From the fucking start, every sane human recognized that imprisonment and strangulation and sleep deprivation and impoverishment and loss of community and loss of social contact and loss of usefulness were NOT scientific responses to a virus.
We already knew how to respond to a virus. Maintain immunity. Fresh air and sunshine and exercise. More sleep than usual, more pleasant moods than usual. When possible without creating more risk than benefit, use a vaccine to give people a ‘preview’ of the virus and rehearse their immune system.
Ramesh Thakur asks the question again, as the monsters are switching their narrative back to ordinary science reluctantly and grudgingly.
Panic saw 100 years of evidence-based pandemic response programs junked. The accumulated wisdom was to quarantine the sick, not those feeling well; to prioritize the most vulnerable, not coerce the least vulnerable.
Like most paradoxes, this one is resolved by OCKHAM. Step back from the point of apparent argument and look for broader consistencies.
The broader consistency is that the demons are perfectly scientific. They are applying hundreds of years of well-formed science to the problem they want to solve.
The problem they want to solve has nothing to do with microbes and everything to do with pesky peasants revolting against the demons.
All of these “cures” are consistent and well-established parts of SOCIAL SCIENCE.
All the strategists from Sun Tzu to Machiavelli to Clausewitz to Bernays to Skinner to Orwell to Alinsky have described these “cures”.
I suspected this at the start when China’s first lockdown corresponded with an uprising from a religious group. It was confirmed at the end when China ended its lockdowns one day after Jiang died.
Polistra's Mill 