病毒是醫學，防疫是政治

病毒是醫學，防疫是政治。港共不是要防疫，而是要劃出一個時間的空檔，制定香港人民的biometrics（生物辨識術/生物測定法則），之後在其他正常日子，好好使用。

各位看看圖畫，在量度的時候，差役與餐廳食客的距離並非1.5米，而是無限制地接近，在一個理論上已經可以感染你的距離。在餐廳阿姐、大廈看更給你採集體溫數據的時候，距離並非1.5米，而是無限制地接近，在一個已經可以感染你的距離。昨晚的餐廳檢查顯示，當差役進入餐廳的時候，他們是不會被餐廳職員量度體溫的。

量度者是不計算biometrics的，被量度者要遵守biometrics，這是subject與object的關係，權力行使者與權力接受者的關係。你要遵守，他們不需要遵守，這就是傅柯說的權力（power）。只准州官放火，不准百姓點燈。從古代到現代，權力都是這樣行使的，只是古代的貴族權力收藏在宮廷，現代的民選政府的權力的悖論要做到在街頭給你看見為止！

為什麼一個普通的餐廳職員、大廈看更阿伯，在特首頒布的法例之後，可以忽然變身成為一個量度體溫的專業人士？他們在無限制距離接觸市民的時候，有否經過無菌、無病毒的檢定？無囉。他們只是經過權力轉身，只是經過power transformation，no training and no qualification needed。這些幫你量度體溫的餐廳洗碗大姐和打瞌睡躲懶的看更阿伯，他們呼出的氣息可以接近你鼻孔的時候，你有沒有一刻懷疑過他們可以即時感染你？不會囉，因為你信任權力。他們好像文革期間的紅衛兵那樣，戴了紅袖章就是紅衛兵，他們不是經過軍訓和遵守軍規的解放軍，於是紅衛兵可以更自由地虐殺人。

為什麼這段期間，大廈管理公司可以容許60歲以上的高危年齡群組的看更阿伯上班，執行任務？為什麼不遵守醫學建議，給他們放有薪假期，好好保護這群老人？不會囉。

這是權力的悖論，權力就是靠悖論（paradox）來執行的，我在哲學課堂講述過，哲學不是什麼虛無飄渺的學問，是非常之實在的，大家可以親眼見到的。（當然，要有好的哲學家導師。不是哲學家，無法講哲學課。）

香港人，你們明白了沒有？Power must be seen and measured and disrupted by the executor.  現代的權力，一定要被看見、被量度（這裡用標尺）而且被執行者違反，才是權力。圖畫當中，右邊的差役低了頭，很不好受，因為他內心大概知道自己太接近顧客，違反了1.5米的所謂防疫距離。左邊的差役，做事心無障礙，日後可以升官發財。

裡面最正常的，是一隻好奇的小狗，他/她在想：你班人類在做乜鳩？（對不起，我將人類的粗口給了小狗狗。）

政府在防疫？我講了三個月，你今日明白了吧。我講述傅柯的時候，老早講過的。在全世界，只有我在最緊要的時刻，向各位介紹傅柯的哲學。

你以為哲學無用？深層國家是根據哲學來制定統治方法的，裡面有一個人懂得，就可以統治一億人。人類在統治者眼中，只是一堆biometrics。

為什麼2003年沙士期間，不會搞這些無聊防疫措施，而是前線醫護拼命救人，微生物學家拼命研究沙士病毒的基因排序，市面的市民大眾拼命維持消費和繁榮，沒人逼你戴口罩，大家咬緊牙根互相支援，香港一切生活如常？

當中的差別，是因為當時在中環雪廠街的舊政府總部坐了一個哲學家的政府研究總監，他的名字叫陳雲。現在他被共產黨及泛民排擠，丟失公職、教席及八個報紙專欄，無法在公共輿論發表評論，否則我這篇文章會在《信報》或《明報》出現。

（圖片來源：網絡）

Source: 陳雲

https://www.facebook.com/589657224/posts/10158013989222225/

《台北法案》：避免明日台灣成為今日香港的一著

美國總統特朗普日前簽署由美國參眾兩院通過、簡稱「台北法案」的《2019年台灣盟邦國際保障與強化倡議法》（Taiwan Allies International Protection and Enhancement Initiative Act）。

或許該法案與本港並非直接相關，只是集中闡述美國支持台灣為「外交盟友」（diplomatic alliances）；加上在主權移交後，大部分人習慣把自治權與外交關係假手於人，因此「台北法案」未有在本地產生什麼回響。

然而自去年逃犯修例後，泛民黃色議員及群眾再把「今日香港，明日台灣」的口號掛在口上。如果這是大家所相信的說法，今日（至少）理應懂得從本港「一國兩制」的失敗去理解《台北法案》的國際政治意義，又應該知道該部法案其實是與香港息息相關。

《台北法案》包含以下四個範疇：

1) 與台灣之外交關係（Diplomatic Relations with Taiwan）：簡述台灣近年政治狀況及中台關係；說明美國總統於保護台灣主權所擔任的角色；

2) 美台經貿關係（Trade and Economic Relations with Taiwan）：美台應加強雙邊貿易關係，從而刺激兩地經濟；

3) 有關台灣參與國際組織之政策（Policy of the US with regard to Taiwan’s Participation in International Organization）：以不同方式支持台灣參與各個國際組織；

4) 加強美台關係（Strengthening of Ties with Taiwan）：支持加強美台外交關係，以不同方式支援台灣之國際關係、繁榮穩定（prosperity）及安全（security）；每年提交報告予國會之委員會（congressional committees）。

以上四個範疇，是美國直接承認及加強台灣的國際地位之法律框架，並不止是在外交關係上「認可」（endorse）台灣；與香港關係法相較，後者只是概括地說明香港主權移交後美國對港政策之保證。

由此理解，《台北法案》用字較為進取（例如“strengthening of ties”、“strengthening bilateral trade and economic relations”、“advocate for Taiwan’s membership”）；而香港關係法則較保守（例如“continued application”、“seek maintain and expand economic and trade relations”、“respect Hong Kong’s status”）*。

結論：如果你曾經想過今日香港是明日台灣的話，那就請你花時間思考一下，為什麼《台北法案》是與香港人直接相關，甚至乎是香港存亡未卜的關鍵。

*註：當然，在香港關係法在1992年通過時，誰會想到今日香港是中共一制。

Source: Chung-Tai Cheng 鄭松泰
https://www.facebook.com/chengchungtai/posts/1468502379990781

----------

Taiwan Allies International Protection and Enhancement Initiative (TAIPEI) Act of 2019

...

(7) Taiwan’s unique relationship with the United States, Australia, India, Japan, and other countries are of significant benefit in strengthening Taiwan’s economy and preserving its international space.

...

It is the sense of Congress that—

(1) the United States and Taiwan have built a strong economic partnership, with the United States now Taiwan’s second largest trading partner and with Taiwan the 11th largest trading partner of the United States and a key destination for United States agricultural exports;

(2) strong United States-Taiwan economic relations have been a positive factor in stimulating economic growth and job creation for the people of both the United States and Taiwan; and

(3) the United States Trade Representative should consult with Congress on opportunities for further strengthening bilateral trade and economic relations between the United States and Taiwan.

...

It should be the policy of the United States—

(1) to advocate, as appropriate—

(A) for Taiwan’s membership in all international organizations in which statehood is not a requirement and in which the United States is also a participant; and

(B) for Taiwan to be granted observer status in other appropriate international organizations;

(2) to instruct, as appropriate, representatives of the United States Government in all organizations described in paragraph (1) to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States to advocate for Taiwan’s membership or observer status in such organizations; and

(3) for the President or the President’s designees to advocate, as appropriate, for Taiwan’s membership or observer status in all organizations described in paragraph (1) as part of any relevant bilateral engagements between the United States and the People’s Republic of China, including leader summits and the U.S.-China Comprehensive Economic Dialogue.

It is the sense of Congress that the United States Government should—

(1) support Taiwan in strengthening its official diplomatic relationships as well as other partnerships with countries in the Indo-Pacific region and around the world;

(2) consider, in certain cases as appropriate and in alignment with United States interests, increasing its economic, security, and diplomatic engagement with nations that have demonstrably strengthened, enhanced, or upgraded relations with Taiwan; and

(3) consider, in certain cases as appropriate, in alignment with United States foreign policy interests and in consultation with Congress, altering its economic, security, and diplomatic engagement with nations that take serious or significant actions to undermine the security or prosperity of Taiwan.

Source: US Congress
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1678/text?fbclid=IwAR2SW9b0vX7NcqAFLy8mRma5IRWh_sKlSJXSy3B7E9pAgdLt2X8L1ToF2n8

----------

UNITED STATES-HONG KONG POLICY

...

§5711. Bilateral ties between United States and Hong Kong

It is the sense of the Congress that the following, which are based in part on the relevant provisions of the Joint Declaration, should be the policy of the United States with respect to its bilateral relationship with Hong Kong:

(1) The United States should play an active role, before, on, and after July 1, 1997, in maintaining Hong Kong's confidence and prosperity, Hong Kong's role as an international financial center, and the mutually beneficial ties between the people of the United States and the people of Hong Kong.

(2) The United States should actively seek to establish and expand direct bilateral ties and agreements with Hong Kong in economic, trade, financial, monetary, aviation, shipping, communications, tourism, cultural, sport, and other appropriate areas.

(3) The United States should seek to maintain, after June 30, 1997, the United States consulate-general in Hong Kong, together with other official and semi-official organizations, such as the United States Information Agency American Library.

(4) The United States should invite Hong Kong to maintain, after June 30, 1997, its official and semi-official missions in the United States, such as the Hong Kong Economic & Trade Office, the Office of the Hong Kong Trade Development Council, and the Hong Kong Tourist Association. The United States should invite Hong Kong to open and maintain other official or semi-official missions to represent Hong Kong in those areas in which Hong Kong is entitled to maintain relations on its own, including economic, trade, financial, monetary, aviation, shipping, communications, tourism, cultural, and sport areas.

...

§5712. Participation in multilateral organizations, rights under international agreements, and trade status

It is the sense of the Congress that the following, which are based in part on the relevant provisions of the Joint Declaration, should be the policy of the United States with respect to Hong Kong after June 30, 1997:

(1) The United States should support Hong Kong's participation in all appropriate multilateral conferences, agreements, and organizations in which Hong Kong is eligible to participate.

(2) The United States should continue to fulfill its obligations to Hong Kong under international agreements, so long as Hong Kong reciprocates, regardless of whether the People's Republic of China is a party to the particular international agreement, unless and until such obligations are modified or terminated in accordance with law.

(3) The United States should respect Hong Kong's status as a separate customs territory, and as a WTO member country (as defined in section 3501(10) of title 19), whether or not the People's Republic of China participates in the World Trade Organization (as defined in section 3501(8) of title 19).

§5713. Commerce between United States and Hong Kong

It is the sense of the Congress that the following, which are based in part on the relevant provisions of the Joint Declaration, are and should continue after June 30, 1997, to be the policy of the United States with respect to commerce between the United States and Hong Kong:

(1) The United States should seek to maintain and expand economic and trade relations with Hong Kong and should continue to treat Hong Kong as a separate territory in economic and trade matters, such as import quotas and certificates of origin.

(2) The United States should continue to negotiate directly with Hong Kong to conclude bilateral economic agreements.

(3) The United States should continue to treat Hong Kong as a territory which is fully autonomous from the United Kingdom and, after June 30, 1997, should treat Hong Kong as a territory which is fully autonomous from the People's Republic of China with respect to economic and trade matters.

(4) The United States should continue to grant the products of Hong Kong nondiscriminatory trade treatment by virtue of Hong Kong's membership in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

(5) The United States should recognize certificates of origin for manufactured goods issued by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

(6) The United States should continue to allow the United States dollar to be freely exchanged with the Hong Kong dollar.

(7) United States businesses should be encouraged to continue to operate in Hong Kong, in accordance with applicable United States and Hong Kong law.

(8) The United States should continue to support access by Hong Kong to sensitive technologies controlled under the agreement of the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (commonly referred to as "COCOM") for so long as the United States is satisfied that such technologies are protected from improper use or export.

(9) The United States should encourage Hong Kong to continue its efforts to develop a framework which provides adequate protection for intellectual property rights.

(10) The United States should negotiate a bilateral investment treaty directly with Hong Kong, in consultation with the Government of the People's Republic of China.

(11) The change in the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong should not affect ownership in any property, tangible or intangible, held in the United States by any Hong Kong person.

Source: US Congress
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title22/chapter66&edition=prelim

港共的部署

港共的部署是一步一步來的，先吸引有外國護照的港人回流，再對所有香港人推行連坐式的高壓統治。

Timeline是這樣的：

1. 政府和輿論機器強調瘟疫是外國傳入，並指責外國防疫不力，欺哄有外國護照的香港人紛紛回港。

2. 政府對全球國家發出紅色旅遊警示，並規定從外國回港的香港人須隔離14日，令港人不會再離境。政府之後禁止非香港居民從外國入境，斷絕國際對香港的監察、援助和交往。

3. 從外國回港的香港人須戴電子手帶強制隔離。不分派系的傳媒及香港人街上緝拿手帶人，批評政府措施不夠嚴格。

4. 政府認為最有效的防疫方法是限制社交活動和商店營運模式，遂採取更嚴厲的防疫手段：禁止四人以上聚集，市民連出外消遣如進食、做運動、借書、飲酒的自由都受限制。

英國好廢、美國好廢？持外國護照的香港人爭相回流避難，我真係恭喜你呀！歡迎來到2020年的極權主義社會──香港。Welcome to 2020 Fascist state, Hong Kong. 你們上世紀沒有向共產黨統一香港say no，之後縱容港共高壓管治香港人，沒有放過賣港賊，現在便回來好好enjoy what you deserve，這是你和我的共業。

Source: 我要焦土 Let You Burn
https://www.facebook.com/letyouburn/posts/124218999175469

12 Experts Question The COVID-19 Panic

Below is our list of twelve medical experts whose opinions on the Coronavirus outbreak contradict the official narratives of the MSM, and the memes so prevalent on social media.

#1 Dr Sucharit Bhakdi

Dr Sucharit Bhakdi is a specialist in microbiology.  He was a professor at the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz and head of the Institute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene and one of the most cited research scientists in German history.

What he says:

We are afraid that 1 million infections with the new virus will lead to 30 deaths per day over the next 100 days. But we do not realise that 20, 30, 40 or 100 patients positive for normal coronaviruses are already dying every day.

[The government’s anti-COVID19 measures] are grotesque, absurd and very dangerous […] The life expectancy of millions is being shortened.  The horrifying impact on the world economy threatens the existence of countless people.  The consequences on medical care are profound.  Already services to patients in need are reduced, operations cancelled, practices empty, hospital personnel dwindling. All this will impact profoundly on our whole society.

All these measures are leading to self-destruction and collective suicide based on nothing but a spook.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBB9bA-gXL4

#2 Dr Wolfgang Wodarg

Dr Wolfgang Wodarg is a German physician specialising in Pulmonology, politician and former chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.  In 2009 he called for an inquiry into alleged conflicts of interest surrounding the EU response to the Swine Flu pandemic.

What he says:

Politicians are being courted by scientists…scientists who want to be important to get money for their institutions.  Scientists who just swim along in the mainstream and want their part of it […]  And what is missing right now is a rational way of looking at things.

We should be asking questions like "How did you find out this virus was dangerous?", "How was it before?", "Didn’t we have the same thing last year?", "Is it even something new?"

That's missing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_AyuhbnPOI

#3 Dr Joel Kettner

Dr Joel Kettner is Professor of Community Health Sciences and Surgery at Manitoba University, former Chief Public Health Officer for Manitoba province and Medical Director of the International Centre for Infectious Diseases.

What he says:

I have never seen anything like this, anything anywhere near like this.  I'm not talking about the pandemic, because I've seen 30 of them, one every year.  It is called influenza.  And other respiratory illness viruses, we don’t always know what they are.  But I’ve never seen this reaction, and I'm trying to understand why.

I worry about the message to the public, about the fear of coming into contact with people, being in the same space as people, shaking their hands, having meetings with people.  I worry about many, many consequences related to that.

In Hubei, in the province of Hubei, where there has been the most cases and deaths by far, the actual number of cases reported is 1 per 1000 people and the actual rate of deaths reported is 1 per 20,000.  So maybe that would help to put things into perspective.

– "LISTEN: CBC Radio cuts off expert when he questions Covid19 narrative", Off Guardian, 17th March 2020

#4 Dr John Ioannid

Dr John Ioannid is Professor of Medicine, of Health Research and Policy and of Biomedical Data Science, at Stanford University School of Medicine and a Professor of Statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences.  He is director of the Stanford Prevention Research Center, and co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS).

He is also the editor-in-chief of the European Journal of Clinical Investigation.  He was chairman at the Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine as well as adjunct professor at Tufts University School of Medicine.

As a physician, scientist and author he has made contributions to evidence-based medicine, epidemiology, data science and clinical research.  In addition, he pioneered the field of meta-research.  He has shown that much of the published research does not meet good scientific standards of evidence.

What he says:

Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 are disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes. As most health systems have limited testing capacity, selection bias may even worsen in the near future.

The one situation where an entire, closed population was tested was the Diamond Princess cruise ship and its quarantine passengers. The case fatality rate there was 1.0%, but this was a largely elderly population, in which the death rate from Covid-19 is much higher.

Could the Covid-19 case fatality rate be that low?  No, some say, pointing to the high rate in elderly people.  However, even some so-called mild or common-cold-type coronaviruses that have been known for decades can have case fatality rates as high as 8% when they infect elderly people in nursing homes.

If we had not known about a new virus out there, and had not checked individuals with PCR tests, the number of total deaths due to "influenza-like illness" would not seem unusual this year.  At most, we might have casually noted that flu this season seems to be a bit worse than average.

– "A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data", Stat News, 17th March 2020

#5 Dr Yoram Lass

Dr Yoram Lass is an Israeli physician, politician and former Director General of the Health Ministry.  He also worked as Associate Dean of the Tel Aviv University Medical School and during the 1980s presented the science-based television show Tatzpit.

What he says:

Italy is known for its enormous morbidity in respiratory problems, more than three times any other European country.  In the US about 40,000 people die in a regular flu season and so far 40-50 people have died of the coronavirus, most of them in a nursing home in Kirkland, Washington.

In every country, more people die from regular flu compared with those who die from the coronavirus.

...there is a very good example that we all forget: the swine flu in 2009.  That was a virus that reached the world from Mexico and until today there is no vaccination against it.  But what?  At that time there was no Facebook or there maybe was but it was still in its infancy.  The coronavirus, in contrast, is a virus with public relations.

Whoever thinks that governments end viruses is wrong.

– Interview in Globes, March 22nd 2020

#6 Dr Pietro Vernazza

Dr Pietro Vernazza is a Swiss physician specialising Infectious Diseases at the Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen and Professor of Health Policy.

What he says:

We have reliable figures from Italy and a work by epidemiologists, which has been published in the renowned science journal ‹Science›, which examined the spread in China.  This makes it clear that around 85 percent of all infections have occurred without anyone noticing the infection.  90 percent of the deceased patients are verifiably over 70 years old, 50 percent over 80 years.

In Italy, one in ten people diagnosed die, according to the findings of the Science publication, that is statistically one of every 1,000 people infected.  Each individual case is tragic, but often – similar to the flu season – it affects people who are at the end of their lives.

If we close the schools, we will prevent the children from quickly becoming immune.We should better integrate the scientific facts into the political decisions.

– Interview in St. Galler Tagblatt, 22nd March 2020

#7 Frank Ulrich Montgomery

Frank Ulrich Montgomery is German radiologist, former President of the German Medical Association and Deputy Chairman of the World Medical Association.

What he says:

I'm not a fan of lockdown.  Anyone who imposes something like this must also say when and how to pick it up again.  Since we have to assume that the virus will be with us for a long time, I wonder when we will return to normal?  You can’t keep schools and daycare centers closed until the end of the year.  Because it will take at least that long until we have a vaccine.  Italy has imposed a lockdown and has the opposite effect.  They quickly reached their capacity limits, but did not slow down the virus spread within the lockdown.

– Interview in General Anzeiger, 18th March 2020

#8 Prof. Hendrik Streeck

Prof. Hendrik Streeck is a German HIV researcher, epidemiologist and clinical trialist.  He is professor of virology, and the director of the Institute of Virology and HIV Research, at Bonn University.

What he says:

The new pathogen is not that dangerous, it is even less dangerous than Sars-1.  The special thing is that Sars-CoV-2 replicates in the upper throat area and is therefore much more infectious because the virus jumps from throat to throat, so to speak.  But that is also an advantage:  Because Sars-1 replicates in the deep lungs, it is not so infectious, but it definitely gets on the lungs, which makes it more dangerous.

You also have to take into account that the Sars-CoV-2 deaths in Germany were exclusively old people. In Heinsberg, for example, a 78-year-old man with previous illnesses died of heart failure, and that without Sars-2 lung involvement.  Since he was infected, he naturally appears in the Covid 19 statistics.  But the question is whether he would not have died anyway, even without Sars-2.

– Interview in Frankfurter Allgemeine, 16th March 2020

#9 Dr Yanis Roussel et. al.

Dr Yanis Roussel et. al. – A team of researchers from the Institut Hospitalo-universitaire Méditerranée Infection, Marseille and the Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Marseille, conducting a peer-reviewed study on Coronavirus mortality for the government of France under the ‘Investments for the Future’ programme.

What they say:

The problem of SARS-CoV-2 is probably overestimated, as 2.6 million people die of respiratory infections each year compared with less than 4000 deaths for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of writing.  This study compared the mortality rate of SARS-CoV-2 in OECD countries (1.3%) with the mortality rate of common coronaviruses identified in AP-HM patients (0.8%) from 1 January 2013 to 2 March 2020. Chi-squared test was performed, and the P-value was 0.11 (not significant).

…it should be noted that systematic studies of other coronaviruses (but not yet for SARS-CoV-2) have found that the percentage of asymptomatic carriers is equal to or even higher than the percentage of symptomatic patients.  The same data for SARS-CoV-2 may soon be available, which will further reduce the relative risk associated with this specific pathology.

– "SARS-CoV-2: fear versus data", International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, 19th March 2020

#10 Dr. David Katz

Dr. David Katz is an American physician and founding director of the Yale University Prevention Research Center.

What he says:

I am deeply concerned that the social, economic and public health consequences of this near-total meltdown of normal life — schools and businesses closed, gatherings banned — will be long-lasting and calamitous, possibly graver than the direct toll of the virus itself.  The stock market will bounce back in time, but many businesses never will.  The unemployment, impoverishment and despair likely to result will be public health scourges of the first order.

– "Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease?", New York Times 20th March 2020

#11 Michael T. Osterholm

Michael T. Osterholm is regents professor and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

What he says:

Consider the effect of shutting down offices, schools, transportation systems, restaurants, hotels, stores, theaters, concert halls, sporting events and other venues indefinitely and leaving all of their workers unemployed and on the public dole. The likely result would be not just a depression but a complete economic breakdown, with countless permanently lost jobs, long before a vaccine is ready or natural immunity takes hold.

[T]he best alternative will probably entail letting those at low risk for serious disease continue to work, keep business and manufacturing operating, and "run" society, while at the same time advising higher-risk individuals to protect themselves through physical distancing and ramping up our health-care capacity as aggressively as possible.  With this battle plan, we could gradually build up immunity without destroying the financial structure on which our lives are based.

– "Facing covid-19 reality: A national lockdown is no cure", Washington Post 21st March 2020

#11 Dr Peter Goetzsche

Dr Peter Goetzsche is Professor of Clinical Research Design and Analysis at the University of Copenhagen and founder of the Cochrane Medical Collaboration.  He has written several books on corruption in the field of medicine and the power of big pharmaceutical companies.

What he says:

Our main problem is that no one will ever get in trouble for measures that are too draconian.  They will only get in trouble if they do too little.  So, our politicians and those working with public health do much more than they should do.

No such draconian measures were applied during the 2009 influenza pandemic, and they obviously cannot be applied every winter, which is all year round, as it is always winter somewhere.  We cannot close down the whole world permanently.

Should it turn out that the epidemic wanes before long, there will be a queue of people wanting to take credit for this.  And we can be damned sure draconian measures will be applied again next time.  But remember the joke about tigers. "Why do you blow the horn?" "To keep the tigers away." "But there are no tigers here." "There you see!"

– "Corona: an epidemic of mass panic", blog post on Deadly Medicines 21st March 2020

Source: Tyler Durden
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/12-experts-question-covid-19-panic

A Crisis is the Perfect Time to Seize Power

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery,” Thomas Jefferson once said. That sentiment has been somewhat seared onto the American conscience ever since; but while the trajectory of Jefferson’s life indicates that he meant it, do we?

A quick glance back over our country’s history would suggest we do not.

During times of “crisis,” both perceived and real, history instead shows a nation that is, for the most part, readily willing to give up essential liberties in exchange for promised security. It also portrays a government that is more than willing to capitalize on the fears of its people and use a crisis to expand its power.

After the attacks of 9/11, we saw one of the largest expansions of government occur right before our eyes. The 4th amendment right to privacy was eviscerated with the passage of the Patriot Act a mere six weeks after the buildings came down. The few civil libertarians who raised concerns about this drastic response were hushed with assurances that the bill would sunset.

Instead, we still live under its continual renewals to this day, and we know (thanks to American hero and whistleblower Edward Snowden) that the encroachments on our rights have in actuality far-surpassed even the bill’s permissive statutes on surveillance of American citizens.

Few even bother to protest this new normal anymore. What’s worse, it seems a lot of people have been convinced that these programs actually keep them safe and would prefer to give up this essential human right for that assurance — even without evidence that it is true.

So make no mistake as we move into the most recent crisis within our borders, the Coronavirus, there will be many seeking to grow the government’s control in the name of security. And unfortunately, there will also be a lot of Americans willing to follow their leaders right off that cliff because they’re afraid.

Already, we’ve seen proponents of authoritarian governments, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, use the 38 deaths under this illness in the U.S. to call for unrelated responses like mortgage-relief, cancelling student loans, and universal basic income.

There’ve also been (inevitable) calls for giving the same government that can’t figure out how to disperse testing kits for COVID-19 complete control of our healthcare. It makes sense if you don’t think about it whatsoever.

And, as of last night, President Trump has used the pandemic to cease travel between the U.S. and many other countries — an action that, let’s be honest, has been his desire all along.

In a crisis there are precautions to take, and there are ways to help your fellow man without depending on the government to come in and take control of your life. Offer to go get groceries or other supplies for those actually at risk right now (the elderly and immunocompromised), wash your hands and don’t be gross. Stay away from large crowds.

But don’t get crazy and hand over your liberties to the entity least capable of actually protecting you — the government.

Source: Hannah Cox

https://medium.com/@hanarchist/a-crisis-is-the-perfect-time-to-seize-power-ed2750db2123