In this interview with Unherd, conducted by Freddie Sayers, Jay Bhattacharya reflects on the aftermath and how events have transpired since the document was signed and promulgated. He speaks to a range of issues from lockdowns to vaccines and mandates.
Where Are We Now? An Interview with Jay Bhattacharya Read More
These principles can help risk assessments function as intended – as a tool to help individuals and communities evaluate risk and put in place targeted measures, to contain and ultimately reduce anxiety, and to move away from more performative measures that simply serve to entrench anxiety and cause harm, without any benefit.
We’ve long misconstrued who precisely can be part of the intellectual battle. Everyone without exception can qualify as an intellectual provided he or she is willing to take ideas seriously. Anyone and everyone is entitled to be part of it. Those who feel the burden and the passion of ideas more intensely, in Mises’s view, have a greater obligation to thrust themselves into the battle, even when doing so can bring disdain and isolation from one’s fellows – and doing so most certainly will (which is why so many people who should have known better have fallen silent).
Intellectual Courage Is as Essential as it Is Rare Read More
My overall impression is that the mask wearing and distancing are entirely performative at this point, just as the fighting in Afghanistan has been for the better part of 15 years – performative in the sense that no one really believes it is working but very real in terms of cost.
Brave intellectuals like Dan Stock continue to speak out. They have platforms, even if they get a fraction of the traffic of the mainstream
Five Presentations on Viruses and Epidemics by Dr. Dan Stock Read More
The Journal of the American Medical Association said of alcohol prohibition in 1920: “Most of us are convinced that it is one of the most beneficent acts ever passed by a legislature.”
The Respected Scientists Who Pushed for Alcohol Prohibition in 1920 Read More
Similarly, private businesses were in some instances going to shut down altogether, shut down partially, not at all, and many ways in between. What’s important is that varying actions in response to the virus were going to produce voluminous information about how it really spreads, along with the behavior and level of business openness most associated with spread. Human action was going to teach us about the behavior most associated with good health outcomes, while lockdowns based on highly limited information were going to blind us.
What this means for people in open states is the dawning of a new consciousness. If they are going to keep their freedoms and good lives, they have to prepare for a new way of thinking. It’s a sense of independence and determination to avoid the hysteria, demands, and attacks from the party in power — and the media apparatus that works all day to bolster them.
The lesson is that the questions, answers, and solutions are within the capacity of individuals in society to discern and implement. We do not need powerful institutions with legal rights over us to feed them to us, to legislate us, to coerce us.
The lockdowns are looking less like a gigantic error and more like the unfolding of a fanatical political ideology and policy experiment that attacks core postulates of civilization at their very root. It’s time we take it seriously and combat it with the same fervor with which a free people resisted all the other evil ideologies that sought to strip humanity of dignity and replace freedom with the terrifying dreams of intellectuals and their government sock puppets.
The conclusion is that the Coronavirus has no influence on the mortality of the 50-70 age groups. And that very conclusion is the same for all groups below 80 years of age. As 80 is the average age of death in the population, the general conclusion therefore is that the Coronavirus has no influence on population mortality.
In a world in which not every human being lives an isolated existence – that is, in our world – each of us incessantly acts in ways that affect strangers without thereby justifying government-imposed restrictions on the great majority of these actions. Therefore, justification of government obstruction of the ordinary affairs of life requires far more than an identification of the prospect of some interpersonal impact.
