Why didn’t we lock up the old people?: a botched corona response for governmental control: lepers vs plague
One of the more ironic aspects of the corona fallout was immunity to young people. Statistics prove that very few people under senior citizen age died during the pandemic. Yet despite knowledge at the time and “proper” prevention mandates still went around isolating everyone. In a Foucauldian sense this was the plague model instead of the leprosy model.
Corona highlighted the use of state authority to restrict the rights of civilians. Whether or not in the long run there was an immense amount of disinformation is irrelevant even though it was highly pertinent. In this regard, focus is on the response itself with the information they had according to their statements. Their response was gradually to delimit human exposure to the virus. The dangerous contagion propagated an emergency to ensure the safety of the people. A collectivist priority was necessary to trust individuals to follow the rules (yet the officials who passed rules disobeyed them frequently). Since little was known about infecting others the solution was to lockdown everyone. If everyone was at home then nobody could be harmed. While physical harm may have salvaged emotional and financial harm was top notch. Stuck with little to do was damning on many who were so used to leaving their homes.
It was not a recommendation but a requirement. It was illegal to leave more than a certain distance from home. People became desperate but lockdowns ensured everyone’s safety. The government stepped in and issued an alienation clause to protect its citizens. Nobody was allowed out. Whether or not one was sick or even infected. No chances were taken. Utmost strictness was devoted to maintain human life. Looking back this decision may have hurt more than it helped. Physically and emotionally it was a disaster. There may have been a rationale in the beginning but after a few months of younger people pushing through, these lockdowns should have ceased. As long as the medical community was honest things could go correctly but there was so much back and forth that it was hard to fully accept their conclusions. The lockdowns may have saved some lives but their ramifications were harsher than needed to be.
Lockdowns are an interventionist motivated scheme to include all the citizenry in the panic. No one is safe even if science says otherwise. The state stuck to its policy despite growing evidence in the opposite direction. Media could propagate disinformation but the facts were clear. It may have been Trump’s anti-corona voice that muddled the potential compromise. No side was correct on the matter. Masks were a good idea in the beginning but briefly not a permanent thing. There was little scientific consensus and much positivistic nonsense that barred any disagreement. It was a collaborated assault on the truth. To a point that people questioning the policy were attacked and censored. It was a desperate time and a dangerous situation but the heated formalism was irrational and immoral. One side was promoted top-down and that was it. No other points were acceptable nor considered in the light of day.
The plague’s affect engendered a state security informational singularity. Not only did they disrupt all other possibilities they made sure that their ideals were the sole formalities. A strict order kept everyone in line. In order for safety monolingual order was necessary. The state took charge as the people’s protector. A solid decision from up high was required for alignment and obedience. A systemic uniformity for the collective’s insurance. A reassurance from the elected representatives. This mode of action highly personified a tyrannical oversight. Even for the sake of the citizenry, it failed to actually protect people. If one was infected everyone was infected. All were equally punished for a single danger. While it was in the pursuit of protection it was an extreme measure that did little good. The government praised itself for saving millions despite having little evidence to show for it.
Corona was a special case given the ambiguity about the disease. Yet such a claim is ridiculous. Not only was there multiple lockdown executions but during the first attempt numbers did not change. Still it is irrelevant. Medical officials new that fatality was among the elderly and ill. It was a demonstration of state power and control over the citizenry. Flaunting their protections despite their mistaken action. Lockdowns may work for a different situation but they did not work for corona. They kept going back to the same game-plan despite its failures. After the first failure it defected and then brought back to cease the surging cases. Yet this was inevitable. Infection did not mean death. It only meant death with the elderly and ill out in the open. Their egalitarian mindset hindered the most productive course of action. Whether or not the liberal apparatus prompted an equity type model or not, needlessly seems similar. It is not ageist or insensitive to single out the most vulnerable for the sake of their safety. In the end everyone was singled out except the elites. Ironically, one sector did take the exception and it was not for their health.
State intervention is important but its excessive force lends little oversight on their part. Where is the separation of powers. It is an emergency the state can take whatever steps it wants. Indeed some of the most draconian policies were instituted and obviously not followed by those who legislated them. Everyone saw it coming. Give government more power and they will demonstrate their will. It is not a case of race or gender but of status. They could get away with it. It was their policy, who was going to hold them accountable. It is a democracy who would do such evil. Ignorance leads to eventual privacy invasion. Rights quashed in the name of safety. They doubled down on their truth fear mongering at every turn. It is not the first time they exhibited such tendencies. Look at the past twenty years and scores of examples will pop up. Much of this was local governmental overhaul. It wasn’t even the federal nationalisation. Some areas did do this but others left it to local branches to deal the damage.
In real time, this about power. It is not an out of nowhere response. It is a gradual process whereby the government’s handouts prompt a certain level of prestige and privilege. In scary times they can order and lock up. While it may seem as if they are protecting, if their policy does not include assistance to the unemployed they created, there is a problem. When draconian legislators don’t follow their own terms something has gone awry. Either they are lying or they just do not care. Scepticism must raise doubts. Yet it their continuous doubling down and idiotic trust in these dubious policymakers that led them to inject potentially harmful vaccine into people. People still were infected after all the vaccines. The inability to question any of the policy is not emergency but tyrannical facilitation. When the citizenry is washed dry of their simple rights and basic humanity democracy has crumbled. It is no longer a nation for the people but one for slave masters.
The alternative was to lockdown only those with fatal exposure to the disease. Even a brief lockdown to gather information about the disease that it only harms a certain sect of people. Safely secure those with toxic exposure and let people live their lives. Wear masks until it is under control or natural immunity is reached. This is not just a retrospective perspective. No way this could’ve been done. Why not? For most of history, isolating the danger or endangered was the of highest priority. The plague model is a novelty. For productive purposes and ensuring lower death tolls those infected would isolate and those endangered would. It is that simple. At the beginning, detecting corona patients was done. In this regard isolating the patients instead of lining them up next to elderly folk would have been a smart idea. Knowing its contagion and danger would be better to get ahead of it instead of lagging behind with citizenry accomplices.
Metropolitan cities do differ from ancient villages whereby leaving the village was easier. Yet our technology has progressed tremendously. Isolating in one’s room may not be fun but it is successful. The modern urban construction need not resemble a corked symbol. It is difficult to rid the most vulnerable to allow the healthy to keep moving forward. Society did not need to rethink itself. Had post-corona civilians protested governmental overhaul and stripped them of their tyranny may some exposure would have been worthwhile but it did not. They are still doing what they did before. Playing with people’s lives at the expense of their own prestige amongst their selective parties. A disgust that turns people into pawns for social climbing. State intervention was necessary but guidelines are not congruent to big brother spying. Fining people for leaving their houses is kinda crazy and a crazy overuse of power. A demonstration of we are doing it because we can. We also screwed up so we’ll keep with our disinformation.
This state reliance also put the ball in their court. Whatever they said was golden truth. Sceptically inquiring of the government’s agenda was heresy. The plague model is an equally burdened affair but it also gives the state so much power. The leprosy model is a self inflecting one. Infected will do what is right and isolate. It requires self commitment. While counterarguments may argue who says they will follow through. Yet this was the eventual policy to isolate for seven days with no oversight. The trust people policy became a core of the governmental policy. Why this included their other measure seemed more power related than they did to help the people themselves. An a priori trust given the deadly nature would have been more effective. Be upfront with people. Conflicting data only made people doubt more. With all the scandals emerging post-facto it is easy to see why the plague model was more nefarious than it theoretically ought to be.
Leprosy model is not a perfect solution. There is room for the plague model but it must be countered with civilian oversight. Trusting elites with personal safety is a bad call. Questioning narratives is an important facet. When other professionals agree on core issues, the government is probably wrong. They are not omnipotent. They are nefarious. The government does not work for the people and continues to act counter to their security. The plague model is not evil, it is an acknowledgment of governmental monism. Power will be exploited and that cannot happen. It must be called out and stopped. Media will try to control the flow of information but break free of their lies. The leprosy model may have saved millions with a little more transparency and less power lifting. The plague model represents a trend of elite focus with less creativity and more power demonstration.
No comments:
Post a Comment