The world being covered in plague has resulted in some predictably boorish behavior, and, if nothing else, has confirmed my generally cynical belief that people will unquestionably go along with whatever certain authority figures tell them, no matter how intuitively idiotic those suggestions may seem — and, ironically, they’ll often engage in mass projection along the way, as demonstrated by the common slogan “tRusT the sCiENce” espoused by ideological mouthpieces who are some of the most flagrant ignoramuses of science to ever parade the earth.
Let me say, like most reasonable people, I was concerned when COVID hit. Quite concerned.
And, like most, I thought the initial lockdowns to “flatten the curve” and preserve the integrity of the health care system seemed a mostly reasonable and perhaps morally permissible move, especially since we faced so much initial uncertainty.
But after not too long, and after seeing the goalposts continually shifting (first, two weeks to flatten the curve, then, months later… zero cases!), it became clear to me that lockdowns, whatever their effectiveness, were no longer morally permissible.
As Ed Feser notes (also here), those who impose burdens have the burden of proof, and must demonstrate not only the effectiveness of their measures, but the utter catastrophic results that’ll come about if those measures are not enacted, especially since lockdown measures result in the severe suppression of otherwise fundamental rights: including the right to provide for one’s self and/or family, the right to religious worship, social and familial gatherings, and more. Clearly, that burden has not only not been met, but at this point is evidenced strongly to the contrary. Thus, any further lockdowns are immoral.
But don’t just take my word on it.
Recently, some of the world’s foremost scientists (and most relevant when it comes to infectious disease, because #trusttheexperts) have come out with The Great Barrington Declaration, encouraging people to get back to life as normal.
Quoting: “Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.
Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.”
Also: “Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.
As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.
The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.”
Continuing: “Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.”
No more lockdowns, no more nonsense. (Also, notice no recommendation of wearing masks…) Just Focused Protection for those we know are most susceptible to COVID 19. What could be more reasonable?
Honestly, that anybody could still argue for ongoing mass-scale social isolation and repression measures after the emergence of this declaration — and still declare themselves People of Science who simply “tRusT tHe ExPErts”— is a pretense that drains them of all credibility.
What’s more, Dr. Navarro (of the WHO) recently said: “Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer.” He also (go figure) does not advocate current lockdown policies.
People of a sane and reasonable disposition will recognize all this as stupidly obvious, at this point, especially given what we now know about the lethality of this disease and who it primarily impacts, and will require no further arguments or convincing. People who are stuck on the MSM panic-porn, hysteria outlets, however, undoubtedly require a far deeper, more intensive psychological intervention to break them free of the insidious trauma that has been imposed upon them by so many imposters and frauds. The media, I dare to say, has truly become the enemy of the people.
I leave people with the following resources (as if more is needed?), to decide for themselves, and, if helpful, pass along to others.
The Price of Panic: How the Tyranny of Experts Turned the Pandemic Into a Catastrophe
COVID: The Science, Logic, and Data Explained.
Stats Show Lockdowns Have Had Little Effect on COVID Transmission
Lancet Study finding “Rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people.”
COVID containment strategies through time may cost more lives.
Tom Woods compiled COVID data on lockdowns and masks; also his recent talk here.
My interview with Jay Richards on COVID lockdowns doing more harm than good.
PS – Remember, it wouldn’t be enough to show that lockdowns are effective (even mildly to somewhat). Since the burden of proof is on those who impose burdens, and since lockdowns suppress fundamental human rights, it would have to be shown not only that lockdowns are significantly effective, but also they are something we really cannot do without, absent catastrophic consequences. And whatever other sorts of arguments people may try to make for lockdowns, that burden of proof in that respect is far, FAR from being met.