Lionel Shriver’s column in the Spectator this week is a searing critique of the West’s pandemic response and the mockery it made of our supposedly ‘inalienable’ rights. Here’s an excerpt.
We are forever changed. The British people, along with the populations of many American states such as New York and California, have henceforth to live with the fact that civil liberties we Yanks call ‘inalienable’ can be cancelled at a moment’s notice for years on end. Our ‘rights’ are alienable as can be. We’re often warned that democracy is fragile. Lo, that turns out to be horribly true.
Which is why indulging our aversion to all things Covid with a wilful amnesia – blanking out two years of our lives as if redacting the calendar with black marker – is a mistake. The pols, media shills and limelight-basking scientists-for-hire complicit in grievously wounding our lives and countries have good reason to hope that we forget all about that little unpleasantness. But I need to remember, if only to understand myself – why post-pandemic I’m so much more cynical, misanthropic and pessimistic about the future.
Given the perfect absence of any correlation whatsoever between the severity of restrictions and Covid mortality rates, even when comparing like regions with like, it’s probable that this plethora of ‘interventions’ that made our lives hell while making a mockery of representative government – all those ludicrous ‘tiers’, the Harry Potter-ish ‘rule of six’ – made not the slightest difference to the death toll. Waves of variants came and went, oblivious of state diktats. Nature prevailed, as nature is wont to. We’d have been far better off if governments had done absolutely nothing.
This perspective has gained in currency. Some longstanding lockdown critics are resentful that many former establishment cheerleaders are now pretending they also opposed these failed and disastrous policies at the time. I’m not resentful. If you’re late to the party, welcome to the party. For the threat far greater than a handful of recent converts lying to themselves about their previous bovine compliance is the state’s self-interested company line surviving intact.
Most ordinary people still believe that lockdowns, and the accompanying bramble of insensible, ever-changing and medically illiterate Covid restrictions, saved hundreds of thousands of lives in the UK, millions in the US, and tens if not hundreds of millions worldwide. The ‘narrative’ may have bent ever so slightly, but it’s holding up. To my utter astonishment, when a new YouGov poll asked Britons how they assess their government’s handling of Covid-19 in hindsight, 34% said ‘About right’ and 37% said ‘Not strict enough’ (incredulous italics added). A mere 19% said ‘Too strict’. A full 54% of Labour voters still think the ‘measures’ (a word I’ve come to hate) should have been even more brutal.
This matters. True, last week, numerous journalists joined the chorus of ‘never again’. Yet meanwhile the WHO is contriving two agreements whereby countries will “undertake to follow” this unaccountable supranational organisation’s “recommendations”, including imposing lockdowns, vaccine mandates and passports, border closures, mask-wearing (never mind how ineffective) and whatever else these bureaucrats might dream up – all over the heads of nation states.
As currently conceived, these agreements would make WHO edicts not merely advisory but compulsory. Tucked in China’s pocket and dependent on Big Pharma, the organisation that during Covid promoted both a string of falsehoods and the ghastliest of policies would arrogate to itself a budget of up to 10 times its current one. It’s seeking the power to repeat its mistakes not only when confronting a verifiably lethal organism, but when confronting an organism that might prove deadly in future. Thus the WHO could soon be able to shut down the whole world over a pathogen that turns out to be as dangerous as cheese mould – just in case.
Worth reading in full.
The Telegraph wit Michael Deacon is most aghast at the poll’s findings about 18-24 year-olds, who he says by their extraordinary support for the lockdowns that ruined their young lives appear to be afflicted by some form of Stockholm syndrome.
Their education was disrupted. Their love lives were suspended. The best days of their lives were ruined. We already knew all that. It seems, however, that lockdown harmed the young in another way – one which I would never have foreseen.
It left them suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
In other words: they’ve actively grown to love captivity. That’s the only conclusion I can draw from a startling new YouGov poll – which reports that over half of those aged 18-24 think that the lockdown rules weren’t strict enough.
No other age group takes anywhere near such a hardline stance. Not even the elderly, who had the greatest reason to want transmission of the virus halted by whatever means necessary. Yet only a third of those aged 65+ agree that the rules weren’t strict enough. And almost a fifth of them think the rules were too strict.
The young, meanwhile, had the least to fear from Covid, and the most to lose from lockdowns. Yet they, according to this extraordinary poll, are the ones who supported lockdown the most fervently. Not only that, they wish it had been tougher. A mere 13% of them think the rules were too strict.
A charitable reading of the poll would be that the young people of today are just heroically self-sacrificing. I’d like to think so. But I’m afraid I’m not convinced. Self-sacrifice, by definition, was always in their own hands. These young people could have locked themselves in their bedrooms for the entire pandemic if they’d wished. They didn’t need the Government to make them do that. This poll, therefore, suggests that they simply have an alarming enthusiasm for draconian rules. An authoritarian impulse. A love of all-powerful government.
Is this yet another baleful consequence of their woke education, that accustoms them to love an all-powerful paternalistic authority that wraps them up in their ‘safe space’?
Deacon recalls an equally disturbing poll from around the time of ‘Freedom Day’ in July 2021, where over a third of respondents said that the Government should keep hotel quarantine “permanently, regardless of the risk of COVID-19”, over a quarter said that all nightclubs should be permanently forced to close, and almost a fifth said there should be a permanent curfew “against leaving home after 10pm without a good reason”.
At least they had the excuse then of still being in the middle of the pandemic (Delta had just arrived) and subject to Project Fear propaganda. What’s their excuse now?
Also worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“I am no Leftist, but if Left-wing politics ever had a value, it is surely that it gestured towards increased material prosperity for the poor. ”
Well some would argue that it was just a “gesture” used as a smokescreen for some other cabal to seize power and money. Has this “gesture” succeeded anywhere?
It depends on what exactly you mean by ‘Left-wing’ and what you mean by ‘succeeded’.
The Nordic countries have generally been regarded as quite ‘Left-wing’ over many years, and they have certainly succeeded in many ways.
I think it’s simplistic to think “Right-wing good, Left-wing bad”, or vice versa.
Overall the average standard of living and wealth per capita of the Nords is rather low. They would rank amongst the poorest US states. Most of their wealth is from the hated raw materials and hydrocarbons (oh no) and trade with Germany.
Well the writer is referring to “left wing” in the sense of looking to redistribute wealth. The Nordic countries do have a somewhat redistributive taxation system that funds a social safety net, though I don’t know the extent to which this redistributes wealth. I suspect not that much, given that they seem to have higher quality human capital, on average, than many countries. How long they can sustain that in the face of importing lower quality human capital remains to be seen.
If by “right wing” we mean small state, emphasis on the individual not the collective, and “left wing” means the opposite, then yes I would see that simplistically as good and bad.
I agree with Brett Weinstein that there is an optimum balance between right-wing and left-wing policies. When the pendulum has swung too far to the right, it’s time to vote for left-wing policies, and when the pendulum has swing too far to the left, it’s time to vote for right-wing policies.
It’s clear to me that in the last few years the pendulum has swung far too far towards left-wing authoritarianism.
Can you give examples of times when the “pendulum has swung too far to the right” and of “left wing” policies you would vote for?
I don’t really want to spend time on that old argument, I’ll just mention one example: There was terrible poverty in Britain until Labour’s left wing policies from 1945 onwards which were continued by subsequent Conservative governments.
What is “terrible poverty” and how was it alleviated by “Labour’s left wing policies”? Which specific policies?
Wasn’t the NHS a flagship “left wing” policy of the 45 Labour government?
I think we’re being lied to about what things were like before the NHS, based both on my father’s – born in 1930 – experiences with heart problems and Eric Sykes’ autobiography.
OK, only 2 examples, but that beats state propaganda!
Quite possibly, but in any case even if the NHS was an improvement on what was there before, that doesn’t mean it was the best way forward, and it certainly isn’t now.
I didn’t mention the NHS. The biggest cause of ill-health is poverty.
I know you didn’t mention the NHS. I did. What is “poverty” and what policies did the ’45 Labour government put in place to alleviate it?
Marxism was meant to address the crushing poverty and absolutely miserable standards of living of working class people after industrialization had occurred. This means it was supposed to address a real problem in order to deliver real solution. As opposed to this, our modern day “lefties” no longer aspire to help anyone, rather, the exact opposite: Subsistence agriculture without machinery isn’t really jolly guys jumping around in woods and singing silly songs, it’s back-breaking labour from dawn till dusk for everyone old enough to be physically able to do it and this for maintaining a poor existence fraught with peril. Famines stopped to be a regular occurence in Europe only aftert synthetic nitrogen-fertilizier became available¹.
¹ Developed by German scientists and engineers during the first world war for both production of ammunition and explosives and keeping the German agriculture going despite being cut off from overseas supplies of saltpeter. To no one’s thanks, as usual.
“Marxism was meant to address the crushing poverty and absolutely miserable standards of living of working class people after industrialization had occurred.”
One could argue that was just a pretext. Once “crushing poverty” had been eliminated, the left didn’t have that pretext any more so as you say they no longer aspire to help anyone (though they purport to aspire to help all sorts of “victim” groups.
People can argue about all kinds of stuff. But that’s not relevant for the point of the author which was about the intent behind Marxist ideology vs the intent behind the post-Marxist ideology adhered to by Tim Davie and his band of very unmerry nonmen etc.
The author uses the word “value” with reference to the left. I think if the “intent” was sincere then his point may stand, but if the “intent” was insincere then it doesn’t.
The point of the author is – using an extremely simplified example – about the difference between I promise I’ll give £1000 to you and I promise I’ll take £1000 from you. This difference exists regardless of both my actual intentions and actions. Marxism used to promise paradise on earth (it’s really an utopian ideology). Post-Marxism doesn’t. It promises to take away whatever someone has for the benefit of abstract entities considered to be more imporant than mere people (eg, the planet). The latter is the polar opposite to the former.
Yes but the new save the planet ideology promises you will not lose your standard of living by the switch to renewables. ——-This is clearly FALSE. We only have to remember the words of Maurice Strong when he said “The current lifestyles and consumption patters of the affluent middle class involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable”. ——So Marxism maybe promised to raise up living standards. But the current green orthodoxy seeks to lower them, using irrational fear of a climate crisis as the excuse.
The Left don’t want the more prosperity for the poor but less for the rich. There is no redistribution, just a dragging down of everyone except the chose few.
That is usually/always the result, yes. I think some people actually do believe that the policies they support lead to a “fairer” society (whatever that is). The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
The picture appears to be one from the show.
It is revolting.
Sounds like a good opportunity for post-Brexit UK to improve our trade with other parts of the world, at the expense of the EU. It’s to swerve baffling legislation like this is a good reason we left.
Another reason I won’t pay the BBC tithe. Useless organisation.Just more human hate.
Does this thesis apply to Lineker the Black Jew who makes > £ 1 million p.a, and the other BBC elites who cash in >£200 K p.a.? Should the BBC elites not return their largesse and ‘remain poor to save poor little Gaia?’ Maybe Attencrapough can do a St Francis?
News flash: you could fit the globe’s entire population, with each person in a 6 foot x 8 foot area, in Brewster county Texas. Rougly the size of 4 x the Sussex counties…..yeah. Overcrowding et al my arse.
Perhaps Robin Hood should steal from the poor in order to subsidise the Sheriff of Nottingham’s new windmill
Great analogy
People who do not understand how energy works (probably 90% of the population) might think that all that is required to “save the planet” is to replace coal oil and gas with wind and sun and everything will tick along just as before. ———–NOPE. Think again. The most important commodity is energy. Price and availability of energy is directly correlated with prosperity. When you remove cheap abundant energy and replace it with expensive unreliable energy there is only one outcome——Impoverishment.
If you don’t like it, don’t watch it.
Just do the right thing, boycott the BBC and don’t pay the TV tax. By watching this crud, you are encouraging it.