Add new comment

Another angle on this. Does the evidence or the expertise make any difference? Or is it just a hook for the authoritarian desires of sheep, bigots, and opportunistic politicians?

First question. Why isn't there more reaction against *medically irrational* elements of the lockdown, i.e. those which make no sense epidemiologically at all?

Take for instance this piece:
https://aeon.co/essays/a-bioethicist-on-the-hidden-costs-of-lockdown-in-...
which is by a bioethicist who uses utilitarian reasoning - measures are justified only if they are proportionate and save lives. She opposes a lot of aspects of the lockdowns - but singles out the bizarre rule in Italy that people can go for walks for exercise, but not jogs. She's criticised this, but people are just responding "it shows respect". As if they don't care about the evidence or the experts, it's about signalling that you're against the virus.

I can think of a lot of other bizarre rules. The fad of stopping people exercising in remote areas, even though this reduces transmission risk compared to the now overused urban parks. Bans on mountain-climbing and surfing. Rules saying people can walk on the beach but not swim. Preventing internal and international travel, even when there's already high infection rates in both places. Lots of Third World countries are using curfews - allowing most ordinary activities except between certain hours. California has tried to stop people going to beaches in the hot weather - then encouraged people to gather in indoor sites if they don't have air conditioning. I've also been hearing about bans on alcohol and cigarette sales in some countries. New Zealand banned people living in vans except on their own land. This increases risk because they have to move into crowded temporary facilities or live on the streets. All totally irrational. Yet why isn't there any backlash from the people who otherwise rely on "science"?

Second question: why are changes - especially loosening of the lockdown - either not following from new scientific research or are massively delayed? For example, why have findings that the virus dies quickly in sunlight not affected the "stay home" mantra? Why have findings that very young children are not infectious had no effect?

Third question: why do the same people who take pro-lockdown science as gospel, seem oblivious to mounting evidence (much of it from scientists) about the impacts on so-called mental health, the deaths which might be caused by the crash, etc?

I'm asking because I suspect these questions blow wide open the fact that lockdowns are a kneejerk reaction based on irrational herd-morality and desire to be part of a fascistic collective effort which splits friend from enemy and sacrifices the enemy. But I'm interested in whether there's other explanations.