“Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong. All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them. The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant, in this field as in all others. His culture is based on ‘I am not too sure.’” H. L. Mencken
Coronavirus Pandemic 2020
In the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic of 2020, there was fear and loathing of people who were skeptical of stay-at-home lockdowns and other edicts of economic destruction. A common refrain issued by people who supported the lockdowns and later mask mandates toward skeptics and dissenters: “What if you’re wrong?”
The implication was that if governments did not force people to stay home and businesses to lock down, then hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people would perish. Media hyper-focused on deaths and infection rates, fueling panic and fear for much of the public. Elected politicians, including Colorado Governor Jared Polis, and also health department bureaucrats, added fuel to the panic fires, further inflaming fears that dissenters and skeptics could cause more death and destruction during the pandemic. Because, you know, “What if they’re wrong?”
Neil Ferguson, Imperial College of London
One of the most vocal proponents of the early stay-at-home lockdowns was from a theoretical physicist, Neil Ferguson, of the Imperial College of London. According to Ferguson’s forecast modeling of the coronavirus pandemic, some 2.2 million Americans would perish in the pandemic unless lockdowns were imposed. This article provides a timeline of Ferguson’s activities related to his support for lockdowns and his hypocritical actions, in which he disregarded lockdown protocols for his own reckless personal pleasures.
His model, as it turns out, was flawed for a variety of reasons; yet, governments around the world reacted to his models as if they were gospel and imposed fateful lockdowns, among other questionable and destructive policies.
So we know the early projection models of the coronavirus pandemic of 2020 were based on Ferguson’s flawed computer model programs. It is likely, therefore, that many, if not most, of the government reactions to Ferguson’s models were also flawed. Yet, skeptics and dissenters of the lockdowns were shouted down.
Governor Polis’ Response
By mid-April and early May, when protests against the governor’s stay-at-home orders and lockdown edicts of economic destruction captured the public’s attention, he condemned the protestors for “endangering others” by ignoring his lockdown mandate. One of those lockdown protests actually encouraged people to socially distance and wear masks, and yet, those particular protestors were widely ignored by the media and condemned online by a fearful public.
Since then, a plethora of research articles have strongly suggested lockdowns and edicts of economic destruction may not work as intended. States that imposed strict lockdowns, such as California, have seen a rise in coronavirus cases, further offering support lockdowns may not work.
If you noticed, I used the disclaimer in the previous sentence, “may not work.” For during much of the pandemic, most, if not all research papers regarding masks and lockdowns contained the word, “may.” Maybe something works. Maybe not. The ambiguity offers no real reason to be certain any given policy works. And yet, for skeptics of both masks and lockdown edicts of economic destruction, the most challenging question has long been, “What if you’re wrong?”
The question asks, “How certain are you that the policy you support will absolutely work?” But the question seems to be rarely asked of lockdown proponents or those who advocate that masks, any masks!, work.
Recently, the question of how many people died from or with coronavirus has taken the spotlight. This suggests those who were absolutely certain Ferguson’s numbers were correct, and lockdowns were absolutely correct, and that all masks are absolutely able to prevent transmission of a highly contagious virus, may be wrong. Notice the word, “may,” again?
Consequences of Being Wrong
Concerns of mass residential housing evictions are high due to the government’s response to the pandemic and lockdowns. High unemployment continues in spite of recent economic gains. Links between unemployment and suicide exist: as unemployment rises, so do suicides. Center for Disease Control director Robert Redfield has publicly stated suicides and drug overdose deaths for high school students are more than deaths related to COVID19. Deaths by despair are a tragic unintended consequence of lockdowns and edicts of economic destruction.
In a world of constantly changing data, models, testing numbers, and government policies (especially for public schools), it is a simple fact experts, politicians, and government bureaucrats have already made mistakes and gotten things wrong. Perhaps they’re bumbling along, trying to figure out things as they go. One thing seems to be absolutely certain: proponents of lockdowns and edicts of economic destruction should be looking in the mirror and asking, “What if I’m wrong?”
They just might be. It is for this reason we should not silence dissenters or censor skeptics. Mocking and jeering, and shaming and blaming are old social and political tricks. If the goal is to provide quality information to the public to ensure their ability to survive and thrive during and after a pandemic, then listening to all viewpoints is warranted.
I mean, it just may work. (Oops, I did it again.)
