Eleven weeks in and we’ve seen only the most minor relaxations. Since March 8, it’s been permitted for two people to meet outside for a coffee—provided it’s in a public space. From March 29, this limit will be extended to six people, and to private gardens. Meeting indoors will remain illegal until the middle of May.
The enduring lockdown is quite surprising. Goodness knows that if you’d said this time last year the U.K. would still be in lockdown—and all under “freedom-loving” Prime Minister Boris Johnson—you’d have been laughed out of town. That’s before you factor in the vaccines, of which some 50 percent of U.K. adults (and virtually all seniors) have now received at least one dose.
Yet here we are: 12 months into restrictions and our once-cherished approach to liberty has been totally inverted. Lockdown, once a temporary aberration, has instead become the default. The burden of proof is placed on those arguing for freedom, rather than those wanting to remain in lockdown.
And Jeffrey Tucker writes of the on-going tyranny in Massachusetts. A slice:
Among the things now permitted in the state are small weddings. However, dancing at such events is strictly regulated, so much so that it is effectively abolished. The website doesn’t explain the details of this regulation but a friend in the catering business was the recipient of a direct letter from the once-respected Department of Health. It explained that people at a wedding party can only sit at square tables that seat six, and each table must be six feet apart from other tables, even though people have started to admit that there is zero science to back this rule.
It gets crazier. If there is to be dancing, the venue must create a circle on the floor out of tape next to a table, and the only people allowed in the circle are those at the table and not people from other tables. Additionally, while they are dancing, they must be wearing their masks.
(DBx: I ask yet again: How can anyone encounter such descriptions of what is going on in the name of fighting Covid and not see that Covid Derangement Syndrome is both real and lethal to the mind, body, and soul?)
TANSTAFPFC (There Ain’t No Such Thing As Free Protection From Covid).
From the Lancet is yet more documentation of the truth of TANSTAFPFC.
Lockdowns were explicitly not recommended even for severe respiratory viral outbreaks in all pandemic planning prior to 2020, including those endorsed by the WHO and the Department of Health. The reasons for ignoring existing policies and adopting unprecedented measures appear to have been (i) panic whipped up by the media (especially scenes from China), (ii) a reluctance to do things differently to neighbouring countries and (iii) the unfaltering belief in one single mathematical model, which latterly turned out to be wildly inaccurate (Imperial College, Neil Ferguson).
The evidence is clear: Lockdowns and restrictions are causing high unemployment in many states. Such restrictions make it illegal to employ workers or to be employed. Neither fiscal spending nor monetary expansion can reduce unemployment where working is not allowed. Such policies are also not likely to improve states that are open and already experiencing strong economic growth.
Here’s insight from James Charlick. A slice:
The government’s mantra that ‘we are all in this together’ should send shivers down your spine. Coupled with an ‘ends justify the means’ Covid policy and you have the credo of all hives. A techno-feudalistic Great Reset powered by 5G interconnectivity, robotics and surveillance is the perfect template for a hive ruled by a queen. In that hypothetical world, the queen is an oligarchy powered by artificial intelligence. Individuality for the 99.999 per cent (that’s being generous) would be extinct; I don’t recall worker bees having personalities.
There are similarities between hives and religious cults. The cult adherents always centre their attention upon the cult leader (the hive’s queen). They are consumed by the leader’s ideology. And there is a common good. Many commentators have rightly remarked upon the devotional fervour of the pro-lockdowners, the pro-maskers, the defenders of the NHS and those who call for mandatory vaccinations for everyone.
What is an example of the social individual versus the hive mind? Let’s take lockdown. The pro-lockdowners largely agree with one another about lockdowns and restrictions. The consensus is that the measures do not go far enough. If I discuss lockdowns with any pro-lockdowners, they present the same assertions to me, almost as if they are reading from a script. Otherwise, all I get is blank stares, or uncomfortable silence, or insults, or a request for me to stop talking. Maybe the lockdown fans are already exhibiting a proto-hive mind?
By contrast the Hive People’s sworn enemies, those who are anti-lockdown, have quite divergent views on a variety of issues, from masks to testing to ‘social’ distancing to vaccines to vaccine passports. Some are willing to compromise with the government on certain issues, and others will have none of it. There is a wider spectrum of thought and a greater variety of belief systems present in the anti-lockdown camp. It runs the gamut of humanity and is a valid demonstration of the power of individualism and open inquiry.
