Kim, you write beautifully and very clearly, but I don’t have time to read at present.
If it’s any consolation I have the same problem with most journalism; there are many articles which contain facts and reasonable suspicions but embedded among human interest and ideological argument. Our world has become more complex and interconnected, and just abstracting the salient points takes up much of each reader’s time.
Recently, I have spent much of my time battling on the recent threads trying to counter the denial of covid-19 itself, trying to demonstrate that assessing science is actually the quite simple consideration of evidence rather than guesswork about individual scientists’ professional reputations, characters and sources of funding. I might not convince many commenters but there are far more readers than commenters, and I have found it very encouraging that new usernames have emerged and contributed to arguments about evidence; it shifts the balance. Over the years I have seen many threads become monopolised by conspiracy theorists, who make no attempt at coherency between their various arguments but are unanimous in their contempt for anyone who “supports the official story”. I’ll come back to all this; everything is interconnected, and I think that an important effect of conspiracy theory upon the side-lining Jeremy Corbyn has been overlooked. Debate degenerates into untestable arguments about imputed motive eg. “he’s anti-Semitic!” rather than objective discussion of evidence and policy.
I will try to find time to read this whole forum thoroughly, collate the content into a form convenient for those like myself, and then post it. Meanwhile, if you can please help find lawyers who would mount a legal challenge against this government (I also am looking for such); current government policy is clearly criminally negligent. I think a legal challenge will be the quickest way of forcing rapid change; the government would be forced to change course as soon as they realised they were under legal challenge, because continuing their negligence would then progress to wilful malice against the population. By neglecting to supply masks the government is increasing exposure of the population to an infection of unknown severity. Surely that must be illegal. A court case would also expose reams of internal government communications; that is what has worked eg. in challenges against pharmaceutical companies.
Sorry, I have no more time right now but I will be back. Please keep up the good work Kim, and hello SA, good to see you here.