29 Dec Some Covid Links
Ethan Yang asks if Dr. Deborah Birx and other lockdown hypocrites should be forgiven. A slice:
Dr. Birx and the countless politicians like her should be forgiven under the following condition: That they learn from their mistakes and empathize with the average American’s struggle with their policies. To understand the eternal lesson that policy intentions do not equal policy results. If we could have more people in power who understand this truth then society would be better off. Lockdowns are a classic example of a policy that seemed to have benevolent intentions but wound up having lethal consequences. There are laws that work and those that don’t. Lockdowns and all the arbitrary restrictions that come with them promote contempt for the rule of law while doing little to control the virus. They have not only done little to prevent the spread of Covid-19, but they have wrecked society as a result. Part of the process of leadership is having the humility to admit that you were wrong and understanding that you can’t force a square peg through a round hole. Likewise, you cannot drastically shut down society and prohibit everything it means to be human without expecting terrible results.
I was first confused by the lockdowners. I felt sure I could make them see the error of their ways.
After a few months of strenuous effort, I grew frustrated. Then angry. Then downright disgusted.
Now, I am terrified. THEY KNOW. And they don’t stop.
Anthony Fauci – who admits to lying to the American public about Covid – now expresses his unhappiness with American federalism. He wants the central government, manned by power-drunk liars such as himself, to have yet more control. Jacob Sullum has more on this dangerous man. And, by the way, when Fauci (probably) isn’t lying, he still spreads misinformation. Here’s a slice from Sullum’s essay:
Incidentally, the U.S. is not, as Fauci claimed, “the hardest-hit country in the world.” While our COVID-19 numbers are certainly nothing to brag about, the United States currently ranks 14th in deaths per capita, according to Worldometer’s tallies. Developed countries such as the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, and Belgium—all of which imposed sweeping restrictions on social and economic activity at the national level—are doing worse by that measure. The U.K., where Fauci’s interview slamming federalism was broadcast, has imposed national lockdowns repeatedly, but its death rate is still somewhat higher than the U.S. rate. Sweden, which eschewed such measures, ranks 27th in per capita COVID-19 deaths, much higher than its Scandinavian neighbors but lower than many other European countries.
Unfortunately, this latest by David Stockman is behind a paywall. But here’s a slice:
Worse still, Fauci has utterly failed—and surely deliberately so—in explaining to the public that the problem is not one of contagion or spread of the Covid among the general population, but of identification of the very small sub-set of the population which is susceptible to a severe course of the disease.
That is to say, the job of the public health authorities should have been to help the 5% discover who they are— based on medical, physical and genetic factors—so that they can seek shelter and treatment, not ordering the 95% how to live and where to spend Christmas.
This appropriate mission would have also meant using the vast collection of data on the Covid to show its very limited threat to the general public, rather than to foster a “case-a-demic” climate of fear.
Omar Kahn is correct: In 2020 most of humanity lost its mind. Two slices:
And while yelping about the immorality of any “suggestion” that we let our immune systems naturally cope with a new viral strain (the evolutionary strategy we’ve had for billions of years, and quite successful from the looks of it), we will clamor against any suggestion of “herd” immunity, as long as someone else delivers our latte and constitutes, without being so tagged, that aforesaid “herd.”
Then, you take the shocking realization that 99.9% below 60, without serious comorbidities, survive the virus. And then one cannot possibly fathom why protecting the vulnerable, and having everyone else run society, safeguarding our economic vitality, “and” without being at any serious risk, build up an immunological wall so infection cannot be passed on, wouldn’t be the obvious, inescapable, rational route?
In fact, those that promoted this loudly at the beginning, having been routed in the public sphere by the blitzkrieg of craven political mendacity and shameless media hyperbole and panic peddling, and by the unremitting attacks on position and livelihood and more, are less heard these days. How many trips down the road to Calvary is someone going to take? How often do you wish to be crucified? How often will you attempt a “resurrection” of your career and standing after being vilified by sanctified trolls, or “scientists” playing with theological chips and aspiring to a priest class rather than taking up the cudgel of dispassionate inquiry?
German mortality, is barely a blip by five-year standards. Look across Europe, draw on the website Euro Momo, there is nothing that shrieks “asteroid alert!” Not by a long shot. Even alarmists claiming Netherlands has never experienced such impact, confess “well, not since 1973 roughly,” which only confesses it’s not unprecedented. I don’t recall the “great lockdown” of 1973, do you? Leave aside Woodstock, the moon walk and more after the Hong Kong Flu of 1968–9 which smacked a less populous world with close to 4 million deaths in two successive winter waves.
Read the Full Article here: >Cafe HayekCafe Hayek