Covid has not defeated the restriction of freedom

Let’s travel back to March 2020, when predictions about mass death in connection with the new coronavirus became more important. A study conducted by Neil Ferguson of Imperial College found that more than 2 million people would die in the United States alone.

The above number is also often used by conservatives and libertarians as a justification for the initial bans. “We knew so little” is the excuse, and with so many deaths expected, can someone blame local, state, and national politicians for panic? The answer is a resounding yes.

To see why, imagine if Ferguson predicted 30 million American deaths. Then imagine the fear among Americans – and that is exactly what it is all about: the more threatening a virus, the more superfluous governance is. Really, who should be told to be careful when failure to take precautionary measures could reasonably result in death?

Death predictions aside, the other justification in March 2020 was that brief bans (two weeks was the number that was often tossed around) would flatten the hospitalization curve. In this case, the detention allegedly made sense to protect hospitals from a massive influx of sick patients that they could not cope with and which would have resulted in a public health disaster.

Such a view likewise destroys reason. Think about it. Who should be forced to avoid behaviors that could lead to hospitalization? Better still, who needs to be forced to avoid behaviors that could lead to hospitalization when doctors and hospitals are so small that they cannot care for admitted patients? Translated for those in need, the terrible predictions made over a year ago about the corona horrors that awaited us don’t justify the lockdowns. rather, they should remind the sentient people among us of how cruel and senseless they were. Common sense, with which we are born to varying degrees, along with our genetic predisposition to survive, dictates that fear of hospitalization or death would have led Americans to take precautions to avoid viruses, all of which were imposed on them by politicians Far exceeded the rules.

Some will respond with something like, “Not everyone has common sense. The truth is, there are a lot of stupid dudes with little information who would have ignored any warnings. Barriers were not necessary for the wise among us; Rather, they were important precisely because there are so many who are not wise. “Indeed, such an answer is the best argument against bans.

Indeed, it cannot be stressed enough that “little information” types are the most important people of all in times of uncertainty. Precisely because they do not know, misunderstand, or disapprove of the experts’ warnings, their actions will provide vital information that the rule followers could never. When the citizens with little information do not do what the supposedly wise among us do, through their contrary actions they teach us which behavior is most related to avoiding illness and death, and more importantly, which behavior is related to it .

Uniform decrees from politicians do not improve health outcomes as much as they blind us to (or lack of) the measures that would – or may not – protect us the most. Freedom alone is a virtue and provides important information.

Though freedom is its own miraculous virtue, panicked politicians wiped it out in 2020 on the assumption that personal and economic desperation would be the best solution to a spreading virus.

But wait, some will say, “How elitist it is to make some people act like guinea pigs for the rest of us.” Such a statement is naive. Heroin and cocaine are illegal, but people still use both. Thank god they do. How could we know what threatens us and what doesn’t without the rebellion?

Yet there is the question of “elitism”. The bans were by far the cruelest form of elitism. The lockdown meant that those who had the audacity to have jobs that were targets – like restaurants and shops – had to lose them. The lockdowns destroyed tens of millions of destination jobs, severely disrupting or affecting millions of businesses, not to mention the hundreds of millions of people around the world starved, poor, or both as a result of politicians in countries like the United States who decided to take a break from reality. Talk about elitist actions. The idea of ​​ruining the economy as a virus-fighting strategy will go down in history as one of the stupidest political responses in the world.

It is because economic growth is certainly the greatest enemy death and disease have ever known, while poverty is certainly the greatest killer. Economic growth creates the necessary resources so that doctors and scientists can find answers to what makes us unnecessarily sick or shortens our life altogether.

In the 19th century, a broken femur brought a 1 in 3 chance of death, while those fortunate enough to survive the hiatus had only one option: amputation. A child born in the 19th century had as good a chance of death as of life. A broken hip was a death sentence, cancer certainly was, but most didn’t die of cancer because tuberculosis and pneumonia got them first.

So what happened Why don’t we get sick or die as easily as we used to? The answer is economic growth. Business titans like Johns Hopkins and John D. Rockefeller created enormous fortunes just to channel much of it into medicine. What used to kill us became yesterday’s news.

Although freedom is its own miraculous virtue, although freedom produces essential information that protects us, and although free people produce the resources without killing the diseases at a disgusting rate, panicked politicians erased it in 2020 on the assumption that personal and economic desperation existed the best solution for a spreading virus. Historians will be amazed at the wicked stupidity of the political class in 2020.

Comments are closed.