Now, if you’re a person with a memory that goes all the way back to…I don’t know, several months ago when the who “pandemic” thing started; you’d remember that people…forward thinking people…handsome people…people like…me…we were saying that the costs of the lockdown might outweigh the benefits they provide. People like me said this in public and in private. People like me said that while Coronavirus is real, and is deadly serious if you’re in a high-risk category (read: old), that it isn’t actually a very big threat to people who are – let’s pick a random, non-specific example – school-age children. In fact, for school-age children, this is not really a thing.
But instead of crafting thoughtful policies that would allow several things to happen simultaneously, things like: protecting the most vulnerable; recognizing the constitutional right to LIBERTY; weighing the costs in despair through violence done to the economy and human society – instead of doing that, it was decided that just a blanket shut down, and onerous and completely ineffective measures would be foisted upon the public simply to make it seem as though government were doing something. OK, I admit that that’s only ONE take on the lockdown mandates. Here’s another one: power-hungry bureaucrats who get their jollies enforcing their will on others saw this as an opportune time to do some good old fashioned bullying. Or, here’s another one: people who wanted to expand the power and scope of government (read: Cryptocommunists…aka Statists) used this as A) an opportunity to expand governmental authority and or B) a stress-test on people’s will to be free. Or, here’s another one: people in government in good faith thought that what they were doing was the best thing they could think to do…and they just aren’t very smart/ brave/ forward-thinking.
And while all of these may be true to some extent. There is another option that seems to be quite likely and the evidence is coming in that it may, for some, be the likeliest of all. Because suddenly we’re seeing reports from the mainstream media about the NEGATIVE consequences of lockdowns. Now, admittedly, I don’t follow major network news for a variety of reasons, chief among which being that I have a functioning prefrontal cortex. But that’s neither here nor there. The point is that all the sudden, the major networks seem to want to talk about the costs of shutdown. In November. After their candidate Joe Biden has ostensibly won the election.
That’s weird. I mean, weren’t the consequences of lockdown apparent in…I dunno…October? Or…September…or and month preceding those months…or November before we had the vast majority of election returns? It’s just such a weird coincidence that, suddenly, for no reason at all! that people are noticing that shutting down the economy, isolating the elderly to isolation and despair, forfeiting the education of young people, and revoking people’s constitutional rights actually might have negative consequences. I mean, there’s no way that the delay in reporting could be politically motivated…no way…Democracy Dies in Darkness. Journalists are the most heroic and unbiased among us. Just ask ‘em; they’ll tell ya!
But, and forgive me for even asking such a slanderous, and far-fetched, fantastical, question, but, could it be that the 4th Estate hasn’t said anything because they wanted to use the ‘Rona against Trump as a cudgel, and now that they’re confident that Biden has secured the election, it’s time to let the good times roll?! I mean what could make Biden more popular than being the guy who oversaw the end to lockdown and the revitalization of the economy?!
But that’s impossible. Because the media are unbiased arbiters of truth with no agenda but an agenda to fairly and accurately report the facts as presented to people who need them to come to informed decisions in their lives. To suggest otherwise would mean that an entire sector of our society is corrupt and actively conspiring to suppress the truth in unrighteousness for the sake of their own political preferences. Which would mean that to the extent that they influence policy, the media are responsible for the drug overdoses, the alcoholism, the suicides, the elder abuse, the elder despair, the joblessness, the under and unemployment, the divorces, and the widespread growing ignorance of schoolboys and girls.
But that’s a scary thought, so let’s just go back to assuming that all the triliteral networks and their adjuncts really are just fair dealers. To assume otherwise would mean that the media are cynical demagogues who only care about power and how to wield it and who don’t care at all about human flourishing. What a cynical view. I mean…it’s my view. But what do I know.