SARS-CoV-2 Response: Where Do We Go from Here?
Additionally, the systematic violation of individual rights is a cause for serious concern and sets a dangerous precedent.
In the following content, I address the questions of how we got to where we are today and where we go from here. The central question I’ll be focusing on is how we can save the most lives without government interventions doing more harm than good.
In response to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, governments have implemented authoritarian lockdown measures that could easily be doing more harm than good.
The influential Imperial College model governments have used to justify economic shutdown shows that lockdown only delays and worsens the problem long-term.
Inherently overestimated COVID-19 fatality rates have created mass fear and panic, manufacturing consent for extreme and harmful authoritarian policies.
I discuss fear versus scientific data in the context of the authoritarian political responses to SARS-CoV-2 with Bretigne Shaffer on her podcast.
A “Fact Check” article cited by Facebook to flag a post as “False” deceives readers about the COVID-19 fatality rate to advocate extreme lockdown policies.
New York Times Laughably Lies That the Mask Debate Is ‘Settled’Facebook “Fact Check” Lies about COVID-19 Fatality Rate
The statist New York Times says science unequivocally supports universal mask use, but its own cited sources illustrate what a ludicrous assertion that is.
In this interview, I explain why universal mask-wearing orders aren’t evidence-based and the limited circumstances in which wearing a mask would make sense.
The New York Times claims there’s “growing evidence” that fecal transmission of the novel coronavirus occurs, but the science says otherwise.
Did you find value in this content? If so and you have the means, please consider supporting my independent journalism.