It cannot be this easy to strip people of their civil liberties, to cause economic wreckage, to hurt the very humanity of people without ever having to answer for the consequences.
Bastiat said good economics looks at what is seen and what is not seen. Now nutcases like the social authoritarian Rand Paul look at what is seen in regards to the epidemic that killed millions, including friends of mine. The cost was the horrible crime of wearing masks to reduce the spread of this deadly disease. Some restaurants went to take-out only. I stopped eating inside the enclosed spaces. What is not seen in this piece is the cost of millions dying. That inflicts severe economic costs as well.
Here in the US we had 1.2m people lose their lives. South Africa lost over 102,000 lives. Globally we lost 7.1m. For those people the cost of the disease spreading was 100% as they died. They also stopped working, buying goods, helping neighbors, providing services and products. But that is not seen. The bad economist looks at just the cost that is seen and not the heavy costs of what is not seen—all the millions who died and their economic contributions.
Ayn Rand made an important clarification that applies here:
“It is important to differentiate between the rules of conduct in an emergency situation and the rules of conduct in the normal conditions of human existence. This does not mean a double standard of morality: the standard and the basic principles remain the same, but their application to either case requires precise definitions.
An emergency is an unchosen, unexpected event, limited in time, that creates conditions under which human survival is impossible—such as a flood, an earthquake, a fire, a shipwreck. In an emergency situation, men’s primary goal is to combat the disaster, escape the danger and restore normal conditions (to reach dry land, to put out the fire, etc.).
By 'normal' conditions I mean metaphysically normal, normal in the nature of things, and appropriate to human existence. Men can live on land, but not in water or in a raging fire. Since men are not omnipotent, it is metaphysically possible for unforeseeable disasters to strike them, in which case their only task is to return to those conditions under which their lives can continue. By its nature, an emergency situation is temporary; if it were to last, men would perish."
The uninformed also ignore history and pretend the Covid response was new. It wasn't so they didn't have NEW powers. In the 1918 influenza pandemic mandatory masks requirements were used. The conspiracists can't blame that on Dr. Fauci. During the plague jurisdictions locked sick people in their homes, banned travel, no public gatherings, etc. So the mild measures were nothing compared to historic measures and you can't really say this is some sort of first step toward a medical dictatorship as previous measures were far worse. If anything this showed how milder measures worked.
In libertarian terms no one has the right to endanger the lives of non-consenting individuals. That includes people with an easily transmitted deadly disease. Masks did stop people with the virus—including those with no or minor symptoms—from endangering the lives of others. Once the threat was significantly reduced the scales of justice tip towards the removal of such measures, which is precisely what happened.
Being able to debate these matters is so important. My opinion above during covid would have got me banned from facebook or the equivalent and that is one of the problems, we stopped being able to have differing views on these matters. Doctors that disagreed were reported and in some cases lost their jobs. For many people they did not get to weigh different information and make their own choices. There was one set of views that was allowed and that drove a campaign of fear.
Whether you agree with Rand Paul and Ron Johnson at least there are people in government asking questions and producing the information that decisions were made on, this is important.
There are studies that show that masks did not have much effect on preventing the transmission of the virus. If you were a healthy person wearing a mask was helping no one. Having little toddlers in masks was child abuse, part of a child interacting with the world is being able to see faces.
You mentioned above that you stopping eating in enclosed spaces and that was your choice. Others who did not feel it was a risk to themselves should have been able to make their own choice. That was the point. If someone felt that they were at higher risk and more vulnerable they were welcome to stay home and protect themselves, but to expect healthy people to do that was wrong and people should have been able to make the choices for themselves.
Our lockdown went for over two years, it was extreme and we should have access to the information that the Minister used to justify those lockdowns. She did not have to get approval or give reasons. South Africa has an unemployment rate of over 30% the lockdown was devastating to an economy already in deep trouble. Children in the Eastern Cape have died from malnutrition. We do not know if locking down saved any lives, did it reduce the spread? In many of the poor areas people live so close together that isolating was not possible anyway.
It was very sad those that lost their lives to covid, I know people too.
We need to question whether lockdown made any difference because for many people the cost of it was too great. We also need to make sure there is oversight for the future because no Minister should have that much power without being able to be challenged.
Jodie, getting away with what the government did in those years emboldened them for more excesses in the years that followed. 😩
Bastiat said good economics looks at what is seen and what is not seen. Now nutcases like the social authoritarian Rand Paul look at what is seen in regards to the epidemic that killed millions, including friends of mine. The cost was the horrible crime of wearing masks to reduce the spread of this deadly disease. Some restaurants went to take-out only. I stopped eating inside the enclosed spaces. What is not seen in this piece is the cost of millions dying. That inflicts severe economic costs as well.
Here in the US we had 1.2m people lose their lives. South Africa lost over 102,000 lives. Globally we lost 7.1m. For those people the cost of the disease spreading was 100% as they died. They also stopped working, buying goods, helping neighbors, providing services and products. But that is not seen. The bad economist looks at just the cost that is seen and not the heavy costs of what is not seen—all the millions who died and their economic contributions.
Ayn Rand made an important clarification that applies here:
“It is important to differentiate between the rules of conduct in an emergency situation and the rules of conduct in the normal conditions of human existence. This does not mean a double standard of morality: the standard and the basic principles remain the same, but their application to either case requires precise definitions.
An emergency is an unchosen, unexpected event, limited in time, that creates conditions under which human survival is impossible—such as a flood, an earthquake, a fire, a shipwreck. In an emergency situation, men’s primary goal is to combat the disaster, escape the danger and restore normal conditions (to reach dry land, to put out the fire, etc.).
By 'normal' conditions I mean metaphysically normal, normal in the nature of things, and appropriate to human existence. Men can live on land, but not in water or in a raging fire. Since men are not omnipotent, it is metaphysically possible for unforeseeable disasters to strike them, in which case their only task is to return to those conditions under which their lives can continue. By its nature, an emergency situation is temporary; if it were to last, men would perish."
The uninformed also ignore history and pretend the Covid response was new. It wasn't so they didn't have NEW powers. In the 1918 influenza pandemic mandatory masks requirements were used. The conspiracists can't blame that on Dr. Fauci. During the plague jurisdictions locked sick people in their homes, banned travel, no public gatherings, etc. So the mild measures were nothing compared to historic measures and you can't really say this is some sort of first step toward a medical dictatorship as previous measures were far worse. If anything this showed how milder measures worked.
In libertarian terms no one has the right to endanger the lives of non-consenting individuals. That includes people with an easily transmitted deadly disease. Masks did stop people with the virus—including those with no or minor symptoms—from endangering the lives of others. Once the threat was significantly reduced the scales of justice tip towards the removal of such measures, which is precisely what happened.
Hi James,
Being able to debate these matters is so important. My opinion above during covid would have got me banned from facebook or the equivalent and that is one of the problems, we stopped being able to have differing views on these matters. Doctors that disagreed were reported and in some cases lost their jobs. For many people they did not get to weigh different information and make their own choices. There was one set of views that was allowed and that drove a campaign of fear.
Whether you agree with Rand Paul and Ron Johnson at least there are people in government asking questions and producing the information that decisions were made on, this is important.
There are studies that show that masks did not have much effect on preventing the transmission of the virus. If you were a healthy person wearing a mask was helping no one. Having little toddlers in masks was child abuse, part of a child interacting with the world is being able to see faces.
You mentioned above that you stopping eating in enclosed spaces and that was your choice. Others who did not feel it was a risk to themselves should have been able to make their own choice. That was the point. If someone felt that they were at higher risk and more vulnerable they were welcome to stay home and protect themselves, but to expect healthy people to do that was wrong and people should have been able to make the choices for themselves.
Our lockdown went for over two years, it was extreme and we should have access to the information that the Minister used to justify those lockdowns. She did not have to get approval or give reasons. South Africa has an unemployment rate of over 30% the lockdown was devastating to an economy already in deep trouble. Children in the Eastern Cape have died from malnutrition. We do not know if locking down saved any lives, did it reduce the spread? In many of the poor areas people live so close together that isolating was not possible anyway.
It was very sad those that lost their lives to covid, I know people too.
We need to question whether lockdown made any difference because for many people the cost of it was too great. We also need to make sure there is oversight for the future because no Minister should have that much power without being able to be challenged.