Comment A new variant, new reinforcements, new mandates, new exhortations to mask up and stay safe. Will It Ever End Not according to the New York Times. The politicization of the disease was virtually prohibited for most of the 20th century. The wisdom of public health strongly advises against it. It serves no one. It fosters stigma and division, and drives irrational behaviors that are incompatible with general health. For example, in the polio scare of the early 1940s, the predecessor of the March of Dimes refused to apply for public assistance from President Franklin D. Roosevelt, precisely to keep politics out. Calm, sanity, science: these have been the watchwords of all past pandemics. "Let us remain calm on the Asiatic flu as statistics on the spread and virulence of the disease begin to accumulate," wrote the New York Times in an editorial published on September 18, 1957. "Death rates are not expected to be high this time an epidemic occurs because many of the complications of influenza can be controlled with modern drugs that were not available forty years ago." in a younger age cohort, but panic does nothing to reduce disease. As a responsible outlet for journalism, the Times did its best to urge calm at the time, having learned the lesson from the past that death fears and rumors send people into a wild frenzy. The newspaper saw its role in pushing reason over fear, science over myth, and medicine, rather than social unrest. Here's how 2020 started. On March 4, Psychology Today published an article titled "Why Your Doctor Isn't Panicking Over Novel Coronavirus." "Yes, this virus is different and worse than other coronaviruses, but it still looks very familiar. We know more about it than we don't.... Doctors know what to do about respiratory viruses." On the same day, a Harvard ER doctor wrote in Slate: "COVID-19 is a relatively benign disease for most of the young and potentially devastating, though far from it, for the old and chronically ill as risky as announce it. ... We need to shift our focus away from concerns about preventing systemic spread among healthy people, which is likely to be unavoidable or beyond our control, and to focus most, if not all, of our resources on protecting to those who are truly at risk, developing critical illness, and even death: anyone over the age of 70, and people who are already at increased risk from this type of virus." And on February 28, Anthony Fauci wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine: "This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may end up more like severe seasonal flu." Turns out, all those places were right, including Fauci. before I changed my mind. They were right because as of February 2020 we had all the evidence we needed that this was a textbook respiratory virus with huge age-based risk stratification for people 0 to 59 years and 0.095 percent for people ages 0 to 69. The median IFR was 0.0003 percent at 0-19 years, 0.003 percent at 20-29 years, 0.011 percent at 30- 39 years, 0.035 percent at 40-49 years, 0.129 percent at 50-59 years and 0.501 percent at 60-39 years 69 years.” Overall, that's less than what the mainstream media predicted in February 2020. This has huge implications for how we should judge the response, which employed tactics unprecedented in modern Western history.The response was state-ordered and universally draconian, but with it came economic policies that ruined commerce and caused many trillions in government spending and printing that plagues us today with inflation and dramatically falling standards of living Liberty is now in grave danger, not only in the United States but everywhere. The big mistake here was doing the exact opposite of what the Harvard doctor said in the early days. We have tried to take extreme measures to stop the spread among the general population instead of protecting the In other words, we confuse COVID with AIDS or, even more ridiculously, the elementary school game of lice. In fact, most of the people who responded came from the world of AIDS funding, people like Deborah Birx. In the process, everything we knew for decades, centuries, and even two millennia about natural immunity and the scalable immune system was thrown out the window. We went back to the lowest possible way of thinking about the disease: forget everything else and run. Of course it didn't work. It was not possible to control such a communicable and mild virus by state power. The evidence is there. More proof than we needed simply because we already knew all this at the beginning of 2020! But we live in very strange times. It is impossible to resist the idea that someone somewhere wanted t
Commentary
A new variant, new reinforcements, new mandates, new exhortations to disguise yourself and stay safe. Will It Ever End Not according to the New York Times.
The politicization of the disease was virtually prohibited for most of the 20th century. The wisdom of public health strongly advises against it. It serves no one. It fosters stigma and division, and drives irrational behaviors that are incompatible with general health. For example, in the polio scare of the early 1940s, the predecessor of the March of Dimes refused to apply for public assistance from President Franklin D. Roosevelt, precisely to keep politics out.
Calm, reason, science: these were the watchwords of all past pandemics. "Let us remain calm on the Asiatic flu as statistics on the spread and virulence of the disease begin to accumulate," wrote the New York Times in an editorial published on September 18, 1957. "Death rates are not expected to be high this time an epidemic occurs because many of the complications of influenza can be controlled with modern medications that were not available forty years ago."
In fact, the Asian flu was quite deadly, even deadlier than COVID in a younger age cohort, but panic does nothing to reduce disease. As a responsible outlet for journalism, the Times did its best to urge calm at the time, having learned the lesson from the past that death fears and rumors send people into a wild frenzy. The newspaper saw its role in pushing reason over fear, science over myth, and medicine, rather than social unrest.
This is how 2020 began. On March 4, Psychology Today published an article titled "Why Your Doctor Isn't Panicking Over Novel Coronavirus." "Yes, this virus is different and worse than other coronaviruses, but it still looks very familiar. We know more about it than we don't.... Doctors know what to do about respiratory viruses."
On the same day, a Harvard ER doctor wrote in Slate: “COVID-19 is a relatively benign disease for most of the young and potentially devastating for the elderly and chronically ill, though not as risky as reported. . ... We need to shift our focus away from concerns about preventing systemic spread in healthy people -that is probably unavoidable or out of our control— and we're devoting most, if not all, of our resources to protecting those who are truly at risk of critical illness or even death: everyone age 70 and older and people already at increased risk of contracting this type of virus are exposed.
And on February 28, Anthony Fauci wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine: "This suggests that the general clinical consequences of covid-19 ultimately resemble those of severe seasonal influenza."
Turns out, all of those places were correct, including Fauci before he changed his mind. They were right because as of February 2020 we had all the evidence we needed that this was a textbook respiratory virus with tremendous age-based risk stratification.
A new study examining infection death rates around the world concludes that COVID “had a median of 0.035 percent for people 0 to 59 years and 0.095 percent for people 0 to 69 years. The median IFR was 0.0003 percent at 0-19 years, 0.003 percent at 20-29 years, 0.011 percent at 30-39 years, 0.035 percent at 40-49 years, 0.129 percent. percent at 50-59 years and 0.501 percent at 60-39 years. 69 years.”
Overall, that's less than what the mainstream media predicted in February 2020. This has huge implications for how we should judge the response, which employed tactics unprecedented in modern Western history.
The response was government-mandated and generally draconian, but with it came economic policies that ruined commerce and increased many trillions in government spending and printing, which vex us today with inflation and dramatically falling living standards. Freedom is now in grave danger, not only in the United States but everywhere.
The big mistake here was doing the exact opposite of what the Harvard doctor said in the early days. We have tried to take extreme measures to stop the spread among the general population instead of protecting the vulnerable. In other words, we confuse COVID with AIDS or, even more ridiculously, the elementary school game of lice. In fact, most of the people who responded came from the world of AIDS funding, people like Deborah Birx.
In the process, everything we've known about natural immunity and the scalable immune system for decades, centuries, and even two millennia has been thrown out of control. We went back to the lowest possible way of thinking about the disease: forget everything else and run. Of course it didn't work. It was not possible to control such a communicable and mild virus by state power.
The evidence is there. More proof than we needed simply because we already knew all this at the beginning of 2020!
But we live in very strange times. It is impossible to resist the idea that someone then and now would want to ignore the evidence for nefarious reasons, mislead the population massively, and promote mitigation strategies that violate all the principles of civilized life.
And guess what? Despite every experience and every study, even in the face of the obvious and gigantic catastrophe of the last 30 months, it still goes on!
Here's the New York TimesHoywhat to do this holiday season. "You should talk to your family members ahead of time before you meet and come up with your game plan. Ask people if their vaccinations are up to date and encourage them to take extra precautions if a high-risk family member is around, such as how to limit the number of people you invite to Thanksgiving dinner or invest in some heat lamps so you can take the food outside.”
Can you even believe that
This is amazing advice as we know that vaccines do not protect against infection or spread and we have known for almost a year now. In fact, this is family-breaking and fun-breaking advice that's still driving house parties crazy and pretending we know exactly how many people can be in a room before the nasty pathogen shows up. And only the Times would recommend banning the unvaccinated from a family gathering! It is absolutely cruel, divisive and unscientific.
Actually, it gets worse. They advise trying before you meet anyone and dressing up in public spaces, even now, after two years of no hard evidence, masks are doing something to stop the spread, even if you thought it was a good idea. The Times acknowledges that "total isolation is not feasible for many people", saying instead that one must continue to act like a paranoid misophobe in a sanatorium while donning Chinese-made personal protective equipment.
I'm sorry, but these people are totally crazy.
That's a big step down from 1958! The question is: does anyone still believe in this rot? Less than ever, but still there. I see them from time to time, lurking around the corner in the certainty that a pathogen is after them, masking and even shielding their faces and using the modern equivalent of burlap and ash as post-structuralist flagellants that govern their persona. Upheavals leave both your inner and your outer life.
The question is why does the Times empower and encourage them? It has to be about control. Maybe this is your version of an October surprise. Maybe they want to look more and more ridiculous to anyone who doesn't live in a seaside town. Maybe it's about selling vaccines. I don't know how else to explain it. Still, it's grotesquely irresponsible.
At some point, the ruling class will have to bow to reality and science. The country set out on a disastrous path 30 months ago. All we can do now is admit and do everything we can to restore freedom and constitutional government, even in the midst of the crisis caused almost entirely by the response to the pandemic.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
follow
Jeffrey A. Tucker is the founder and president of the Brownstone Institute and the author of many thousands of articles in the academic and popular press and 10 books in five languages, most recently Liberty or Lockdown. He is also the editor of The Best of Mises. He writes a daily business column for The Epoch Times and gives numerous lectures on business, technology, social philosophy, and culture.