No End to Pandemics

ZeroHedge:

Instead of dealing with the headaches, fatigue and neurological aftereffects of the virus, however, “we the people” may well find ourselves burdened with a Nanny State inclined to use its draconian pandemic powers to protect us from ourselves.
Therein lies the danger of the government’s growing addiction to power.

This has already happened. And it happened a long time ago. The July 2007 smoking ban was a draconian lockdown of smokers against the smoking “pandemic”. It could be achieved because smokers had become a small minority who could be easily isolated.

The government learned a lot from that. The current lockdown is a repeat of the exercise, using a different but equally exaggerated pandemic. But this time everyone gets locked down, everyone gets isolated

Public Health now trumps everything else. And so now we can expect that all future lockdowns will invoke Public Health. It’s more important than free speech, democracy, and every existing law. It’s the only thing that matters.

So when the current Covid health emergency ends, it will be followed by another one.

In fact, there seems to be no end to the Covid pandemic. Exotic new variants are being found every week or two. It’s been going for a year, and looks set to last another year or two. It’s enormously economically and socially destructive, but so was the smoking ban. It served to concentrate power in government, and that’s what they want.

The end result, in the long run, will be the death of Public Health. Nobody will believe a word they say, and not just about the current pandemic, but everything else as well. The loss of faith will extend far beyond this. It will extend to science in general, and it will extend to the government. It could get very ugly.

Already we have.

UK Supreme Court Judge Expects People Will Be Forced To Wear Masks, Stay Home For Ten Years

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to No End to Pandemics

  1. Mark Jarratt says:

    Unfortunately there is already considerable evidence to support this dystopian view. As with tobacco prohibitionist bullying, the same dictatorial paternalistic thinking and probably the same unelected unaccountable medical and fellow traveller bureaucrats are the source, and those who challenge or disagree are ignored and censored. I would happily migrate to a new country with respect for personal autonomy and freedom: any suggestions? Obviously the UK, Australia, NZ, Canada, the US and much of the EU are disqualified.

    • Fumo ergo sum says:

      I am sorry, I can’t help you with your search for a new libertarian paradise, something I am looking for in vain as well. I still hope that one day The Seasteading Institute, an enterprise founded by the grandson of the illustrious economist Milton Friedman, will finally erect a politically autonomous utopia somewhere in the ocean, far away from all the nudgers, busybodies and healthist autocrats that have already devastated my life for about a decade. Meanwhile we all still have to cope with living onder the capricious spells of whatever Lord – or Lady – Protector that is in charge. The only thing I can console myself with during these dark and ominous times is the fact that cigarettes are still relatively affordable compared with other countries.

      I have also come to think of this whole pandemic as an endless series of measures, control mechanisms and fear-mongering that will actually never end. This too is a copycat taken from tobacco control. If they would, they could straightforwardly outlaw the distribution, sale and consumption of tobacco products altogether – notwithstanding the catastrophic social, financial and mental costs that would come with such a decision. But they don’t do this, and (fortunately) I do not think that they will do this in the near future. Why is this? Well, because as long as tobacco is still (legally) available, the carroussel of health experts, politicians, Pharma lobbyists and other creatures of Hades could still continue its show. And instill even more fear. About chiiiiildren being exposed to secondhand smoke in their parents’ cars and homes, for instance, after which some nanny-do-good-politician will come up with a new law that will be rushed through parliament at once. Upon which some ambiguous ngo’s will be handed subsidies in order to conduct further accommodating ‘research’ with the practical aim to ‘inform the population’ about the ‘hazards’ of secondhand smoke. So it is not the bullies’ aim to eradicate smoking or tobacco at all. It is just a pretext to achieve a lucrative perpetual motion machine that can spawn laws, rules of conduct, policy recommendations, studies, marketing tools and subsidies forever.

      And the same applies to the way in which most Western countries try to cope with the Covid pandemic. Again, if the goal really were to eradicate the coronavirus, this goal could be rather straightforwardly achieved: just implement an austere and strict lockdown for a couple of weeks, and you can declare your entire country covid-free. For better or for worse this was the strategy that has been used last year by New Zealand, for instance, where lockdown restrictions are currently lifted. But is still rather simple to have an orchestrated crackdown on civil liberties for a country entirely surrounded by oceans and inhabited by a mere 4 million inhabitants – only the half of a city like London or Paris (*). For most other countries in this world that share their borders with other countries over land and that have most of their inhabitants living in densely populated urban areas, such a lockdown will be almost practically impossible. There always be ‘exceptions to the rule’ – people needing to cross the border for ‘essential purposes’ or having to go buy groceries (and cigarettes, of course) or having to bring their children to school or… I presume that the majority of Western countries – here in Europe as well as in Britain as in most Democratically ruled US states – apply the same kind of covid-rules: too soft to prevent the virus from spreading, yet ruthless enough to kill what still remained of civil liberties and the rule of law. The net result is a state where even the most law abiding citizen does not know any longer how what is permitted, and what is obligatory, and if so, whether or not this or that rule still applies, had been abandoned or has been put into force again. Just to give a brief example: my own country, Belgium, has relaunched a ‘third lockdown’ in order to ‘fight’ the recent surge of covid cases (**). But it is a real farce. In drawing the details of the new lockdown regulations, our government, imbibed with providential wisdom and the knowledge to decide what is best for all of us, came up with a neatly drafted list enumerating those stores and shops that are deemed ‘essential’ vis-à-vis those that are considered to ‘non-essential’. Those shops that are considered to be non-essential – such as clothes boutiques or electronics stores – won’t be closed, but can be visited upon appointment. There is no need, however, to make your appointment in advance: you can simply queue in front of the store’s entrance and make an “appointment” (i.e., have immediate access) at once. In practice, this means that if you are to buy a book or a bouquet of tulips you can immediately buy your items without much ado since libraries and florist stores are deemed ‘essential’ (and as far as it concerns libraries, I agree… :-)). Want to buy a new pair of shoes or a new toaster at the shop next door? Then please first ring to bell at the entrance to make an appointment. The shopkeeper then is also expected to register your name, address and phone number. ‘Just in case’ a positive covid test could be tracked back to you.

      Will measures like these be efficient to prevent the virus from spreading? I highly doubt it. Unless the virus would be wearing glasses in order to tell the difference between ‘essential’ and ‘non-essential’ stores and in which ones he might be allowed to wretch havoc, of course. Even though the mainstream media will soon be touting about the beneficial results that this ‘lockdown’ – they actually call it an ‘Easter break’ – will engender. The only things that half-hearted measures like these will accomplish, is an increase in even more red tape, regulatory chaos, confusion and fear. That’s the way they like it (uh-huh, uh-huh). I assume that stories like these might sound familiar to readers from other countries. Indeed, the aim isn’t the eradication of covid-19 just as the aim isn’t the eradication of tobacco. There really isn’t no aim to be hit; no final battle of the war to be won. There is just the endless repetition of measures, countermeasures, lockdowns, lockdowns ‘2.0’, biopolitics, scientistic moralism, fear-mongering, erosion of liberties, arbitrary policing, and so on. The eternal return of the same, as Friedrich Nietzsche described it at the end of the 19th century.

      I definitely won’t be surprised that this bogus will continue for another ten years. In most Western countries, public smoking bans have already “celebrated” their tenth birthday or so without any sign of them to be relaxed soon. And as long as those devilish smoking bans remain in place, the hospitality industry may stay in lockdown indefinitely, for my part. So if smoking bans can already be put in place for ten years or more without notice, then surely lockdowns will succeed in doing so as well.

      Or perhaps even more intruding measures as well. The idea of covid passports that is currently hovering in the air, more contagious and dangerous than the deadliest of viruses excellently illustrates this. Even though even mainstream media such as The Economist have already demystified their usefulness and ethical acceptability, especially for domestic use (see https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/03/13/how-useful-are-vaccine-passports ), it seems that countries such as Denmark are eagerly developing the necessary digital tools to enable its citizens to drink, dine and gather this summer within the narrow confinements of the ‘new normal’. Going to restaurant, having one’s hair done, commuting with public transportation or visiting a festival will only be permitted upon showing valid proof of either having been inoculated with a covid vaccine, having passed a negative covid test or proof that one has enough natural antibodies. Especially those refusing to get jabbed, or that cannot get a vaccine due to medical reasons, wil await a gloomy future in which they will have to pass the covid test several times a week in order to be able to participate in social gatherings. Isn’t this odd? Our liberal and progressivist leaders have been moving heaven and earth ever since to eliminate every single form of ‘racism’, ‘xenophobia’ and ‘discrimination’ off the earth’s surface – except of course for discrimination against smokers, which is not only allowed, but even encouraged. And now the very same rulers are opening the door for a future in which one’s subjective rights and freedoms will become dependent upon one’s health status. Being a citizen entitled with certain rights then no longer is a constitutionally protected entitlement. It is a privilege that could literally come into and go out of existence with a single cough or sneeze. This has been unprecedented in history and is a genuine scandal, as it will undoubtedly thwart the right on one’s medical privacy, will instill even more fear and animosity among the members of the covid tribes and will even be straightforwardly dangerous from a medical point of view. Take, for instance, the case of someone medically unsuited to get the covid vaccine (because, say, it may trigger an allergic reaction) but who would nevertheless like to attend a concert or a festival. Now imagine that this person is just a poor college student (due to the lockdowns, his parttime job has been gone into thin air…) who cannot afford to buy a covid test on every occasion he wants to go out. Would such a person not consider taking the cheapest solution, and take the covid jab which is being offered for free? Even though his doctor has already adamantly counseled against doing so? I bet he will, even though getting the vaccine will be to his physical detriment. But in case that such a thing were to happen, I imagine that the ‘public health expert’ will simply shrug his shoulders and carry on with his daily routine.

      But even those who think that getting the covid jab is the securest way of having one’s right restored are gullible at best. The vaccine’s efficiency against new exotic variants is already waning. I heard that vaccine producer AstraZeneca is already working on ‘booster jabs’ that might be effective in taking aim at the South African and Brazilian variant. The updated vaccine is expected to be ready by September. By that time, the virus probably already cleverly shifted its shape again, so the vaccine will prove useless against brand-new and highly contagious Papua New Guinean, Easter Islandic and Vatican variants of the coronavirus that will emerge next Fall. In any case, with the vaccine waning off, the so dearly cherished vaccine passport will prove to be futile as well. What’s the point of being inoculated with a substance that does not sufficiently protect any longer? I can already hear public health ‘experts’ pushing for vaccine renewals and a rearrangement of rights and liberties to ‘nudge’ the sheeple in the right direction. Just as a measure of prevention, of course. To avoid hospitals from being overcrowded, indeed. ‘To save Christmas’, right. And so on and so forth for eternity, in saecula saeculorum. I expect the self-righteous moralists showing off with their vaccine certificates nowadays will ultimately be expelled from paradise – somewhere right after summer – after which they too will be minced in the eternal chopper of never-ending lockdowns, social distancing, self-testing, vaccinations and passport checkups. Will they one day overthrow their overlords of public health, discovering that they have been lying, cheating and bullying from the very beginning onwards (smokers of course know that their dishonest tactics began long before the current corona pandemic) ? I am personally inclined to be more pessimistic than Frank. Albert Einstein once quipped that apart of the universe, only human stupidity is infinite – and even more certainly so than the universe. When the lockdowns became a part of ‘the new normal’ by June/July last year, I thought that the time was ripe for mass protests against this sudden confiscation of rights and liberties to evolve. Or to have at least a thorough and contradictory debate about the role of constitutional and civil rights in times of pandemics. None of this happened. The mainstream media presented the new normal as… well, the new normal. As if wearing face masks outside and shaking elbows instead of hands were practices that humanity already subscribed to for centuries. Polls and surveys – whether reliable or not is another question – are regularly aired to prove the people’s endorsement of the new rules. Yes, there have been some irregular uprisings here and there, especially in the Netherlands and in Germany, but all in all the general compliance with the rules really is striking. I am therefore afraid that Einstein was right after all, seeing his insight being corroborated every single day.

      How this all will end, if ever, is something I really do not know. I hope the best, but fear the worst. And no, it is definitely not the virus that I fear. It is our governments.

      (*) I distinguished New Zealand from other countries by pointing out that its measures in tackling the corona pandemic have been effective, unlike the regulatory mess that is still in place in most other countries around the world. But has NZ really followed the right path? When a mere three (!) infections with the ‘British variant’ had been discovered in Auckland last January, prime minister Jacinda Ardern had to put the whole city of 1.6 million souls under custody again. So it seems that even countries following a more stringent path of lockdowns ultimately have to ‘fasten seatbelts’ once again. Now if you have to pull the emergency brake every time a new case has been reported, you will ultimately simply end up with the rest of the world and continue the show of an endless series of lockdowns. There simply won’t be an end to it, as viruses will always be able to spread, no matter what measures are being taken. About 500 million viruses could fit on the head of a pin, so tiny are they. Trying to prevent viruses from spreading altogether is simply foolish and reckless. Even an island state like New Zealand will sooner or later encounter a coronavirus or another pathogen, especially if they open up their borders again to tourists. So in the long run, I think that there won’t be any significant difference in the policies endorsed by New Zealand vis-à-vis other countries. Both types of lockdown – ‘full blown’ and ‘low carb’ – will prove themselves to be of no use. Which brings us immediately to the third option, partially endorsed by countries such as Sweden, which is to leave the assessment of risk at the discretion of the lowest echelon: the individual. This will, in the end, be the only viable way to cope with the coronavirus and other pandemics – lest we would still want to lead a life worth living.

      In doing some research about New Zealand’s covid ‘miracle’, I came across an article in the Dutch journal ‘De Correspondent’ which tells the story about the ‘success formula’ behind New Zealand’s approach to the corona pandemic (see https://decorrespondent.nl/12031/het-wonderlijke-verhaal-achter-het-coronasucces-van-nieuw-zeeland/1062435533115-2437456c ; in Dutch). It seems that one of the main experts involved in the days and hours prior to New Zealand’s lockdown, a certain Nick Wilson, got his training-on-the-field in the area of… tobacco control!! In a biographical note about Mr Wilson, the journalist notes:

      “Als arts stond hij aan het einde van een keten: iemand had iets doms gedaan, of was slachtoffer geworden van iemand anders’ stupiditeit, of had simpelweg pech gehad, en hij mocht het oplossen. Daar raakte hij snel gefrustreerd door. Hij was nuttig, ja, en mensen waren hem dankbaar, zeker. Hun gebroken been was weer heel. Maar het leek hem zinniger om ongeluk of ziekte te voorkomen. De mensen die hij hielp zouden niet weten dat hij hen had geholpen – en hij zou ook niet weten wie hij geholpen had. Maar zijn werk zou meer nut hebben. Dus koos hij eind jaren tachtig voor de specialisatie ‘public health’, net als Michael Baker, met wie hij medicijnen had gestudeerd. […] Het vermogen van de overheid om levens te verbeteren, als de overheid het aandurfde, had Baker overweldigd. En ook Wilson wist dat hij zijn roeping had gevonden. Hij had het uitroeien van de pokken bestudeerd en was verrukt geraakt. ‘Dat is zo onderschat. Het uitroeien bespaart ons nog elk jaar honderden miljoenen, nog afgezien van al het leed dat is voorkomen. Als je goed georganiseerd bent, dan kunnen de collectieve acties van een maatschappij grootse dingen bereiken.’ Dat wilde hij ook. En dat dééd hij ook, met het bestrijden van polio in de Pacific, en – vooral – met het aanjagen van antirookbeleid in Nieuw-Zeeland. ‘Als arts zag ik al die mensen die overleden aan longkanker. En ik dacht: dit is absurd. Zo onnodig.’ Toen hij in 2003 de wetenschap inging, richtte hij zijn pijlen op de tabaksindustrie. Zijn stroom aan publicaties vond zoveel weerklank, dat Big Tobacco een lastercampagne tegen hem begon.”

      Translation:

      “As a practicing doctor he stood at the end of a chain: someone did something stupid or became the victim of someone else’s stupidity or suffered bad luck – as a doctor, he was supposed to fix the problem. This situation soon frustrated him. He was doing a useful job, yes, and people were grateful for what he did, most certainly. Their broken leg was fixed. But it seemed more worth the while to prevent the accident or the ailment from happening. The people he helped wouldn’t even know he had helped them – and he would never know who he had helped. But his work would be of greater use. So at the end of the nineteen-eighties he chose to study the specialization ‘public health’, just as Michael Baker did, with whom he had studied medicine. […] The government’s capacity to improve lives, if the government dared to do so, had overwhelmed Baker. And Wilson knew as well that he had found his calling. He had investigated the eradication of smallpox and was delighted by it. ‘This is so underestimated. The elimination of smallpox still saves us millions every year, besides the suffering that is being prevented. If you are well organised, then the collective actions of a society could achieve great things.’ That is what he wanted to do. And that is what he did, in fighting polio in the Pacific and – above all – propelling New Zealand’s anti smoking policy. ‘As a doctor, I saw all those people dying of lung cancer. And I thought: this is absurd. So unnecessary.’ When he launched his scientific career in 2003 he took aim at the tobacco industry. His stream of publications resonated so much, that Big Tobacco launched a smear campaign against him.”

      The last accusation should be taken with a grain of salt, I presume, as smear campaigns nowadays often go the other way round – that is, against ‘Big Tobacco’. For the rest, I think this article is a perfect piece of evidence that the strategies pursued by antismoking zealots and the incumbent lockdown extremists are all too often – and all too ‘incidentally’ – the product of one and the same evil mind.

      (**) Note indeed that the reason for pursuing a third lockdown had been a sudden surge in positive cases. This is noteworthy, since earlier lockdowns had usually been justified by referring to either the number of hospitalizations and/or covid-related deaths. Indeed, the fact that the number of deaths is no longer daily mentioned in the mainstream media should make one aware that the media and the experts are exploiting our subconscious capacities in a most subtle way. Just suddenly change the word ‘deaths’ with ‘cases’ and the effect of those words remains the same. As Orwell already knew: ‘Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.’

      • RdM says:

        Excellent writing. Thank you so much!

        Nick Wilson has known form in TC here.
        Initially I thought neurotic, he has gained in confidence since broadening interests.

        There’s coincidentally been another push against RYO here in the last two days.

        I see the flaws in the first and second ‘studies’ years apart to demonize RYO by these pharma sponsored specialists, so flimsy – but I have to write a full critique – and now a third, seeming led by a young one who as intended steps up on the previous ‘studies’.

        I know that’s obscure, but if you like, listen to a couple of excerpts from a RNZ ‘show’.
        (It’s a late afternoon 4:45pm-6:00pm panel discussion. RNZ a bit like BBC perhaps.)

        https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/thepanel/audio/2018789686/the-panel-with-victoria-stewart-and-allan-blackman-part-2

        Victoria Stewart and Allan Blackman discuss the future of provincial rugby, the origins of the word ‘mufti’, new research on specific warnings for roll your own tobacco pouches, and maximalism versus minimalism.

        https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/thepanel/audio/2018789883/the-panel-with-julia-hartley-moore-and-chris-gallavin-part-2

        The Cancer Society is calling for a significant reduction in the number of stores that are able to sell tobacco, a group of eight experts has been commissioned to work on a likely new public media entity, the role of Shakespeare in schools.

        Thus the propaganda is spread.

        Still, if you’d like to get a sense of how English is spoken in NZ,

        • RdM says:

          Correction: 4:45pm-5:00pm not 6:00pm.

          I see that the UK has gone in to Summer Time 28 March.
          So at the moment we’re equal, us in NZ briefly still in summer time too.
          But we will drop back an hour Sun 4 April coming.

          So I would have to be up and bright and early at 5 am here to join in with the event at

          The Smoking Room with Antony Worrall Thompson
          Wednesday 7th April 2021, 6.00-7.00pm

          http://taking-liberties.squarespace.com/blog/2021/3/30/im-a-smoker-get-me-out-of-here.html

          Well, I’ll try to to, and also influence another aged old politico NZ friend to join as well.

          It’s only setting an alarm and not drinking too much the night before, after all! ;=})

      • Mark Jarratt says:

        Very comprehensive commentary as usual Fumo ergo sum. You must be paid by the word, ha. I note too the entire suite of draconian illiberal bio medical fascist unfit for purpose CoVid19 countermeasures, same as tobacco control lifestyle bullying, proceeds from the demonstrably untrue belief that humans, particularly politicians and medical bureaucrats, can control the natural world. This Dunning-Kruger effect illusion of control is disconnected from reality and human mortality…be neurotic but don’t force the about one fifth of us with capacity for independent thought to drown on your Titanic… ⛴ leave us including smokers alone or suffer the consequences (but zealous enforcers have all the weapons!).

  2. Clicky says:

  3. Clicky says:

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.