I’ll admit, I nearly spat out my coffee when I saw Brown Professor Emily Oster’s new headline in the Atlantic on Monday morning: “Let’s Declare a Pandemic Amnesty: We need to forgive one another for what we did and said when we were in the dark about Covid.”
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.
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…
Oh…
There’s a lot wrong here. First, no, you don’t get to advocate policies that do extraordinary harm to others, against their wishes, then say, “We didn’t know any better at the time!” Ignorance doesn’t work as an excuse when the policies involved abrogating your fellow citizens’ rights under an indefinite state of emergency, while censoring and cancelling those who weren’t as ignorant. The inevitable result would be a society in which ignorance and obedience to the opinion of the mob would be the only safe position.
Second, “amnesty”, being an act of forgiveness for past offences, first requires an apology or act of repentance on the part of those who committed the offence. Not only has no such act of repentance been forthcoming, but in most cases, establishment voices like Oster’s have yet to stop advocating these same policies, much less admit they were wrong. With no accompanying act of contrition, these calls for “amnesty” in light of rapidly-shifting public opinion have a real ring of fascist leaders calling for “amnesty” after losing the War.
Third, there’s some question as to whether Oster herself really did know better at the time. Like many other mainstream Covid voices, Oster had long been closely attuned to Covid data showing that these mandates did not work, yet she often seemed reluctant to share that data insofar as it contradicted the mainstream orthodoxy that mandates were necessary. In that sense, the policy prescriptions of Oster and those like her may have had less to do with ignorance than with cowardice, tribalism and “following orders”, which can’t be considered acting “in good faith”.
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.
Our institutions are in serious need of restoration after the incalculable damage that’s been done to them during the response to Covid. But we forget, at our peril, that those institutions weren’t built with flowery words and good intentions. They were built with blood, sweat and tears, by those who fought for them with their lives. Let’s not declare a pandemic amnesty. Let’s declare a real pandemic inquiry.
Michael P. Senger is an attorney and author of Snake Oil: How Xi Jinping Shut Down the World. This post first appeared on his Substack page, which you can subscribe to here.
Stop Press: Eugyppius has also written a response to Oster’s piece.
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.
Blar Blar Blar! Self important tw*ts!
It is not made clear why carbon neutrality is the concern of a group dedicated to diversity, equity and inclusion
That’s absolutely clear: Just Like COVID-19 and systemic racism, it’s part of the same pseudo-revolutionary scam by the same (kind of) people. They have some set of policies they want to see implemented (like favoritism towards groups they want associate with), some set of fortunately silent (or even yet unborn) pitiful victims on whose behalf they claim to be speaking (like the poor and oppressed or our childrend and grandchildren) and some ill-defined problem with supposedly apocalyptic consequences which urgently needs to be addressed.
The only sensible way to deal with this is to reject it. The purposes of politics is to improve the present and not, to solve problems of future generations before they even manifest themselves. Future generations will have to look after themselves once the time has come for that, they’re going to face problems we don’t have an idea of yet and will address them with means which haven’t been invented so far. People who are permanently stuck in the middle of the 20th century ought to consider relegating themselves to museums instead of claiming their ever more distant past would really be the future.
If you go back to 1923 it would be impossible to predict what 2023 would look like. —–The Internet. Aeroplanes, Cars, Lighting, Gas central heating, Massive rise in life expectancy, Freedom from preventable diseases, Appliances to bring an end to back breaking labour etc etc etc etc. Trying to pretend you want to decarbonise for the benefit of future generations that will be 3 times wealthier than we are is mealy mouthed eco posturing that tries not to admit what climate change policies are really about, and they are mostly not about the climate. The amount of politicians who bleat about their “children and grandchildren” is vomit inducing. Especially as these same pretend to save the planet people are doing their best to remove the very fuels they will need to have the standard of living their grandfathers and grandmothers currently have. because you cannot power industrial society on wind, sun, hydrogen or tidal. Constant brainwashing today has a whole generation of young people who are clamouring for their own impoverishment and infact they glue themselves to the road and “demand” it.
“Trying to pretend you want to decarbonise for the benefit of future generations that will be 3 times wealthier than we are is mealy mouthed eco posturing…”
On current trajectories and unless we stop the Davos Deviants one thing I can absolutely guarantee is that future generations WILL NOT be three times wealthier than we are, three times poorer most probably.
What is having a “disproportionately harmful effect on the poor and the oppressed” is denying them fossil fuels. One billion people in the third world have no electricity. ——–Just take a moment to contemplate that. ————NO ELECTRICTY.— This is a diabolical disgrace. The EU (climate activists supreme) at one point spent vast sums on the idea that they could cover the Sahara in Solar Panels and import that electricity back into Europe. What a total smack in the face for the worlds poorest. The phony planet savers would deny these poor people access to fossil fuels that would bring them out of the abject misery of a stoneage existence, and then steal their sunshine and cable it all back to the wealthy EU.
And denying them food by closing down productive farms in western countries.
And trying to reduce CO2 (plant food) levels to reduce crop yields, even though this is not possible.
Talking of heights of absurdity, yet possibly sound business sense and an eye for money…
By co-incidence, an advert appeared today in my inbox for Boom Technology, which is seeking share capital and other funding to re-introduce supersonic flight. The brochure ingeniously leverages the customer desire for all things Green, by explaining how really expensive the pre-Green fuel bill was for supersonic flight, yet somehow fudges the issue of how Green fuel is even more expensive than aviation kerosene. Presumably the target customer base is rich Green virtue-signallers who will be persuaded that they are Saving The Planet by flying supersonic, “because it’s Green, innit?” Presumably government employees will also be encouraged to fly the green flag by going supersonic whenever possible, especially if they are Important People.
Assuming this is not mere pamphletware and prospectus fluff, I wonder where the money will actually come from? Will it be from early investors and government funding rather than customers, rather like domestic solar panels and windfarm owners? Who will keep it financially aloft when the Green Mania wears off, like the Railway Mania faded in the late 1840s ?
… which reminds me. Railway Mania was partly the invention of new technology but also partly the result of collusion between MPs and venture capitalists that caused all manner of Acts of Parliament to be passed to support building railways, some brilliantly conceived, some hopelessly economically, some unfortunate gambles, and some outright fraud on investors. Surely MPs these days don’t stoop to taking bribes, or aren’t just gullible dupes, to support massive financial scams perpetrated on small investors and the general public….???
But didn’t I read somewhere that internet servers worldwide use about 10% of all generated electricity, so putting stuff on-line only contributes to the need for that power and despite what claims are made, not all of it is “green”. Please correct me if I’m wrong.