The Wuhan virus has been politicized pretty much from the start. And that politicization has reflected a growing State-centered, top-down, controlled-rather-than-served-by-the-government, dynamic. The MSM has played up the danger of the virus enormously, inflaming fear and convincing people that all of their liberties must be sacrificed for the sake of safety. How has this been possible? Another virulent flu virus descended upon the States in the late sixties and not a single place was closed, not a single public health protocol was imposed by the government. Half a million or so people died.
So, why are we in a panic now? Why is the safety of a relative few (.015% of the population of the States) the basis for radically oppressing the many? Forget the astronomical, insupportable, and continually-mounding, multi-
trillion dollar national debt the political response to the virus has caused; forget ruined businesses, lost jobs and crushing personal debt; forget psychological damage and suicide; forget neglected vital surgeries and medical treatments; the precious few must be kept safe - at all costs, the "tail must wag the dog."
How have North Americans come to think safety is of greater value than freedom? Freedom has never been safe; liberty has never existed without risk. But the general public seems to have forgotten this or, perhaps, having always had freedom, unearned, without personal cost, they simply do not value it and so yield it up without hesitation.
Regardless, in a free society, individuals are at liberty (or ought to be) to run whatever risks they want to run. The idea that there is some greater obligation upon the individual to protect public health to their own serious detriment is ridiculous. If such an obligation really exists, why doesn't such an obligation extend to, say, diet? We know a regular intake of sugar inflames the inner lining of the vascular system, inducing chronic oxidative stress (which, by the way, increases susceptibility to the Wuhan virus, magnifying its effects) and is strongly correlated to heart disease and stroke, provoking diabetes, as well, along with its often fatal associated health problems (kidney disease, circulatory degeneration causing gangrene, etc.). Why don't we clamor for sugar to be removed from society? Do we say to each other, "If you cared about society, you wouldn't eat sugary things and encourage its production and use in the society"? No. Where I live, during business hours, the line-ups at Starbucks or Tim's are near-constant. No one is in the slightest panic about the deaths and burden on the medical infrastructure of the country to which chronic sugar consumption contributes.
What about driving cars? On average, 3200 people are killed, globally, in car accidents every day (to say nothing of the many thousands of non-fatal accidents). Even in countries where licensing and laws governing driving are multitude, there are still fatal accidents on the roadways. Do we say to one another, "
Millions have died from driving. You
could be in an accident, too, so, for the sake of others, you should give up driving completely. If you have any sense of civic duty or concern for others, destroy your car"? No. Instead, there are a billion-plus cars zipping along on roads around the globe. And we don't bat an eye at the risk to themselves and others that each driver willingly assumes, or at the million-and-some people who die in car accidents
every year as a result.
Why this glaring double-standard? The media wants us cowering in our homes, masked and fearful when we leave them, rushing to get injected with questionable vaccines and deriding those who refrain. Why? We don't behave this way with the potentially-lethal dietary choices we make or activities we take up, like driving. Why the panic? Because there is more than a medical crisis going on. The virus is a powerful political tool, used by governments to profoundly reshape the dynamic between citizens and their governments, investing new, liberty-crushing power in government and training the "proles" to sit down and shut-up, regardless of how many of their liberties are stripped away.
The social pressure - bullying, really - that is going on now with being vaccinated is just extending government control over the individual to a very intimate degree. It is a test, really, of how much Leftist totalitarianism the culture has imbibed and conformed to in its decades-long indoctrination into Marxist Critical Theory. Is Mother-State ruling fully now? Or is there work yet to do to bring the population more completely under its control? North America is in the process of finding out.
If the vaccine is widely-available, and effective, then all those who want it can take it and "protect" themselves from the virus and those who are willing to take the risks associated with not taking the vaccine may do so, as well. Under such a circumstance, why are those willing to forego the vaccine showing disregard for those who may take the vaccine if they wish? The unvaccinated are the only ones running any sort of risk. And if they choose to do so, that is their right in a free society.
