An excellent article on the whole, but you have completely ignored Australia and New Zealand. By doing this, you inadvertently skewered one of your arguments, and missed an opportunity to enlarge on others. Firstly, Australia is close to being the most tyrannised country in the world re: COVID. We are amongst the most highly-vaccinated, and until a few days ago, had the highest case numbers of anywhere in the world. Some think, including myself, that Australia and New Zealand were used as "test" models for the vaccine passport. Why? Just the geographic isolation? Perhaps, but...
and this is where you were incorrect. Australia was the first to introduce anti-smoking laws, and these have become more and more draconian as time has passed. We are taxed HUGELY. In fact, we support much of our public health system. We are segregated, looked down upon, considered weak and selfish people who have no consideration for others. We cannot smoke in places like open air car parks. We are not allowed to know how much nicotine is in our cigarettes, even though it is illegal not to put how much of an active ingredient is in a product. It is NOT about passive smoking, but punishing us for a poor health choice. Even now, even "awake" people will say, "Oh no, those laws are good. Smokers deserve what they get. It's completely different to the vaccine mandate." But is it? It's OK to make one addiction pay for the health care of a country? Is the virtue signalling of an ex-smoker any different to those who proudly post that they've been jabbed? Australia and New Zealand was RIPE for this - already vastly over-regulated, happy to badmouth groups like smokers and anti-vaxxers, so they were excellent test countries.
I really enjoyed your article though, and I hope this info helps with your next one 🙂
But David, it was never about the virus....it was always about the digital passports, on which they have already planned to load your digital currency (that is NOT the equivalent of your current currency..there will be no cash) and all the information needed to form a Social Credit system. It has always been about totalitarianism..a la China.
The only way out of it, is to REFUSE to use one...and walk into the damn restaurant anyway. But it will have to be a mass refusal...because the BIS as already gotten it ready.
It's the corruption of the medical establishment that is the problem. The global lockdowns and vaccine mandates have been a huge failure resulting in 900,000 deaths. Focused protection of the vulnerable along with early outpatient treatment would have saved 500,000 lives, without destroying education and the economy.
This guy REALLY thinks that people's right to spread dangerous contagion outweighs other people's right to stay alive. That is what is argument is all about. He believes that all of us should be put at risk of death to protect the "freedom" of a few people. If COVID wasn't so dangerous I wouldn't care. If it were like STDs, for example, I couldn't care less because those types of diseases generally relate to risky behaviors of certain parts of the population and affect only those who engage in the risky behaviors for the most part (I do feel sorry for the innocent babies and spouses who are contaminated through no fault of their own, though). Nevertheless, an unmasked person with gonorrhea cannot spread the disease to others by sharing the same air space. To get gonorrhea from that person you have to be intimate with them and their lifestyle generally serves as a warning against getting too close to them. However, an unmasked person with COVID can spread disease simply by breathing the same air as other people. People don't have to get intimate with strangers, but EVERYONE MUST BREATHE. People have a right to breathe. No one person's so-called "rights" ever outweighs another person's rights, and this is what the whole argument is about. I was brought up to believe that my right to extend my fist ENDS where my neighbor's nose begins, but now we have a whole bunch of folks who believe they have the right to literally punch anyone they want in the nose. Figures. Fulfillment of prophesy.
"But understand this, that in the last days dangerous times [of great stress and trouble] will come [difficult days that will be hard to bear]. For people will be lovers of self [narcissistic, self-focused], lovers of money [impelled by greed], boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy and profane, [and they will be] unloving [devoid of natural human affection, calloused and inhumane], irreconcilable, malicious gossips, devoid of self-control [intemperate, immoral], brutal, haters of good, traitors, reckless, conceited, lovers of [sensual] pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of [outward] godliness (religion), although they have denied its power [for their conduct nullifies their claim of faith]. Avoid such people and keep far away from them."
"This guy REALLY thinks that people's right to spread dangerous contagion outweighs other people's right to stay alive." This is a MASSIVE simplification of the issues at stake in requiring healthy people to cocoon, vaccinate, wear masks, etc. Just consider the absurd implications of this approach: we know that hundreds of thousands of people die from flu every year, so according to this approach, healthy people who might be unknowingly carrying flu are being selfish by not holing themselves up in their homes all the time, "just in case." They are being selfish by hanging out with elderly people, who might catch the flu from them and die. And before you say it's not comparable to Covid, actually there are important parallels because the average age of death from Covid is around 80 (https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/averageageofthosewhohaddiedwithcovid19) and Covid hospitalisations overwhelmingly affected the elderly and those with health complications. The point is, it's crazy to completely rewire our lives to try to stop respiratory viruses from circulating, especially once those viruses are widely seeded in the community. It just destroys the good things in life like friendship and community without any clear long-term benefits. Countries that did not embrace this crazy, neurotic approach, like Sweden, did reasonably well compared with the general trend in lockdown regions.
Very clearly reasoned essay. But you didn't address perhaps the most convincing justification for mandates once it's conceded that they have next to no effect on transmission: that they can be effective in reducing pressure on hospitals. I think even this one isn't particularly difficult to dismantle (dramatic age stratification of risk, precipitously diminishing returns of vaccinating below age 60 or so). But your argument here would be even tighter for its inclusion.
An excellent article on the whole, but you have completely ignored Australia and New Zealand. By doing this, you inadvertently skewered one of your arguments, and missed an opportunity to enlarge on others. Firstly, Australia is close to being the most tyrannised country in the world re: COVID. We are amongst the most highly-vaccinated, and until a few days ago, had the highest case numbers of anywhere in the world. Some think, including myself, that Australia and New Zealand were used as "test" models for the vaccine passport. Why? Just the geographic isolation? Perhaps, but...
and this is where you were incorrect. Australia was the first to introduce anti-smoking laws, and these have become more and more draconian as time has passed. We are taxed HUGELY. In fact, we support much of our public health system. We are segregated, looked down upon, considered weak and selfish people who have no consideration for others. We cannot smoke in places like open air car parks. We are not allowed to know how much nicotine is in our cigarettes, even though it is illegal not to put how much of an active ingredient is in a product. It is NOT about passive smoking, but punishing us for a poor health choice. Even now, even "awake" people will say, "Oh no, those laws are good. Smokers deserve what they get. It's completely different to the vaccine mandate." But is it? It's OK to make one addiction pay for the health care of a country? Is the virtue signalling of an ex-smoker any different to those who proudly post that they've been jabbed? Australia and New Zealand was RIPE for this - already vastly over-regulated, happy to badmouth groups like smokers and anti-vaxxers, so they were excellent test countries.
I really enjoyed your article though, and I hope this info helps with your next one 🙂
But David, it was never about the virus....it was always about the digital passports, on which they have already planned to load your digital currency (that is NOT the equivalent of your current currency..there will be no cash) and all the information needed to form a Social Credit system. It has always been about totalitarianism..a la China.
The only way out of it, is to REFUSE to use one...and walk into the damn restaurant anyway. But it will have to be a mass refusal...because the BIS as already gotten it ready.
This!!!
Could you write about the why we need to refuse this NOW...rather than later? And the moral implications it has?
Please express your views regarding the "certificate" here: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13375-Extension-of-EU-Digital-COVID-Certificate-Regulation_en
It's the corruption of the medical establishment that is the problem. The global lockdowns and vaccine mandates have been a huge failure resulting in 900,000 deaths. Focused protection of the vulnerable along with early outpatient treatment would have saved 500,000 lives, without destroying education and the economy.
This guy REALLY thinks that people's right to spread dangerous contagion outweighs other people's right to stay alive. That is what is argument is all about. He believes that all of us should be put at risk of death to protect the "freedom" of a few people. If COVID wasn't so dangerous I wouldn't care. If it were like STDs, for example, I couldn't care less because those types of diseases generally relate to risky behaviors of certain parts of the population and affect only those who engage in the risky behaviors for the most part (I do feel sorry for the innocent babies and spouses who are contaminated through no fault of their own, though). Nevertheless, an unmasked person with gonorrhea cannot spread the disease to others by sharing the same air space. To get gonorrhea from that person you have to be intimate with them and their lifestyle generally serves as a warning against getting too close to them. However, an unmasked person with COVID can spread disease simply by breathing the same air as other people. People don't have to get intimate with strangers, but EVERYONE MUST BREATHE. People have a right to breathe. No one person's so-called "rights" ever outweighs another person's rights, and this is what the whole argument is about. I was brought up to believe that my right to extend my fist ENDS where my neighbor's nose begins, but now we have a whole bunch of folks who believe they have the right to literally punch anyone they want in the nose. Figures. Fulfillment of prophesy.
"But understand this, that in the last days dangerous times [of great stress and trouble] will come [difficult days that will be hard to bear]. For people will be lovers of self [narcissistic, self-focused], lovers of money [impelled by greed], boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy and profane, [and they will be] unloving [devoid of natural human affection, calloused and inhumane], irreconcilable, malicious gossips, devoid of self-control [intemperate, immoral], brutal, haters of good, traitors, reckless, conceited, lovers of [sensual] pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of [outward] godliness (religion), although they have denied its power [for their conduct nullifies their claim of faith]. Avoid such people and keep far away from them."
"This guy REALLY thinks that people's right to spread dangerous contagion outweighs other people's right to stay alive." This is a MASSIVE simplification of the issues at stake in requiring healthy people to cocoon, vaccinate, wear masks, etc. Just consider the absurd implications of this approach: we know that hundreds of thousands of people die from flu every year, so according to this approach, healthy people who might be unknowingly carrying flu are being selfish by not holing themselves up in their homes all the time, "just in case." They are being selfish by hanging out with elderly people, who might catch the flu from them and die. And before you say it's not comparable to Covid, actually there are important parallels because the average age of death from Covid is around 80 (https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/averageageofthosewhohaddiedwithcovid19) and Covid hospitalisations overwhelmingly affected the elderly and those with health complications. The point is, it's crazy to completely rewire our lives to try to stop respiratory viruses from circulating, especially once those viruses are widely seeded in the community. It just destroys the good things in life like friendship and community without any clear long-term benefits. Countries that did not embrace this crazy, neurotic approach, like Sweden, did reasonably well compared with the general trend in lockdown regions.
Your vaccine "protects" you. Your mask "protects" you. My mask protects me. My vaccine protects me. Live and let live.
Its never been about health
Very clearly reasoned essay. But you didn't address perhaps the most convincing justification for mandates once it's conceded that they have next to no effect on transmission: that they can be effective in reducing pressure on hospitals. I think even this one isn't particularly difficult to dismantle (dramatic age stratification of risk, precipitously diminishing returns of vaccinating below age 60 or so). But your argument here would be even tighter for its inclusion.