The Hypocrite World Cup: Everyone's a winner

@wwaycorrigan

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]

'Before you criticise somebody, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you do criticise them, you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes.'

'We're all part of the same hypocrisy, but let's keep up the charade.' (Image from Behaviorist.)

Faultfinders

Yeah, it's an old one but many of today's holier-than-thou types could do with hearing it. Not that it would lead to any self-reflection, never mind a change in their ways. Such people, mostly found in the comfortable, influential classes of high-income nations, are quite convinced of their righteousness.

Rather than 'walk in one's shoes', what they often do is irately pursue — at a safe distance — those they criticise, making their targets' lives as difficult as possible whilst enjoying pleasures they wish to deny others.

Philanthropy is, however, at the heart of all this. Others simply don't know and are incapable of knowing what's good for them. So it's these superhumans to the rescue. We are forever in their debt.

Most of these say-rather-than-do-gooders are, as you may have guessed, nothing more than hypocrites. They publicly proclaim to be virtuous yet their private actions and way of life generally betray this. What they do have on their side, though, as a buffer to the many contradictions, are influence and power.

'Chinese suppression of protesters: an outrage. Canadian quashing of protesters: it's for the good of national security.'

When they defend freedom and liberty, it's on their terms only. Should they call for greater social control — vide pandemic lockdowns — it's for everyone else, not them.

They are experts at seeing the faults and flaws in foreign lands but are generally blind to them closer to home. See, for example, the likes of Jacinda Ardern and Justin Trudeau. 'Chinese suppression of protesters: an outrage. Canadian quashing of protesters: it's for the good of national security.'

Corrigible

So while Fifa President Gianni Infantino came in for much criticism and ridicule when he spoke about the double standards of many in the "democratic" West on the eve of the Qatar World Cup, he wasn't far wrong.

Getting lectures from Fifa on morals may seem a bit of a wild shot, so to put it, but the association is well-steeped in immorality, so it does have, in a way, detailed knowledge of the subject area.

Now, this isn't to say that we should all just ignore evil acts and immoral practices. No. It's a case of at least acknowledging our own knowledge gaps and shortcomings in the first instance. Finding the right tone is also important when speaking out.

It's very difficult to listen to, let alone actually act on, the words of those who try to come across as incorruptible, know-it-alls. The only incorruptible, faultless humans are those yet to be born.

So whether it be action on climate change, tackling a global pandemic, the Brexit fallout, Petro versus Uribe, left versus right — what have you — be wary of those pontificating that their way is the right way.

Popular support for somebody or something doesn't automatically confer infallibility. Safety in numbers and the madness — and badness — of crowds are but two sides of the same coin. Today's unquestionable truth is tomorrow's big lie.

Thus, we should all aim to be a little more corrigible (cautiously and questioningly, that is) and less incorrigible, if I do say so myself. In doing so, we might just find the other's shoes are a nice fit.
__________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

The liberal illusion

@wwaycorrigan

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]

'Yes, we shall set them to work, but in their leisure hours we shall make their life like a child's game, with children's songs and innocent dance. Oh, we shall allow them even sin, they are weak and helpless, and they will love us like children because we allow them to sin.

'Freedom on our terms.' 

We shall tell them that every sin will be expiated if it is done with our permission, that we allow them to sin because we love them, and the punishment for these sins we take upon ourselves. And we shall take it upon ourselves, and they will adore us as their saviours who have taken on themselves their sins before God. And they will have no secrets from us.

We shall allow or forbid them to live with their wives and mistresses, to have or not to have children — according to whether they have been obedient or disobedient and they will submit to us gladly and cheerfully ... and we shall have an answer for all. And they will be glad to believe our answer, for it will save them from the great anxiety and terrible agony they endure at present in making a free decision for themselves. And all will be happy ... except the hundred thousand who rule over them. For only we, we who guard the mystery, shall be unhappy.'

As some of you will be aware, the above passage is from The Grand Inquisitor, a mini-story in Fyodor Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov.

One would like to think that most will see its relevance to today's world.

A "safe" and sorry lot

Considering everything we've witnessed over the last couple of years, it would appear many are indeed happy to submit to those who rule over us. 

Why worry about having to make a 'free decision' for oneself when the powers that be can take care of all that? One is given certain wriggle room, a modicum of freedom 'to sin', no more, no less.

What's really wanted — not unreasonably so — are safety and security, not freedom. Thus, it's not quite 'better be safe than sorry'. It's more a case of 'better to feel safe in the hands of a greater power than to be free.'

'Such "liberals" must have to perform some spectacular mental gymnastics.'

In this light, it explains why many people who describe themselves as liberals went unquestioningly along with lockdowns. 'Oh, nobody likes them but they're for the greater good.' That was the gist of the mantra that was sold to the masses and the majority bought it without the merest of critical assessment.

Surely genuine liberals would have wanted to be as certain as one could be that such an attack on liberty was worth the significant sacrifice. 

It became obvious early on in the pandemic, to those still thinking soundly in any case, that covid-19 was a severe and potentially deadly infection for only a small percentage of society.

What wasn't fully known was the cost of extensive lockdowns — not just economically but in all aspects of life and death — although there were numerous dissenting voices telling us to tread carefully, this blog included.

In this context, 'playing it safe', liberal style, surely should have meant doing our best to keep life as normal as possible. Yet governments across the world, with consent from many of their citizens, did the opposite. (In slight mitigation, the minions were constantly fed worst-case scenarios.)

'As we should all know, however, identifying as one thing is quite different from actually being that thing.'

It's a similar story with the covid-19 vaccines. It was clear that a not-insignificant number of the population had robust natural immunity to the infection.

So again, one would have thought that those of a supposedly liberal persuasion would factor this in before endorsing, punitively, vaccine mandates. Nothing of the sort was forthcoming. (The slight mitigation here is that at the start of the vaccination rollout hopes were high that the jabs would be something of a silver bullet for all. It soon became clear that this wasn't the case.)

Then there's the response to mad Vlad's (Vladimir Putin that is) decision to send his troops into Ukraine.

That the West's hawkish right-wingers have jumped at the chance this war has presented to denounce all of Russia and its evil ways is no surprise.

What is surprising, though, are the efforts of many of our so-called liberals to outdo the neoconservatives in this regard. It seems some want to remove Russia and its people from the planet completely.

On the flip side, Ukraine and Ukrainians can do no wrong whatsoever. And they never have done any wrong. To suggest otherwise is blasphemous. I guess I was missing that day in religion class when we learnt all about the saintly, chosen people of Ukraine.

'If I say it, it's true'

These "liberal" double standards are nothing new, of course. I recently happened upon a 2002 interview with the late writer Christopher Hitchens, where he spoke of such mental gymnastics performed — 'liberal illusions' as he called them — in the minds of his liberal contemporaries.

He explained how such types had to ignore many glaring illiberal practices of three fêted liberals who had been his chief targets, calling out what he considered their hypocrisy, so to put it. These individuals were Mother Teresa, Princess Diana and US President Bill Clinton. (Watch the video at https://youtu.be/93vTib-WWvs. The part relevant to this text starts around the 27-minute mark.)

One assumes that many who call themselves liberals do so because it sounds virtuous. It has non-threatening connotations.

It's much better than labelling oneself as a radical leftist — even if that shoe appears to fit well. Or saying, on the other hand, one is a libertarian or a neoconservative.

As we should all know, however, identifying as one thing is quite different from actually being that thing.

One's constitution and actions are what really count. Many, though, like to illude themselves on this. And as long as their conduct and values fit inside the accepted framework, they'll never be truly challenged on it.

A win-win for all. Except for the free-thinkers.
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

'Death to dissenters. It's for your own good.'

@wwaycorrigan

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]

I do find it somewhat perplexing — and occasionally amusing — how self-proclaimed freedom-loving liberals demand that others follow their path. At times, this is seen in a passive-aggressive manner. However, more frequently these days it's simply done aggressively; there's nothing passive about it whatsoever.

'That's my boy, Bart. Just comply. Life shall be easier then.'

It's no longer a case — as at least it seemed to be only a decade or so ago — of being open to alternative views when there is no conclusive evidence that one belief is the real truth, with all others simply wrong. No. The tone of this pugnacious proselytising wouldn't be out of place in the days of Europe's Reformation and subsequent Counter-Reformation.

Only EU can make the darkness bright

From an Irish perspective, more understandable as it is with its quite incestuous media and politics, we've seen it with Brexit and the coronavirus pandemic. I have tried, from afar, to provide a little bit of balance as regards the latter (see https://wwcorrigan.blogspot.com/2022/01/covid-19-anti-vaxxers-immunity-my-chat.html).

With Brexit, OK, there is the old quip that Britain's, nay England's, difficulty is Ireland's opportunity. There is, after all, a long bloody history between the two islands (there's been much intermingling of a more peaceful variety, too). So, despite the better relations that have developed between them over the last couple of generations, many Irish still have a deep-rooted desire to see England fail.

Add in the fact that most of Ireland's agenda-setters naively see the European Union as a rock of rectitude and it's not surprising to find such a hostile attitude towards Brexit. (If I had to choose one over the other, seeing the direction of travel of the EU and playing the long game, I'd opt for Britain over a Europe dominated by France and Germany. For one, the traditional common law approach tends to defend the individual more so than civil law.)

Coming back to the pandemic and zooming out from Ireland to a global level, to go against the narrative of lockdowns being a necessary evil, that they were the 'only viable option', was akin to blasphemy. As early as March 2020 I questioned this wisdom in Coronavirus' collateral damage.

'These facemask fascists, rather than castigate others for not "complying", should stick a sock in it, quite literally.'

Some commentators who submissively went along with all this back then are now, however, trying to rewrite their own history.

Some, that is. Others, those who seem to think that covid-19 is the only threat to human life, appear to want to have indefinite lockdowns. 'Can't everybody just work from home?' Eh, no, they can't.

Such types also tend to be facemask fascists. 'I care about others, that's why I wear a facemask.' Wonderful. The snag here is that there is no conclusive evidence that a piece of cloth wrapped around one's mouth and nose is truly effective in reducing the spread of coronavirus.

Indeed, there are so many variables at play that any study showing a benefit in this regard comes with numerous caveats. (For a detailed breakdown of such studies carried out so far, see https://brownstone.org/articles/more-than-150-comparative-studies-and-articles-on-mask-ineffectiveness-and-harms/. Also, https://emilyburns.substack.com/p/no-masks-dont-help-keep-kids-in-school).

Thus, if people want to wear a facemask because it makes them feel safer or more virtuous, fine. However, this castigating of others who don't wear them, well, such facemask fascists should stick a sock in it, quite literally.

'A jab a day keeps Pfizer in play'

Then there are the covid-19 vaccines. Considering the number of breakthrough infections we've seen, this idea that prevails in significant quarters that an unvaccinated person is more of a risk to him/herself and society in general compared to a vaccinated person just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Personally, and so far it seems to be holding true, my immunity or whatever natural defences I have against covid may be stronger than that of many of those who have had multiple vaccines.

Yet, the covid-19 vaccine-mandate brigade continues to exert a significant influence across the globe. They insist that the benefits outweigh the risks in all cases, when there is strong evidence that suggests otherwise, particularly the lower down the age cohorts one goes. (For more on that, see https://brownstone.org/articles/are-the-covid-mrna-vaccines-safe/.)

Now, while not all who endorse compulsory vaccination and mask-wearing are woke, illiberal leftists, there does certainly appear to be a substantial crossover.

These attempts at control, to force submission and/or destroy the credibility of the dissenters match nicely with the woke ideology.

Such types talk of equality and freedom but on their highly prejudiced terms only. (I went into more detail on this in Drunk almost to death on the culture wars.)

Putting an optimistic spin on it, it would appear the ordinary Joe and Josephine don't really go along with those who follow a more militaristic line on the above and other similarly contentious issues.

The average, informed citizen seems to realise that these matters are more nuanced than they are often portrayed. It's not, so to put it, 'everything black, good; everything white, bad.'

The problem, particularly in the West, is that in the traditional media and politics — spheres that exert much influence of course — there's an over-representation of these illiberal liberals.

Thus, it's incumbent on those of us of a more balanced nature to push back at every opportunity. Death awaits us regardless, so we might as well go down putting up a fight.
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

Lest we forget

@wwaycorrigan

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]

Sitting unhidden in one of my barrio tiendas sipping on a litre of Poker beer, it dawned on me that less than a year ago such behaviour was officially prohibited and had been for the guts of 12 months.

Saving face: Colombians seem particularly keen on facemasks.

I'm not sure about you, but as things gradually return, for the most part anyway, to how they were pre-pandemic, I've nearly forgotten how absurd those "lockdown"/restricted-movement days were (it's good to have my various blog posts during the period as a reference point. See, for example, https://wwcorrigan.blogspot.com/2020/03/coronavirus-collateral-damage.html and https://wwcorrigan.blogspot.com/2020/06/coronavirus-auxiliary-killers.html. Here's hoping the internet's Ministry of Truth doesn't get at them).

Failed estate

This isn't to say that my tried-and-trusted Bogotá tiendas are devoid of signs of those crazy times. Clientele's wearing of facemasks under the chin is one rather inane reminder. There's also the odd sign to wash one's hands (a tad difficult in establishments without adequate facilities in this regard), to wear aforementioned masks and even notices to disinfect your footwear, a practice that was found early on to be rather ineffective in combatting contagion in most settings.

As for the facemasks, Colombians seem quite happy to wear them, anywhere and everywhere. Whatever about their efficacy in terms of reducing the spread of respiratory infections — the jury is still very much out — they may at least offer some protection from Bogotá's contaminated air. Although, when worn around the chin, it's unlikely they'll be of much help.

Nonetheless, it's good to have some reminders of what we've just gone through — as long as they're kept at a safe physical distance that is.

Of course, people still afflicted by coronavirus monomania will not only say that all draconian measures introduced were necessary but they are also likely to argue that they didn't go far enough nor last long enough.

Again, the evidence that strict lockdowns work in combatting a disease such as covid-19 is far from conclusive. And when viewed solely through the lens of Sars-CoV-2, one is guilty of inflicting other causes of pain and death on those who would otherwise be fine. It's a delicate balance, one that many countries appear to have got shockingly wrong.

"Those who have been most faithful to the creed, if they're not quite rewriting recent history their changing tack is explained as 'we weren't to know.' Really?"

As we begin to accept that we must learn to live with covid rather than stop living and as we move our focus onto the next global cause for concern, any proper, unbiased analysis of the last two years must critically examine the role of much of the media in unquestioningly following the official line.

A majority in the Fourth Estate, not for the first time and it certainly won't be for the last, decided to take refuge elsewhere.

A dubious narrative was established and followed with fervour. "The Science" — the one that promoted heavy-handed containment measures and has coerced people into taking covid vaccines even when it is clear that some have robust natural defences against the infection — became the true faith.

Signs of the time. Careful now ...

Those of us who dared ask fair and reasonable questions were blasted as heretics. We were selfish, content to needlessly let people die, so the attacks went. Very early on in this collective, dangerous insanity I called out what was for the most part nauseating, hypocritical virtue signalling (see https://wwcorrigan.blogspot.com/2020/03/coronavirus-fallout-virtue-signalling.html).

We now have some of those who were most faithful to the creed backtracking. If they're not quite rewriting recent history their changing tack is explained as 'we weren't to know.' Really? They seemed utterly convinced of their righteousness at the time, trying to rubbish those of us who went against them.

Centre fight

In any case, it's quite easy for them to shrug all this off now. Vaccine certs proudly in hand, life is pretty much back to normal. (More power to the countries that are doing away with jab passes — little by little, society appears to be taking a more reasonable, rounded approach to this. Let's not mention atrocious Australia, crazy Canada or nefarious New Zealand, though.)

Thus, some people tell me I should get over all this, 'hum a different tune'. For the most part, I am doing that.

However, the agents of coercion and control who were given a new lease of life with the arrival of the novel coronavirus continue to try to make life difficult for us "infidels". 'Just conform, goddamn it!'

Many appear quite happy to have the state overseeing more aspects of their lives, often falsely believing that it's for the greater good of society. It generally means a little less personal responsibility, too, so they'll acquiesce.

Yet, an all-powerful state with much of the media in tow, doing its best to silence — or cancel, if you will — dissenting voices, painting any opposition as conspiracy theorists and so refusing to engage with it, is not something to be endorsed.

It's why I won't simply let this go, not while we still have what is effectively nothing more than official opinion or debatable science being peddled as unquestionable fact.

As we've seen over the last couple of years and as history has repeatedly shown us, giving free rein to such forces rarely leads to positive outcomes.

The centre can hold for a little while longer. We have to be prepared, though, to battle hard to keep it together.
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

 

Negative utilitarianism in coronavirus times

@wwaycorrigan
[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.] 

Only the very naïve believe that we live in a free world. Where you have a conflict of human interests, the concept of true individual freedom is unattainable.

Lockdown life: Do such measures cause more harm than good?

Delicate balance

My doing whatever I want has the potential to negatively impact somebody else. It's why, as an interconnected species in pursuit of both personal and collective goals — or happiness if you will — we have rules and regulations in place to act as checks and balances on individual and communal wants.

It could be thought of as a sort of negative utilitarianism: aiming to inflict the least harm on the greatest number of people.

In an imperfect, unfair world, it's perhaps the best we can aspire to. The perpetual problem inherent within it, for "freer" societies in any case, is finding that balance between allowing individuals to go about their business with as little interference as possible and protecting others' rights, as well as the environment we share.

Of course, at times one's personal goals merge nicely with the collective good. Everyone's a winner, to a certain extent.

When this isn't so, an arbiter, normally the state in its various forms, is needed to decide how much give and take is allowed in a particular situation.

'If the vaccine is not a success, we're going to have to seriously reappraise the damaging containment measures we've implemented.'

Thus, said arbiter must hold the respect of the parties in dispute in any given conflict. If this is lacking, the carrot-and-stick approach can bring the warring factions onside, provided there is a genuine effort to engage as fairly as possible by the arbiter.

If one or all of the disputing sides feel this fairness is absent, if favouritism or a lack of sincerity is perceived, then we have quite the tricky situation.

The wrong way?

This is a constant challenge for our leaders and decision-makers. We've seen it very much at play in dealing with the coronavirus where there is a not-insignificant minority, this writer included (see also my interview with the renowned British author and journalist, Peter Hitchens) who question the efficacy of the various measures introduced in a bid to contain the virus.

Not only are we sceptical that they actually work, but we also highlight the consequences they are having and could have for years to come across society. Coming back to our negative utilitarianism, we are potentially inflicting great harm on a great number. It needn't be this way.

Alas, this perspective is given scant serious thought as the majority stance of doing all we can to stop this coronavirus dominates the discourse.

Perhaps the majority will be proven right — history will be the judge of that.

For now, we must hope that the vaccine is a success for those who most need protection. (I personally won't be rushing to get jabbed and I don't think it should be compulsory — more on that another day.)

If it's not a success, we're going to have to seriously reappraise the containment measures we've implemented. This is because asking people to stop living in a bid to, potentially, save some lives is not a strategy that can go on indefinitely.
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz". 

Colombia, not up to the Covid test

In a classic episode of The Simpsons — in its heyday — a temporarily housebound Bart suspects that do-gooder neighbour Ned Flanders is about to murder his wife. 

He frantically calls the police and gets through to a ridiculous pre-record of options. In haste, he chooses regicide, whereupon the pre-record goes on to ask him, 'If you know the name of the king or queen being murdered, press one.'

So some people are getting tests, but who exactly? (Image from Facebook.)

Cartoon comedy at its best, but, of course, it would never happen like that in real life.

Honestly, it wouldn't. In fact, in Colombia — or Bogotá at least — when it comes to tackling what we've been told is the biggest peril of our time, Covid-19 (all other life-threatening conditions are now irrelevant), that Simpsons episode is actually an improvement.

I know of a handful of cases where people either suspect, with good reason, that they have the infection or they've been in close contact with someone who has tested positive. When they prudently go looking for a test they have to wait hours for their call to be answered — there's not even a pre-record of options to amuse oneself for a time.

Being on hold for ages might be OK for those with an unlimited-calls plan, but I certainly wouldn't have the patience or money to burn to wait for more than 10 minutes in such a scenario.

You give me fever

If and when one does get through to the health provider — the curate's egg that is the EPS system — there is an initial over-the-phone diagnosis. The guiding principle for being considered for a test appears to be the presence or not of a fever.

If you're fever-free, be about your business. If not, 'we'll get back to you to arrange a test.' For one acquaintance, two weeks have passed and still no word. Remember, we're talking about what effectively is the only health concern in town these days and this is how it's been dealt with.

'One reason being mooted for what is at best a tardiness, at worst an unwillingness to test, is that the system has collapsed. The more likely explanation is that they simply don't want to do it due to the cost.'

What about other potentially fatal conditions? Say your prayers and hope for the best it would seem. Sure you can beat cancer with no more than a positive attitude didn't you know? Think away that heart attack.

It must be said that for those who have been in the company of an infected person, as one friend has, there is some willingness to test. Again, though, all in its own good time. And don't be in a panic for the result, either.

One reason being mooted for what is at best a tardiness, at worst an unwillingness to test, is that the system has collapsed. The health providers are overwhelmed. They'd love to be able to test but they simply can't.

There might be a modicum of truth to that. However, the more likely scenario — considering past form of avoiding procedures on your typical José Bloggs who's not a big contributor to the system in the hope that he'll either go away and/or die — is that the EPSs don't want to shoulder the costs.

If you go privately and have, as one Bogotá hospital charges, 280,000 pesos to hand over, no problem. But if you're on basic health insurance, to the back of the queue with you, a queue that is not being attended to at that.

Immune to good governance

So while city and state authorities are imposing lockdowns to their hearts' content, without the intelligent practices of testing and contact tracing, they're effectively playing whack-a-virus blindfolded. Do also remember, the initial point of the lockdowns was to buy time for the health services to prepare for the inevitable peak.

Well, we're now entering that stage and what groundwork have they put in? Not an awful lot it seems, apart from scaremongering with case figures without any context.

What's more, considering the irrational stigma surrounding Covid-19 amongst the masses, something the government and media have played a significant role in generating (see previous sentence), properly planned wholesale testing could help to counteract this. What we have instead are people frightened to even just look for tests and a health system doing its best to avoid administering them.

Now the jury is still out on lasting immunity to coronavirus. Yet, should it turn out that those who contract it do indeed build up defences, coupled with those who don't suffer from it at all, Colombia might just stumble into "safer" territory in a few months, albeit faced with a raft of other long-term problems.

This will have been, for the most part, despite the measures and actions taken by those in charge, not because of them. As we've seen oft-times before here, authorities have (on occasions) talked a good game but when it comes to playing it, they're found badly wanting.

We'll get over coronavirus and the associated hysteria at some stage. The maladministration, that's a far deeper issue, one that is arguably even deadlier than Covid-19. We've no immunity to it. Nor do we have a vaccine to combat it.

There is always that helpline to call. 'We'll get back to you tomorrow, sir.' The thing is, tomorrow never comes.
________________________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz". 

Coronavirus' auxiliary killers

'For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.' Most of us have heard that statement before, Isaac Newton's third law of motion as it is. It has, of course, significance in our daily lives. That is to say, every decision we take has additional consequences, with these often being quite removed from the focus of the original action.

Stay-at-home orders: Doing more harm than good? (Image from Facebook.)

In the aftermath of the rather panicked, dithering response (eh, thanks China and the WHO for properly forewarning us, not) from many countries to our current pandemic, it is now quite clear that those making the decisions did so, ultimately, with just one goal in mind: 'Stop coronavirus at all costs.' Scant consideration appears to have been given to the knock-on effects of the extraordinary measures introduced.

Once the mantra flipped from 'it's just like the common flu' to 'this is a dangerous and deadly pandemic' (the flu is deadly as well, of course), all efforts were put into defeating it — for the most part, at least.

The early projections of a shocking global death toll — in the millions — convinced governments of the unquestionable necessity of widespread lockdowns and stay-at-home orders.

'As long as a majority believes that coronavirus must be stopped "at all costs" we will persist with measures that are deadlier than the very agent of destruction they're meant to defeat.'

Dissenting voices as to the efficacy of such measures and their unintended consequences were, indeed continue to be, largely discarded. Leaders were looking at those mortality projections if a light approach was taken and no doubt saw in them figures that would also kill their careers.

Be that as it may, while modelling and projections are helpful at the start, they are at root theoretical. They don't reflect the reality on the ground and they tend to treat society as a homogeneous unit. You can't beat real data and we now have a fair amount about coronavirus.

All lives matter

These data, as Dr Scott Atlas — Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University and a member of the institution's Working Group on Health Care Policy — and a number of other equally qualified experts point out, show how shockingly (the word some commentators like to use hysterically in reference to the coronavirus death toll and cases) wrong those projections were.

Moreover, again highlighted by Dr Atlas, the lockdown measures, so data suggest, are responsible for a far greater loss of 'life years' than Covid-19. That is to say, government-imposed restrictions are leading/will lead to more deaths than those linked to the virus. The damage has already been done.

As Atlas explains in his Hoover Institution Uncommon Knowledge interview, the numbers show a significant loss of said life years due to unemployment and a general lack of economic activity, together with delayed or foregone healthcare. That's just a synopsis of the issues at play, in the interview he goes into much greater detail.

I touched on this in previous posts, more from the perspective of what I imagined to be the unintended consequences of lockdown measures. Atlas's analysis spells it out more alarmingly.

Of course, talking about lives that will be lost in the future due to our actions today versus lives being lost right now, the latter will always dominate our attention. It must be said there are other preventable-for-a-time deaths occurring simultaneously with those linked to Covid-19, but it's the newness of coronavirus that ensures it dominates the discourse.

It's similar to the outpouring of emotion and willingness to help when people die due to a natural disaster or plane crash compared to a general lack of interest in the millions who die each year from a slow burner such as starvation.

What's more, it is understandable and somewhat forgivable that politicians, when shown worse-case scenarios relayed to a frightened public via sensationalised media reporting, want to show that they're doing all they can to ensure no untimely deaths happen on their watch. (Advisers and the media have a lot to answer for here.)

'The coronavirus-containment strategies that many countries have adopted are the complete opposite of utilitarianism.'

The thing is, as already highlighted, this is tunnel vision in the extreme. However, as long as the vast majority of the public believes that coronavirus must be stopped 'at all costs' we will persist with measures that are indeed deadlier than the very agent of destruction they're meant to defeat.

The coronavirus-containment strategies that many countries have adopted are pretty much the opposite of utilitarianism. We're inflicting greater harm on a greater number. It's one reason why the eminent historian Niall Ferguson sarcastically suggested that future historians will view Covid-19 as a mental illness rather than a virus-transmitted infection.

As Ferguson et al. have pointed out on umpteen occasions, there are smarter ways to tackle this pandemic. From a Colombian perspective, I don't buy it that the country can't implement them.

Yet, the many who appear to believe that coronavirus is the worst thing in the world, ever, tend to view those of us who suggest otherwise as, at best, heartless, selfish individuals, at worst some sort of neo-Nazis. (I'm curious to see the reaction of such types when we're faced with a virus that kills indiscriminately and in huge numbers. I take it mass suicides will be the suggestion.)

Time to broaden that range of vision, folks. Think about the fallout from the actions you blindly endorse and wipe that blood from your own hands before you start pointing accusatory fingers.
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".