Read on Twitter
The Central Error of the Pandemic…
Is that of running pandemic management by laissez-faire socioeconomic principles.
If you grasp this, all the other errors fall into place as the inevitable consequence of following that line of thought. 🧵 1/x
Is that of running pandemic management by laissez-faire socioeconomic principles.
If you grasp this, all the other errors fall into place as the inevitable consequence of following that line of thought. 🧵 1/x
Economics is the final bastion of Social Darwinism. Its laissez-faire principles dictate that all Keynesian central government-instituted intervention, even in a crisis, only makes things worse. A crisis should be allowed to run its natural course.
A crisis is a welcome process of cleansing out of the unfit, resulting in economic renewal through creative destruction. It is often likened to a forest fire. The charred remains of the fire fertilises renewal.
When the weak, economically unviable units are cleansed out while the strong survive, it is deemed progress. It is an unnatural perversion to intervene in the order of Nature, as it perpetuates the sustenance of unfit and unhealthy “zombie” units.
If the vulnerable die from wilfully spreading SARS-CoV-2, that is just an unavoidable historical necessity, the price one pays for progress. The end justifies the means—for the alternatives could only be worse.
The demagogues of laissez-faire had meanwhile devised their own plan: the herd immunity strategy. This involved using SARS-CoV-2 as nature’s gift of a vaccine against itself (there is historical precedent with smallpox variolation).
Once enough of the population had been mass infected, the pandemic would end from herd immunity. The sooner everyone was mass infected, the sooner the pandemic would end.
Central government intervention to slow the spread would be harmful because it would merely “kick the can down the road” and prolong the pandemic.
It was thus necessary to promote rapid SARS-CoV-2 mass “variolation” as a safe and “natural” form of vaccination with “mild” side effects. Thus, СОVID minimisation was born.
All harm arising from SARS-CoV-2 is next blamed on the mRNA vaccine because it is a centrally funded government intervention, which can, therefore, only be harmful because it violates the economic principles of naturalistic laissez-faire.
The “anti-vaxx” movement is just a consequence of this. But there is no keener pro-vaxxer than an anti-vaxxer wanting to “naturally” mass vaccinate everyone.
During the SARS1 epidemic, we received instructions to wear N95 respirators during PPE training. The 2013 Fauci edited Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine stated both influenza and SARS were airborne diseases.
Come 2019, there was precedent for deploying RPE as an NPI against SARS, just as we had successfully deployed condoms against HIV. The problem is that it pointed towards a path of central government Keynesian intervention using public health measures to quell the looming threat.
The very existence of a pathway that would radically slow or stop the spread of disease was an offence to the demagogues of laissez-faire. NPIs, like RPE, were thus an unnatural perversion that would cause more harm than good.
It was thus not acceptable that #COVIDisAirborne. Everything had to be done to oppose any evidence that might hinder the mass variolation of the population with SARS-CoV-2 to bring the pandemic to a radical conclusion.
To argue for the herd immunity strategy, they effectively claimed that as there were no RCTs (“gold standard”) to show the moon was made of mineral, it must be made of cheese. I.e. there were no RCTs showing that NPIs worked, therefore, SARS2 mass infection is safe and effective.
The scientific errors committed during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic can readily be understood as having occurred on the basis of socioeconomic and political interference in the scientific process. Similar forces in the nineteenth century colluded to interfere with the acceptance of cholera as a waterborne contagious infectious disease with the opposition from laissez-faire groups to germ theory. Germ theory favoured the contagionist position that central government interference was necessary to stop disease spread between subjects. But the nineteenth century was the age of empire and industrial revolution, which encouraged strong government initiative with a more optimistic view of the ability of science to transform society for the better. That is why the 19th C did better in conquering cholera than we have done in conquering SARS-CoV-2.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
