I don’t always agree with National Review‘s Michael Brendan Dougherty, but I agree – wholeheartedly – with his argument that, when it comes to Covid mandates, “you can’t obey your way to normal.” Here’s his conclusion:
The same is seen all over Europe, as acquiescence builds upon acquiescence. Now there are attempts to control the pandemic by just locking in the unvaccinated. It won’t work.
The only way out of this in America is to stop following CDC’s guidelines, just the way we already do in so many other domains of life.
But thankfully what these people are suffering from – and, in many cases, dying of – isn’t Covid-19. And as we have learned since early last year, that’s the greatest blessing that any human being can obtain; it’s a blessing to be valued above all else.
While I think she underestimates the effectiveness of vaccines at protecting the vaccinated against serious consequences, Laura Perrins quite properly decries how Covid Derangement Syndrome has unleashed not merely the tolerance of, but demand for, tyranny in Britain. A slice:
It was bad enough when the government and members of the public wanted to deprive us of breathing fresh air by forcing us all to wear useless face masks, but the idea that it is morally right to demand your neighbours stay at home because they will not sacrifice their bodily integrity and consent to a vaccine that they have refused in good conscience is outrageous.
The selfishness of these people, people who would like to deprive their neighbours of their liberty, should not at this stage surprise us. The hallmark of the entire lockdown hysteria and fear porn has been selfishness dressed up as moral superiority.
It is also notable that 72 per cent of pensioners would either strongly support or somewhat support locking down their unvaccinated kids and grandchildren. Given how much teenagers have already sacrificed in this Covid mania, it once again is a very sad reflection on the older generation that they seek to jail their own grandchildren who have not consented to a vaccine that’s been around for about two minutes.
We have discussed whether or not the lockdown was a lockdown to save the baby boomers before and I received some pushback from those of the generation who pointed out that they did not support the lockdown. However it is also true that many got in touch with me privately to say that sadly they were indeed a minority and that there was overwhelming support amongst their boomer friends for a national lockdown.
The question is, what is the aim of this sort of medical apartheid? It surely cannot be to save the vaccinated as it would be ludicrous to lockdown the unvaccinated to protect those who have already been vaccinated against the illness they sought a vaccine for. We are on very shaky ground if the aim is to protect the unvaccinated from themselves. We don’t ban the obese from McDonald’s or alcoholics from pubs. It would seem ridiculous to ban those who refuse the vaccine from going about their daily lives. It is also morally indefensible to ban people from going about their daily lives in case they get ill. I didn’t think ‘Our NHS’ discriminated like that.
We closed down children’s lives while simultaneously shutting down the voices of those professionals who raised the alarm about the impact on educational attainment, mental health and safeguarding. We cannot wish the real-life consequences of these things away through acts of revisionism. However, we cantry to face up to them and help children recover.
You’re beyond naive if you think any of these mandates (mask, vaccine) are about anything other than politics at this point.