broadcasts on the BBC, ITV and Channel 4, that there was virtually no debate(other than from opposition MPs calling for stricter measures still, and snippets of occasional lockdown protests).

It’s only when you look beyond mainstream media – such as to myriad posts on social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook, or a plethora of blogs and online articles – or simply engage in discussion with friends and neighbours – that you realise there is far more widespread opinion on this issue than the BBC would have you believe.¹

Banished from public arena

Consider the Great Barrington Declaration. Drafted in the autumn of 2020 by several infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists, and endorsed by over 50,000 medical and public health scientists and practitioners from all over the world (as well as 720,000 ‘concerned citizens’), this Declaration expressed grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing Covid-19 policies, and recommended protecting the elderly and vulnerable, while allowing the healthy to continue working, schools and universities to remain open, etc. Highly significant as it was, it hardly ever got an airing on national TV, and it was even claimed that when one of its architects was interviewed on BBC News, she was specifically asked not to mention it.

More troubling still is that critics of such reports want their promoters removed completely from the public sphere, in a display of unbridled intolerance. It appears there is indeed a societal lockdown in this country – and it extends even to thought and discussion, both of which were once regarded as fundamental freedoms of a democratic society.

Societal lockdown in this country ... extends even to thought and discussion.

Censorship surge

This is one reason for the popularity of TalkRadio, which regularly interviews lockdown sceptics, as well as Government ministers and other leading figures. TalkRadio has more than a quarter of a million subscribers to its YouTube channel, where its radio shows are livestreamed every day. Yet, in a highly controversial move, YouTube shut down the channel last week (supposedly for airing criticism of the current lockdown). It was reinstated the following day, but it shows how delicate public discussion truly is. TalkRadio studios (Image @ Drum)

This disabling of debate has infiltrated society as a whole. Anyone who dares question official statistics on Covid is liable to be deemed a ‘conspiracy theorist’ or ‘Covid-denier’ (in the same way that climate sceptics are routinely referred to as climate-science deniers).

A biblical perspective

The Lord invites honest, sincere questioning. Habakkuk was not afraid to ask tough questions of God (Hab 1:2-3), as did David many times throughout the Psalms. Answers to big questions are obtained by searching, and not by naively accepting anything we are told (see Rom 3). When the Bereans first heard the gospel, they "being of noble character … searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so" (Acts 17:10-11).

Engaging in reasoned discussion is thoroughly biblical. God called on the Israelites “Come, let us reason together” (Isa 1:18, 43:26). We know that Paul often engaged in vigorous debate with both Jews and Gentiles that he met on his evangelistic travels (Acts 15:2, 18:28).

It is truth that exposes error (Eph 5:11, Col 2:8). And no one has a monopoly on truth but God alone – no individual, no television network. Truth is not revealed by suppressing genuine discussion, but by engaging in it.

More questions than answers

What then are some of the critical issues that lockdown sceptics say require more open debate in the media? They include the high rate of false positives in the popular Covid PCR test; controversy over how the daily number of both ‘new cases’ and deaths are calculated; the essential distinction between dying with Covid and dying of Covid; and comparisons with previous years statistics (The Guardian shows hospitals being stretched to their limit during every one of the past eight winters at least, all due to the flu).

On top of these, there are wider issues, such as how the unprecedented levels of UK national debt (mounting to several trillion pounds) are going to be repaid; and the impact on millions who face starvation across the world due to the economic impact of lockdowns and restrictions. And then, of course, there is the possibility of paving the way for the Great Reset, as proposed by the World Economic Forum (well beyond the remit of this article).

The whole point of science is to constantly challenge, question and examine the existing consensus, to improve understanding.

More discussion, not less

Some say there is no need for debate. The Government is simply following ‘The Science’. But most scientists will tell you there is no such thing as ‘The Science’. The whole point of science is to constantly challenge, question and examine the existing consensus, to better improve understanding. A variety of informed opinions can help: as Proverbs 15:22 says, “Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisors they succeed.”

The media’s stifling of debate, and the spouting forth of one standard narrative, is a form of propaganda, which has the effect of pushing some towards alternative ‘conspiracy’ views. Whatever you believe about any of these issues, actual debate is surely more constructive: it allows for wrong theories to be aired and debunked, as well as for the refining of ideas.

Yes, Covid is real, and many are dying of it. But that does not mean we should suspend public debate about what works and what doesn’t. Best of all, we should seek God on all these matters, for in him alone are to be found truth and hope, and a profound peace even in the midst of difficult circumstances (Phil 4:7).

Endnote
1. This article in today's Telegraph (Fri 15th Jan) makes a similar point