“Stay at home. Protect the NHS. Save Lives. Do your part. Wash your hands.” These sacred chants have become commandments to live by in the recent British lifestyle, and for good reason.
Yes, we know, “staying at home” is the sensible thing to do. To all those people preaching this endlessly, however, and asking for even tougher lockdown restrictions, I want to ask: what novel contribution are you making to the topic, other than rambling on the same viewpoint which already has the unequivocal endorsement of the authorities, the government and the media?
It’s as if sheeple mentality has a tendency to override people’s inherent critical thinking nature — which we only find dissipating in these progressive times, with everyone becoming subservient to authoritarians — which may come in subtle forms such as groupthink, thy neighbours and the mass media, not your stereotypical armed militia policing the streets.
But wait, it’s to save lives…
Did any of you, even for a second, take a step back and ask yourselves, what are the tradeoffs associated with the lockdowns? Or, if there’s evidence that lockdown will actually work and save lives, given the possibility of reinfections? Or, that for every person who got the infection, the very vast majority recovered and carried on just fine?
Official statistics paint far from a complete picture as they fail to account for all those who got the infection and recovered without needing any hospitalisation or external care (myself included). These cases were not and are not being reported. If all cases could be accounted for, the denominator indicating the total infections would be, and in fact is, much much larger, bringing the actual mortality rate to a very tiny percentage. Mikko Paunio, a Finnish Government scientific adviser estimates this mortality rate at a low 0.13% — about the same as the flu.
And because developing countries (India for one) must unquestionably follow the Western world’s lead…
