Ashes were already falling, not as yet very thickly. I looked round: a dense black cloud was coming up behind us, spreading over the earth like a flood. ‘Let us leave the road while we can still see’ I said, … ‘We had scarcely sat down to rest when darkness fell, not the dark of a moonless or cloudy night, but as if the lamp had been put out in a closed room…you could hear the shrieks of women, the wailing of infants, and the shouting of men; some were calling their parents, other their children or their wives, trying to recognize them by their voices… there were some who prayed for death in their terror of dying. Many besought the aid of the gods, but still more imagined there were no gods left, and that the universe was plunged into eternal darkness for evermore.
There is no debate any longer, the decision to Lockdown Culture and Society to stop an aerosolized virus is the greatest policy disaster in human history.
There is no debate any longer.
The only debate that remains is what safe guards will be cemented in order to occlude a similar policy in the future and if there ought to be legal repercussions against those who pursued these policies.
As I have written on before, there needs to be a total and complete audit of all governmental, media, and health agencies. There must be a transparent and unobstructed assessment of the policy, and the role of media and health agencies in promoting the lockdown solution. That the Great Barrington Declaration was demonized and suppressed by the medical establishment should cause everyone concern.
The Declaration was always the only proper mitigation strategy.
There is no debate any longer.
In 79 CE Mount Vesuvius erupted, covering Pompeii and Herculaneum in ash, killing thousands upon thousands upon thousands. Pliny the Younger witnessed the eruption and in two letters to the historian Tacitus recounted the events of that day. The eruption of Vesuvius was a natural disaster that resulted in natural harms. Throughout human history there have been countless natural disasters along with their concomitant natural harms.
What I mean by natural harms are harms that are direct outcomes from a natural disaster such as death, injury, destruction of property, and subsequent devastation of local economies and the social fabric. We understand that natural disasters will result in natural harms. To that end we attempt to mitigate natural harms, knowing full well that we are powerless to preclude natural disasters. The Earth will do what the Earth will do, and it will do as it always has done.
So we build flood plains, or flood walls, or evacuate cities, or send in the National Guard and Firefighters. These various mitigation strategies against natural harms are policy decisions. In evaluating the policy decisions in the context of natural harms, we all agree that the enactment of these policies should not result in “policy harms.”
For example, everyone would agree that building a flood wall in the Sahara or a flood plain on Mount Everest would be a profoundly dumb use of resources. In addition, we would all agree that a mitigation strategy that included the total evacuation and then levelling of New Orleans—while it would negate ALL natural harms of a hurricane—would cause so brutal and reprehensible policy harms that most reasonable people would reject such a mitigation strategy immediately. Only a psychopath would adopt such a policy.
We understand that when confronted by natural harms we should not compound them with policy harms.
In fact, any policy that implicitly contains policy harms is usually the wrong policy. Humans are fallible. We ought to expect some degree of unknown policy harms under any given situation, but the moment these harms are known then corrections are required immediately.
Diseases like COVID are a species of natural disaster. They include natural harms. The question is, what policy ought to be employed that might mitigate the natural harms, while not causing policy harms?
That we have not thought about COVID as a natural disaster has resulted in a rather serious misunderstanding of COVID and COVID policy. Someone like Fauci can state “you have a right NOT to get sick.” This is not true. You do not have a right to avoid a natural occurring disease. Just as we cannot outlaw storms, floods, hurricanes, and volcanoes, you also cannot outlaw aerosolized viral spread.
COVID was natural disaster.
It contains natural harms, but these harms do not impact people equally. The data are clear on this. The debate is settled.
COVID harm is age and comorbid stratified.
It is EXTREMELY unlikely that one will have a negative outcome from COVID if you have zero comorbidites. The more comorbidities you have the more at risk from harm you are.
The same is true if you are young. You are EXTREMELY unlikely to have a negative outcome from COVID if you are young. The older you are, the more at risk you are. Mix age and comorbidities and you get a perfect storm for COVID harm. The Great Barrington Declaration understood the nature of COVID harm from the beginning, but it was demonized and ignored.
There have been (primarily) three policy mitigation strategies against the natural harm of COVID.
Lockdowns
Vaccination
Medical Apartheid between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.
Each of these mitigation strategies against the natural harms of COVID have been applied to everyone equally.
People at very low risk from COVID must stay home in lockdown and ought to be inoculated (apparently many times).
If one does not undergo inoculation (for whatever reason) then the Medical Apartheid strategy is employed in ordered to coerce medical compliance of vaccination.
Were these the right mitigation strategies?
The answer is Yes and No
By Way of Analogy
Let us analogize a hurricane to covid in order to situate our notion of natural harm and a proper policy position.
Hurricane: New Orleans :: COVID: Human body.
Just as a hurricane might destroy New Orleans, COVID might destroy the human body. To that end, just like we would evacuate New Orleans, build flood walls/plains and deploy the National Guard, for COVID we should enact lockdowns, vaccinate everyone, and medicalize our social interactions.
At this level of focus we can see why the mitigation strategies against COVID have a degree of truth value.
*While we now know that lockdowns had little impact on COVID mortality and that masks too were largely ineffective, it is not crazy to think that “experts” might have assumed these strategies would slow the spread.
*It is clear that the vaccines have saved 100,000s of lives.
*There is no real science behind medical apartheid (like vaccine passports).
In the face of a pandemic we can allow for mistakes.
The analogy above, however, needs some refinement.
While New Orleans is under threat from Hurricanes, Minneapolis isn’t. Would it be proper policy to evacuate Minneapolis and build flood walls because of hurricanes?No, it would be stupid.
Not all human bodies are the same and they experience COVID differently.
There are some human bodies that are at extreme threat from COVID. All forms of mitigation need to be employed for these individuals.
But there are others who are simply NOT at risk of COVID.
The aggregate data doesn’t lie.
Notice the following charts taken from Government Quebec:
The data are clear with respect to the age of those most at risk of COVID; those with less healthy bodies are far more at risk from COVID than those with healthy bodies. Of the 13,336 deaths with/from COVID in Quebec only 299 (.02%) total have been among people with zero comorbidities and the vast majority of those have been over 70. The older and more unhealthy your body is, the more likely you will succumb to COVID. Of course, the truism can be applied to any disease.
Any policy that ignores this stark and unambiguous reality is the WRONG policy.
The vast majority of human beings are not at risk from COVID. Those people were locked down (Minneapolis was evacuated). The vast majority of these people were vaccinated (a flood wall was built around Minneapolis). The individuals participated actively in a medicalized society. They showed their Gesundheitpass and dutifully wore their mask.
Do not mistake what I am arguing here.
Everyone who wants a vaccine ought to have the freedom to receive a vaccine. Anyone with 2 or more comorbidities should be strongly encouraged to take the vaccine. Anyone over 60 should be strongly encouraged to take it.
Anyone should be free to enact whatever mitigation strategy they feel makes them safe, even if those mitigation strategies do not actually make one safer. Feeling safe and being safe are two different things.
And now I approach the third rail:
There are people who are not vaccinated who should be. But there are many more people who are vaccinated who never needed to be. The vaccine loses efficacy. COVID mutates and escapes the vaccine’s antigen profile. It neither stops you from getting or transmitting COVID. The government used ubiquitous nudging/terror to compel medical compliance. This was wrong.
By way of analogy, the government scared everyone in Minneapolis that they may die in a Hurricane if they don’t do what the government mandates.
But we knew that there were issues with the vaccines all along. They were exposed right before our eyes. While Trudeau was stating in April 2021 that the vaccines were sterilizing and neutralizing—that two shots end COVID like a measles shot or polio shot— he was also ordering 10 more booster shots per person in Canada.
That used to be a scandal, now it is the New Normal.
It goes without saying that the COVID policy did mitigate *some* of the natural harms of COVID. We need to celebrate this.
But the issue is what were the policy harms in response to the natural harm of COVID?
Remember, if there are policy harms one should probably not employ those policies.
It is probably better to accept a degree of natural harm, rather than to enact mitigation strategies that have significant policy harms, which are then ADDED to the natural harms.
Find some of the most obvious policy harms below.
None of these are acceptable.
They all indict COVID policy broadly.
Rise in suicide and suicidality
Rise in mental health issues, depression, and anxiety
Rise in Obesity
Rise in drug and alcohol abuse
Rise in overdoses from drugs and alcohol
Rise in rape, incest and sexual violence
Rise in sex trafficking
Rise in domestic violence
Rise in divorce
Rise in poverty and homelessness
Rise in negative outcomes from preventable diseases
Lowering of academic achievement
Increased harm against marginalized communities
Lowering in speech, emotional and cognitive development among children
Lowering in credibility in health, governmental and social instituions
Violations of civil and human rights (mobility rights, religious rights, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and the employment of medical apartheid)
Rise in social division
Rise in crime (murder and robbery)
Rise in economic discrimination
Rise in misinformation (on all sides)
Rise in familial fragmentation
Rise in media malfeasance
Rise in propaganda and nudging
Rise in Pharmaceutical and Governmental collusion
Rise in bankruptcy
Rise in hate speech
Increased failure of small businesses, restaurants, and cafes
Rise in increasingly authoritarian STATES
Rise in increasingly authoritarian technologies like Digital IDs and vaccine passports (vaccine passports are ALREADY a Chinese style social credit system)
Negation of culturally important events like art festivals, communal events, music, parades, and national events
Rise in violations of informed consent through coercive measures such as job loss and social exclusion.
Add your own here.
There is not a single element of culture and society that was NOT harmed by COVID policy. Experts in epidemiology are not experts in society and culture.
The policy harms are emphatic and pronounced. They are generationally devastating.
COVID is a natural disaster. There will be natural harms. These harms are unavoidable. We know that the elderly and comorbid are at far more risk than the young and healthy. Vaccination and other prophylactics can mitigate some of natural harm, but they cannot preclude it.
Vaccination has its place.
Every other mitigation strategy has resulted in so many policy harms that no reasonable person can support them.
They need to be ended immediately. That governments are continuing to enact policy harms— while also promoting a mass vaccination campaign that wholly ignores the stratified risk assessment from COVID —is profoundly disturbing.
Three Steps to Ruin Society
Destroy Truth and Reason.
Destroy Familial, National, and Cultural Bonds.
Promote deception, propaganda, lies, misinformation, demonization, marginalization, and social division.
Welcome to COVID policy.
Read the horror of policy harms here. These reflect just a sliver of the studies and data on the many and manifold negative outcomes due directly to COVID policy.
There is no debate: this was the greatest policy disaster in human history.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8426986/
https://www.albawaba.com/opinion/double-plague-sexual-violence-age-lockdowns-1406275
https://fee.org/articles/domestic-violence-more-than-doubled-under-lockdowns-new-study-finds/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8110323/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32539153/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32487275/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32370984/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7519695/
https://www.aier.org/article/more-covid-suicides-than-covid-deaths-in-kids/
https://www.psycom.net/covid-19-suicide-rates
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/divorce-rates-and-covid-19
https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/divorce-rates-up-30-due-to-covid-19-pandemic-b-c-group-1.5273859
https://www.romania-insider.com/divorce-rates-during-covid-europe-press-release