A more apt comparison would be the Hong Kong flu (obviously named by xenophobic racists) of 1968-69. This illness, like COVID-19, was highly contagious, had the ability to mutate, was fatal mostly for the elderly and already ill, and most infected people didn’t get that sick.They don't answer the title's question, perhaps it was rhetorical.
Hong Kong flu killed over 100,000 Americans, then with a population of 200 million. Yet Americans didn’t freak out. Schools stayed open since children weren’t in serious danger.
Again, common-sense measures to avoid exposure to the virus, sanitize hands and surfaces, and protect the vulnerable were taken. But there was no lockdown, people went to work, and life pretty much went on.
Is it possible, as experts claim, that COVID-19 has produced fewer fatalities because of the self-imposed lockdowns? In a word, no. There was never any evidence that lockdowns reduced overall death rates and now that we have some experience, it is becoming clear that lockdowns at best change only the timing of fatalities.
A recent study looked at how soon states went into lockdown after reaching the threshold of one death per million. Although lockdowns are still touted by the “experts,” the data clearly showed that whether states locked down early, late, or not at all had no effect on death rates.
Some people's reaction to this coronavirus--you must wear masks! even in your car! which you shouldn't be driving! because you should STAY HOME!--is so extreme that it merits the descriptive title in this article:
Reopen Society And Shut Down Moral Narcissism
We’re supposed to think that the continued shutdowns over the coronavirus are good. Those who dare to ask about the science and models behind lockdown orders, the increasing collateral damage to our economy, or the difference between dying with or dying of the virus, much less the deaths that are happening because of the shutdown—receive swift judgment from the moral narcissists. Not in the form of factual or intelligent answers, but rather, questions framed to shame:You are not a hero for wearing a mask.
Don’t you care about granny? Do you want more people to die? Is the economy more important to you than people’s lives?
For the moral narcissist, Simon quipped, “A trip to Whole Foods in a Tesla became the equivalent of striking a blow against world hunger.”
Today, wearing a mask while you shop (and only for “essentials”)—plus making sure everyone else wears one and also stays 6 feet away—has become the equivalent of saving people from dying.
And here we are: “Social distancing” is the new motto for those signaling their virtuous adherence to this new religion.Moral narcissism reminds me of this quote from English cultural critic Theodore Dalrymple:
In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is...in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to. (boldface mine--Darren)If you stay home and submit to government, everything will be OK; if you don't, millions will die and we will arrest you and throw you in prison. Now put on your mask, prole.
Moral narcissism is a form of political correctness, and we know what George Carlin said about that:
Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners.Finally, for those claiming we should essentially destroy modern civilization so that we might save one more life, and that we should open businesses gradually as our governments sink deeper into debt because there's no commerce:
10 comments:
Not to mention that our generation refuses even one iota of financial suffering so we "spend it forward" onto the backs of our children, making their "American dream" just that, a dream. We did it in '08, we're doing it now. It makes little sense to try to balance a budget when we are willing to spend trillions and trillions every time we might experience financial discomfort.
In my opinion, we are guilty of generational cowardice.
Thumbs up -- take off the mask and get some sunlight!
great post, Darren. I agree with you 100%.
Very interesting that this blogger, who referred to me as an idiot for correctly noting the leading hypotheses of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 (a bat), has compared COVID-19 to the 1968 flu pandemic which killed far fewer people than the current pandemic even when adjusting for population size.
No one truly believes it came from a bat at a wet market. That's ChiCom propaganda, as is the belief that it started in the US and made its way to China via frozen fish sticks, comrade.
Since you commented on it, perhaps you should re-read this post. All the way through. Perhaps this next time you'll understand it.
I did read your entire post. The other elements of your post are irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make: your faulty comparison between the current pandemic and a less deadly pandemic in the past in terms of number of deaths. You've made such incorrect comparisons in multiple posts on your blog and I am now addressing it.
Whether it was a bat at a wet market, it bit someone, or someone ate a bat, etc. is irrelevant. Bats are reservoirs for coronaviruses and zoonotic transmission is what likely occurred to result in "patient zero". Read the literature.
I say again: No one (except perhaps for you) truly believes that the 'rona came from a bat at a wet market. That's ChiCom propaganda, as is the belief that it started in the US and made its way to China via frozen fish sticks, comrade.
If you'd like comparisons to other pandemics and you don't like 1968, let's go back to 1918. Much worse, and we didn't shut the world down then, either--and they didn't have the medical know-how that we have in order to keep hospitalized people alive.
Why you lefties always like to flirt with totalitarianism escapes me, and I will *not* play along.
I'll say it again: Most scientists believe it arose from zoonotic transmission involving a bat. There are certainly other possibilities (which I'm equally intrigued by), but I'm citing the most likely one based on currently available genomic and phylogenomic data.
I never said it came from a wet market -- misrepresenting people's words is a fallacy.
The 1918 flu pandemic killed 50 million people worldwide including around 650,000 in the U.S. alone. It was a horrendous pandemic and yes, places (including U.S. schools!) were shut down and many people then wore masks (whether due to local mandates or recommendations from PHS). The response to the 1918 pandemic was far from the best we could have done in terms of public health. Before covid-19 even existed, many historians and scientists have written extensively about the mistakes in the response to the 1918 pandemic (Barry, Nature, 2009) (Ott et al., Public Health Rep., 2007) (Cauchemez et al., The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 2009).
Most scientists believe that, huh? Hm, interesting. Methinks you're projecting.
In 1918 there were localized mask mandates and school closures. They did nothing to stop the spread.
I've read that until this incident, there have been no vaccines for coronaviruses. We'll see what happens.
Again, there are places where people are just living their lives. It's true, I've *been to* these places! You need to let go over your totalitarianism and let people live.
Let's get back on task here. What, in particular, in this post I wrote, do you disagree with?
Post a Comment