The Atlantic calls for COVID amnesty
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
I’ll admit, I nearly spit out my coffee when I saw Brown Professor Emily Oster’s new headline in The Atlantic this morning. It’s the headline we’ve been waiting to see—and, in the revisionist, gaslighting style that’s become the journalistic norm on the response to Covid—it’s about the closest thing to an outright admission of guilt that we’ve seen since Covid began.
[clip]
The article is about as pathetically transparent as it is self-serving. Gee, I wonder what Oster did and said during Covid for which she might want amnesty…
And that leads to the ultimate problem, from a legal perspective, with Oster’s call for “amnesty” for the advocacy of totalitarian policies during Covid: The implicit assumption that all those who advocated lockdowns, mandates, censorship, and an indefinite state of emergency, all the way up the chain of command, did so in good faith. If those who advocated these policies are simply presumed to have done so out of well-meaning ignorance, then any inquiry into the many outstanding questions as to the origin of these policies—and the underlying motivations of highest-level officials who promulgated them—is foreclosed.
The implicit assumption is that, owing to their socioeconomic status, the superficial cutesiness of public health, and the panic surrounding the pandemic, all those who advocated these mandates must have done so in good faith. But this argument presupposes that the “pandemic” was a natural phenomenon, like a tsunami, which would have inevitably led to panic. On the contrary, studies have long shown that it was the mandates themselves that caused the public to panic, making them believe their chances of dying of Covid—which never had an overall infection fatality rate much higher than 0.2%—were hundreds of times greater than they really were. Further, there’s a growing mountain of evidence that the handful of key officials who led the initial push for unprecedented lockdowns and mandates did not, in fact, do so in good faith.
michaelpsenger.substack.com
[clip]
The article is about as pathetically transparent as it is self-serving. Gee, I wonder what Oster did and said during Covid for which she might want amnesty…
And that leads to the ultimate problem, from a legal perspective, with Oster’s call for “amnesty” for the advocacy of totalitarian policies during Covid: The implicit assumption that all those who advocated lockdowns, mandates, censorship, and an indefinite state of emergency, all the way up the chain of command, did so in good faith. If those who advocated these policies are simply presumed to have done so out of well-meaning ignorance, then any inquiry into the many outstanding questions as to the origin of these policies—and the underlying motivations of highest-level officials who promulgated them—is foreclosed.
The implicit assumption is that, owing to their socioeconomic status, the superficial cutesiness of public health, and the panic surrounding the pandemic, all those who advocated these mandates must have done so in good faith. But this argument presupposes that the “pandemic” was a natural phenomenon, like a tsunami, which would have inevitably led to panic. On the contrary, studies have long shown that it was the mandates themselves that caused the public to panic, making them believe their chances of dying of Covid—which never had an overall infection fatality rate much higher than 0.2%—were hundreds of times greater than they really were. Further, there’s a growing mountain of evidence that the handful of key officials who led the initial push for unprecedented lockdowns and mandates did not, in fact, do so in good faith.
“Let’s Declare a Pandemic Amnesty”—Not
Let’s not declare a pandemic amnesty. Let’s declare a real pandemic inquiry.
michaelpsenger.substack.com
My mom is 81 and yesterday she was up on the ROOF leaf blowing the gutters. Yep, used a ladder to get there.
My husband's grandfather was 94 and using a ladder. Took him a week to do it, but it was time for his house to be painted again (every 5 years he did it). He lived on his own on his 250 acre farm until he was 95. What got him was when he went down to the barn with his sicle to cleat the vines and he dislocated his shoulder. He managed to carry it up the hill and back to the house where he sat on the porch steps and waited till my in-laws came by for their daily check-in. Took 3 orderlies and my FIL to hold him down at the ER to have the shoulder popped back in place. That was only the 2nd time in his life that he had been in a hospital for any kind of treatment. After that he went to live with my in-laws until he passed away at 99.
PJay
Well-Known Member
Good for her! I have a fear of heights, unfortunately. I thought I could get over it by making myself get up there..didn't work. Crawled to the middle and froze there.
I get dizzy standing on the coffee table.
PJay
Well-Known Member
That's me. The bed too!I get dizzy standing on the coffee table.
Same! At least if I fall, it's a soft landing.
Same, unless I'm drunk and wearing a lamp shade....I get dizzy standing on the coffee table.
TPD
the poor dad
That’s what she said
PeoplesElbow
Well-Known Member
I know a 65 year old that climbs trees and cuts them down. Works harder than most guys half his age. He does tire out after doing it for 8 hours.....
That was one of the commonest things that has ever been done in my opinion, leaving the most vulnerable to die without their loved ones to see them, over something that killed 1/3 of 1 percent! The other one was Cuomo placing the supposably recovered in nursing homes.