Was Censorship the Greatest COVID Threat to Freedom?
It wasn't just autocrats who were frequently tempted to address "fake news" about the pandemic through state pressure and coercion.
The Infodemic: How Censorship and Lies Made the World Sicker and Less Free, by Joel Simon and Robert Mahoney, Columbia Global Reports, 192 pages, $16
"We're not just fighting an epidemic," Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the World Health Organization, declared at the Munich Security Conference on February 15, 2020. "We're fighting an infodemic. Fake news spreads faster and more easily than this virus and is just as dangerous."
Joel Simon and Robert Mahoney expand on that concept in The Infodemic: How Censorship and Lies Made the World Sicker and Less Free. Since Simon is a former executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, where Mahoney currently serves as executive director, it is not surprising that they see state efforts to suppress inconvenient information as part of the problem that Tedros described.
That makes sense, since authoritarian governments in countries such as China and Russia contributed to the "infodemic" by censoring, discrediting, and intimidating journalists and other observers who tried to tell the truth about COVID-19. Meanwhile, these governments promoted their own version of reality, in which the pandemic's impact was less serious and the political response to it was more effective.
But folding censorship into the "infodemic" creates an inescapable tension, since democrats as well as autocrats were frequently tempted to address "fake news" about the pandemic through state pressure, if not outright coercion. The Biden administration, for instance, demanded that social media platforms suppress COVID-19 "misinformation," which it defined to include statements that it deemed "misleading" even if they were arguably or verifiably true.
The problem of defining misinformation is evident from the debate about face masks as a safeguard against COVID-19. After initially dismissing the value of general masking, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) decided it was "the most important, powerful public health tool we have." More recently, the CDC has acknowledged that commonly used cloth masks provide little protection, largely agreeing with critics whose statements on the subject had previously triggered banishment from platforms such as YouTube.
Simon and Mahoney make it clear that they do not favor state speech controls. But their concerns about the ways governments used the pandemic as an excuse to expand their powers are curiously limited. While they view censorship as beyond the pale, they are inclined to see other restrictions on freedom—even sweeping impositions such as stay-at-home orders and mass business closures—as justified by the public health emergency.
The authors try to reconcile this apparent contradiction by invoking Isaiah Berlin's distinction between "negative" liberty (freedom from government restraint) and "positive" liberty (self-realization or self-determination). Simon and Mahoney define positive liberty as "the ability to shape the destiny of [one's] own society and live by its laws," which is simultaneously narrower than Berlin's concept, more explicitly collectivist, and more clearly at odds with negative liberty. As they see it, your "ability" to obey democratically enacted laws advances positive liberty even when you view those laws as oppressive.
"The legitimacy of a government's efforts to restrict negative liberty is derived from the existence of positive liberty, as expressed through the consent of the governed," Simon and Mahoney say. "The right to speak, to listen, to express and exchange ideas, to communicate closely held beliefs, to criticize authorities, to demand accountability: these are the broad range of activities enabled by positive liberty."
That's a confusing way to describe freedom of expression, which at bottom is a kind of negative liberty: freedom from prior restraint and from punishment for reporting information or expressing opinions that the government views as dangerous. For example, Simon and Mahoney describe the experience of the independent Chinese journalist Chen Qiushi, who was arrested because of his reporting from Wuhan—a classic violation of negative liberty.
Restrictions on negative liberty, "even severe ones such as lockdowns, are legitimized through the existence of positive liberty," Simon and Mahoney write, because "the people impacted are able to express their views" and "ultimately if they so wish to compel the government to change course." In other words, as long as citizens have an opportunity to choose, criticize, and change their leaders, it is not inherently problematic to force them to follow public health edicts they view as unnecessary, unscientific, or draconian.
If you oppose censorship as a violation of negative liberty, by contrast, you do not value freedom of expression merely because it is useful around election time or when people are trying to decide what safeguards make sense in response to an airborne virus. And while you probably will agree that such a situation can justify government intervention, since disease carriers pose a potentially deadly threat to others, you may still object to specific policies on the grounds that they unjustifiably restrict other rights, such as freedom of movement, freedom of religion, or freedom to earn a living.
Simon and Mahoney suggest that such rights can be vindicated through the democratic process. But that solution is plainly inadequate, since a majority may support policies that oppress a minority. In any case, COVID-19 control measures in democratic countries were not necessarily supported by popular majorities. For the most part, they were not even imposed by legislative majorities; they were instead the work of executive-branch officials such as governors, presidents, and prime ministers.
Voters might eventually have a chance to express their displeasure at such decrees. In New Jersey, for example, Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy was dismayed by his surprisingly narrow reelection victory last fall, which motivated him to relax his pandemic-related restrictions. Republican Glenn Youngkin's upset victory in Virginia's gubernatorial election likewise was seen partly as an expression of frustration with COVID-19 policies—in particular, a statewide mandate forcing students in K–12 schools to wear masks.
But between elections, citizens outraged by such edicts have little recourse unless they can persuade legislators to assert control, as happened in states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania, or obtain relief from the courts, as happened with pandemic-inspired restrictions on abortion and religious gatherings. Those interventions acknowledged the threat that government officials pose to civil liberties when they claim the authority to exercise extraordinary powers in response to open-ended emergencies they themselves declare.
Simon and Mahoney seem mostly blind to that danger, except when it comes to censorship and especially invasive kinds of COVID-related surveillance. They note the "untold hardship" caused by India's lockdown, which left migrant workers stranded without any means to support themselves or their families. But they think the main problem was that the policy was implemented too suddenly, not that it went too far.
"The nationwide lockdown was an unprecedented restriction on the liberty that Indian citizens enjoy in a democracy," Simon and Mahoney concede. "But it had a public health rationale, and many citizens, including health experts, believed it was warranted."
While they give Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi a pass on his most dramatic and consequential response to the pandemic, Simon and Mahoney fault him for his "harsh reprisals" against journalists who questioned his policies. In addition to direct intimidation, Modi "relied on an army of online trolls who amplified his criticism of individual journalists, attacking them in the most personal and vile ways." In that respect, Simon and Mahoney say, Modi resembled Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro and U.S. President Donald Trump, "democratic populists" who minimized the seriousness of the pandemic, promoted misinformation, and viewed criticism as an intolerable affront.
In Trump's case, portraying "online trolls" as minions taking their orders from him is misleading, since he often seemed to take his cues from them instead. Trump's reluctance to promote vaccination while he was in office can be explained by his fear that it would anger his supporters—a realistic worry, given the hostile reaction he later received when he bragged about the vaccines his administration had expedited. And Trump initially supported lockdowns before declaring, presumably based on his reading of his base, that it was time to lift them.
If we imagine a polity where anti-vaxxers are in the majority, the already problematic idea that pandemic responses are validated by the democratic process becomes even harder to defend. And if the "infodemic" is mostly a spontaneous phenomenon, demands that governments do more to address it invite repressive responses similar to the ones that Simon and Mahoney rightly decry. The alternative—correcting misinformation by citing the evidence that contradicts it—is hardly a magic bullet. But at least it offers an opportunity to persuade people, which is how arguments are supposed to be resolved in a free society.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Fuck Joe Biden
Lets Go Brandon.
Brandon is the Second Coming of Jimmy Carter. Sort of like a ghoul, rising from the crypt to inflict inflation and malaise once again upon the masses.
I really don’t think that’s fair to Carter. He was pretty ineffective and naive, but I don’t think you can really pin the inflation and malaise on him entirely. Biden is just going full speed ahead to make everything worse.
Carter at least hired Volker, who got the whole mess under control.
Biden is doing the opposite.
It’s like Carter and Wilson got together and had a senile baby.
Generally I don’t join in, but yes, Fuck Joe Biden.
One of an equal three, one was the lock-downs, one the mandates to get an experimental vaccine with no liability for damages, and one was the censorship. No one is more important to our freedom than the other and all show us headed towards a dictatorship of the left.
All three were egregious assaults on liberty, but censorship enabled the other two. It let the government create an environment of fear, where people didn’t have and couldn’t access information to make decisions. Censorship of information was the key to them being able to do the other two.
I disagree on the primacy. I can and most of us do survive without FB, Twitter, the WaPo… we’re still free to speak our minds at our local bars and churches. Nobody considers Cuomo a monster because he violated several thousand old folks or a dozen women’s free speech rights. Not to say the speech infringement was good, but I can get through my daily life without a political discussion. Forced vaccinations and lockdowns actively prevent that.
Yeah, deprivation of livelihood and even allowing the government to define what was ‘essential’ was infinitely worse. Suspending our religious free exercise rights are way up the list, too.
My point is, keeping people dumb and scared facilitated all this. They’d try it anyway, but without censorship of information it would make it a lot harder. Fewer people would accept it as willingly as they did, and it would require significantly more force.
How many people willingly gave up allbthose things because they were fed a steady information diet of lies, and truths were supressed? How many people were willing to actively participate in enforcing those things, because they were fed a steady diet of lies and manipluated information? Most people who read Reason are generally more interested and willing to dig for information than the general public. The general public will get their information from main stream sources and not necessarily be motivated to dig for more.
By the time those people started to question what was being done, it was already too late because the acquiesced to it because the only information they got were lies and propaganda.
It’s a lot easier to violate someone’s rights when you convince them they want you to.
See Joe Friday or JFree 20% IFR seems to be the truth the want to tell.
The censorship wasn’t particularly effective though. Plenty of alternative theories and more accurate and less accurate information got past the would-be censors.
The scary part was the uniformity of reporting from major news media outlets and the willingness to accept what Fauci and the CDC said with minimal scrutiny.
Only if you go diving into the weeds looking for it.
If you watch only cable TV, the censorship was extremely effective.
Yeah, it’s amazing how many people just have never even heard the other points of view and arguments. Way too many people seem to believe that there was a much broader consensus on the necessity of it all than there ever was.
always the same arguments, endless grievance signaling about having been lied to, without much attention to whether the claims of having been lied to hold up. Because it is the signaling that is essential, and truth is far from a core value.
Sifting through the dirt trying to find some pebble one could reasonably define as a lie while cheerfully adding to the mountain of lies about faked hospital deaths, vaccine dangers, etc that literally sent tens of thousands to unnecessary graves.
In all science contrarian debates (evolution, climate, covid and so on) the ratio of righteous outrage at nefarious scientific fraud to effort spent showing that there has been scientific fraud runs roughly in the 100:1 to 1000:1 range… consistent identifier of the genre.
As Cronut says, w/o the censorious actions and attitudes, the lockdowns and the mandates would have been less likely to occur, and where/when the y did occur, had less of an impact. The totalitarian shitbags were emboldened, to use the hackneyed buzzword, by their tried and true tactic of silencing their opposition. This is why they must be stopped, not by the federal government, but by grassroots movements to remove their influence.
The vaccine and protections there aren’t a huge problem; but add to that the disinformation about the vaccines, the mandates to have it and the govt imposed ostracism from all of life if you don’t and you get a big fucking problem. Sadly, most of the writers here were fine with all of it.
And most partisan/outrage/rightist media coverage pointedly ignored (lied about) the option to skip vaccine and instead take a weekly swab test in the Biden mandate, etc…
The biggest threat to freedom has been all the people like Joe Friday who swallowed all this stuff whole and made it their moral center.
I still can’t get over the fact that people were so compliant for so long. Really harmed my faith in humanity.
Zeb 100% agree that dirt bag happily still propagates lies.
Some time last year Lionel Shriver said that this whole pandemic response, and the publics acquiescence to it made her rethink Nazi Germany. She has begun to think she was too hard on the German people. For most of her life she felt there was something uniquely wrong with the German people or their culture which allowed them to fall into such a deeply dark authoritarian pit. But after she saw how quickly the entire west (and in particular America) bent over for lockdowns, she’s rethought that stance.
That actress from the mandelorian got fired for saying basically the same thing, too, as I recall.
The pro vax crowd would have been happy to drag anti vaxers into the street for a firing squad or for banishment. It was scary.
The truth is whatever they tell us it is. If they stood in front of the media and said a million people died from covid yesterday how would we know any different and every media outlet would run with it for days. Maybe, MAYBE someone would research it and find out that it was a lie, like Vietnam civilian deaths for example. But it would take weeks or months, maybe longer for a reporter to uncover the truth. In the meantime, the goose steppers would hang all the deniers questioning what we were told. Reporting is a lot of regurgitating what officials say. So the truth is whatever they tell us it is.
“pro vax crowd would have been happy to drag anti vaxers into the street for a firing squad”
What a fascinating echo chamber.
What was the reality on planet earth?
“Texas Man Pleads Guilty to Sending Violent Threats to Maryland Doctor Who Had Been a Vocal Advocate of the Covid-19 Vaccine”
“Texas Man Pleads Guilty to Sending Violent Threats to Maryland Doctor Who Had Been a Vocal Advocate of the Covid-19 Vaccine”
“Even Covid Researchers Are Getting Death Threats, Poll Finds”
“As Threats to Physicians Continue, Fear of Violence Grows”
“French lawmakers from France’s ruling party received death threats from anti-vaccination protestors”
“‘If they’re going to push this on the kids … I can guarantee you one thing: Town halls and schools will be f—ing burned to the ground’ … The crowd clapped, cheered, banged on drums and raised their American flags”
“Fox anchor Neil Cavuto urged viewers to get vaccinated. Then came the death threats”
BOTH the right and left would love unfettered control.
The pro vax crowd would have been happy to drag anti vaxers into the street for a firing squad or for banishment. It was scary.
The truth is whatever they tell us it is. If they stood in front of the media and said a million people died from covid yesterday how would we know any different? Every media outlet would run with it for days. Maybe, MAYBE someone would research it and find out that it was a lie, like Vietnam civilian deaths for example. But it would take weeks or months, maybe longer for a reporter to uncover the truth. In the meantime, the goose steppers would hang all the deniers, figuratively if not literally, questioning what we were told. Reporting is a lot of regurgitating what officials say. So the truth is whatever they tell us it is.
Why did you feel the need to add the first sentence then repost the exact same thing?
Trump was reluctant to promote vaccination while he was in office but he also expedited the vaccines?
Biden and Harris were against vaccination while the vaccines were “owned” by the Trump Administration. They changed their tune radically when they were installed in office and owned the federal policy. Trump then flipped as well.
Trump is an anti-vaxxer? I must have missed that one.
Trump wasn’t an anti vaxxer.
What he wasn’t for was mandates.
He gambled that vaccines could be made, invested ahead of time, and was positive and forward thinking on the topic. He told states to be ready to distribute in November 2020. And he was right, if only slightly sanguine on the timeline.
He’s not, but being Trump he’s not much of pro- or con- anything other than Trump. He fanned anti-vax hysteria at times, e.g. saying people were right to distrust vaccines when distributed by Biden administration, vaccines for school age kids etc.
Trump’s still getting boos at his rallies when he pimps the vax.
It’s a real miscalculation on his part. He wants power and wants to find some ways of appealing to the center. But his power derives primarily from the base, and while tea party / MAGA mob movement is a mutually-reinforcing snowball – in many ways fueled and steered by Trump and by Fox News – it is also where the ballot power lies. And so Trump, like Fox before him, is finding that the heady power associated with being able to direct that mob goes away quickly if you forget your part of the contract. The mob is here for two things: anger and grievance. Fox wanted to keep a foot in journalistic respectability and centrist common sense values, for purposes of ratings. Trump’s arrival taught them they weren’t in charge. Some pivoted well like Hannity, along with Lou Dobbs kissing the ring and charting new staggering levels of unctuous and obsequious media behavior (reminder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=il-22Q8mECc ).
Now Trump himself forgets the contract. In his case to try to be competitive politically and regain power, having a foot in the center with non-crazy vaccine views.
It’s a stark contrast. When he feeds the mob the claim that the election was stolen from him/them he’s rewarded with an explosion of support: outrage, anger, grievance. The contract is upheld.
But when he tries to get credit for the vaccine, the grievance is a pittance – Trump didn’t get enough credit for inventing the vaccine or what not. But the vaccine is something the entire medical and scientific world has been pushing on people. Is Trump saying he’s with them? Contract broken and the boos commence.
U.S. President Donald Trump, “democratic populists” who minimized the seriousness of the pandemic, promoted misinformation, and viewed criticism as an intolerable affront.
Trump wisely characterized the pandemic as flu-like illness, which today’s epidemiological data concludes likewise
The current CDC / NIH / FDA leadership should be charged with deceiving Americans, furthering death and injury through punitive lockdowns and inciting fear, and shot if found guilty. Trump literally shrugged and walked away from Fauci and Deborah Birx when they disagreed, both of whom have no credibility in the eyes of medical specialists today
Click bait articles are so yesteryear
“…and shot if found guilty.”
Along with all of the abortion doctors, right, right-wing wrong-nut fanatic?
“Trump wisely characterized the pandemic as flu-like illness, which today’s epidemiological data concludes likewise”
Uhhh, yeah, today with omicron and largely vaccinated population, it is flu-like. Back when Trump made these claims it was delta (or whatever was before that) and more deadly. I knew a few people that are 6 feet under after COVID, but have never personally known anyone that died from the flu. Take my anecdotal data for what it’s worth.
Trump did a great job getting bureaucracy out of the way for people that wanted the vaccine and not mandating it for those that did not. But to give him credit as a spreader of the truth. Come on!
“I knew a few people that are 6 feet under after COVID,…”
I’ve mentioned this before, but my father had his fourth and fatal heart attack last year. He tested positive for Covid post mortem.
Three guesses what his death certificate lists as primary cause of death?
Sorry.
The people I mentioned were the more typical lung damage death, but to be sure there are cases like that of your father.
Hey man! I just had a BRILLIANT idea!
At any murder scene, sprinkle some COVID-laced blood on the crime scene, declare the death(s) to have been caused by COVID, and the cops won’t have to spend ANY tax money investigating the already-solved murder(s)!!!
Don’t bother thanking me, just throw some $$$money!!!
Same with my cancer-ridden grandfather who was too sick to get the jab. Counted as an unvaxxed covid death because he caught it in the hospital a week before he died of cancer.
Sorry to hear of your loss.
Covid can attack organs throughout the body including the heart directly, so “Cardiac arrest is common in older patients with COVID-19, and survival rates after an arrest are poor”. Perhaps your father’s cardiac arrest was unrelated, but based on what you have written there is no reason to assume so.
To the larger questions, anecdotes like this are what fuel the larger conspiracy theories that covid is mostly a hoax, which you see repeated continually up and down these threads.
Again, data shows consistently all over the world that this is not true. *Total* death counts spike in tandem with spikes in covid positive tests, covid hospitalization and ICU usage, and reported covid deaths. In fact such analysis shows that covid deaths are in total under-counted, not over-counted, as you would expect from common sense. The conspiracy theory can’t be fueled with just anecdotes like this, you have to theorize ways that hospitals are inventing large numbers of *new* deaths, not just miscategorizing them.
And I know this data is shared a lot, and it is a custom for conservatives in particular to ignore data when it doesn’t support grievance narratives, but sharing again for the more libertarian and pro-reason visitors to reason.
Update on Excess Deaths Associated with the COVID-19 Pandemic — United States, January 26, 2020–February 27, 2021
“These updated estimates indicate that approximately one half to two thirds of one million excess deaths occurred during January 26, 2020–February 27, 2021, suggesting that the overall impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mortality is substantially greater than the number of COVID-19 deaths”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8344999/
It always was a flu like illness. It was never an extraordinary threat. I’m past tired of people like you enabling totalitarianism.
I’m past tired of people like you jumping to conclusions without knowing many facts.
How am I enabling totalitarianism by acknowledging the differential death rate between COVID and influenza?
my $.02 (not speaking for you and you don’t have to agree)
It’s a long convoluted story how you get from ‘acknowledging facts we can measure’ proves ‘support for totalitarianism’.
At root the believer narrative is all ‘plandemic’, all the time. Governments used a mild new flu variant as a hoax to increase power and pocketed a portion of sweetheart deals with evil capitalists pushing vaccines for profit. Supposedly, governments would use this power to drive even more totalitarian controls later. Instead, they dropped restrictions when counts declined and vaccines lowered hospital overload risk, but the grievance signal is way too strong in the story to let the story go.
It’s tribal, so you’re with them or against them, and acknowledging almost any relevant scientific/measurable fact no matter how trivial is immediately seen as siding with Them.
Or maybe simpler to say you are identified as a member of the tribe via grievance signaling, and will be attacked if you don’t give the signal.
Anecdotally, I knew people who died of flu. I don’t know anyone who died of Covid. Flu is serious for the same segment of the population that covid is a major threat to. Not quite so bad for the most part but it’s not “just the flu”, particularly if you are old or infirm.
Seems like covid has two pretty distinct modes. For people who don’t end up needing hospitalization it absolutely is a flu-like illness. For people who end up in the ICU, yeah, there’s some different and scary stuff going on. But that is quite rare for people in reasonable health.
Agreed
My grandfather passed due to pneumonia brought on by a winter flu about 12 years ago. This is a pretty common story, and the flu annually kills plenty of others.
Of course. I know this.
It would kill 300,000/year if we counted anybody with a tiny piece of flu virus in them (or 28 days prior) as a flu death — and that’s before we even get to the people that the flu actually kills.
^THIS^
We marked the death certificates differently then. Times have changed.
Your anecdotal data is worth little, as you manage to ignore the fatality rate being at most 1.x%, regardless of variant, unless one has comorbidities. Trump may have been a knucklehead about some issues, but this doesn’t change facts.
I know my anecdotal data is worth little, but I also know that citing facts and studies is a waste of time for most here.
I think that COVID was, before omicron and before vaccines, more deadly than the flu.
I never said that justified vaccines, masks or lock down mandates.
It was.
But not nearly as deadly as the media made it out to be. Studies and surveys done, even recently, have shown a good portion of the population massively overstating the hospitalization and fatality rates.
In truth, for older people it was much more dangerous than the flu. For young and healthy, it never was. Kids just don’t suffer from the ‘rona (statistically) like they do the flu or other diseases. For those in their 30s and 40s it was a wash or a little worse.
But convincing people that it was dramatically worse than it was is how mandates and lockdowns were able to be implemented. And that’s really the point of the disinformation/censorship debate.
I agree with everything you’re saying here. I got attacked for merely mentioning that COVID WAS more deadly than the flu ( I assume based on the assumption that meant I was onboard with the hype and the mandates).
Everyone wants to fight it seems. And because of that, people often assume a little more than folks say. I try not to, and I certainly do anyway.
That’s actually the point of a lot of genuine Russian and Chinese disinformation. And domestic, as there are many domestically funded social-media manipulators. The Russians are notorious for just wanting to make people argue with each other and protest, to sow dissent and disunion.
It’s simple. Get trolls out there attacking people and the regular folks think that’s the thing to do and jump on. Then you are afraid to express an opinion as you’re guaranteed a fight. You can really polarize a place that way, as long as you have enough sock puppets guiding the conversation.
Same with extreme opinions. Astroturf every message board you can with extreme versions of viewpoints, then people believe that folks with different opinions are all way out on the fringe. If you say “Maybe a vaccine shouldn’t be required” the 50 center will add on some message about them being… I dunno, poison meant to give you autism, and then all his sock puppets agree. Now you can’t say “maybe it shouldn’t be required” without being branded an anti-vax nutcase.
It’s sad that this works, but that’s the thing with propaganda. It does work, and the internet lets a lot more people engage in it.
Even at the early stages, we had a virus that caused something like 30-50% asymptomatic infections, another 40% or so with mild cold/flu-like symptoms that resolved without medical intervention, some small percentage that needed some medical intervention, perhaps hospitalization. A very small percentage overall required extraordinary treatment and/or died. Something like 45% of all early deaths were in the over-80-with-health-issues cohort. Still, 99%+ of all infected people survived, and even for the over-90 crowd, 80% survived.
[Note: this Lancet finding uses a middle-dot for decimal point]
Findings
We report IFR estimates for April 15, 2020, to January 1, 2021, the period before the introduction of vaccines and widespread evolution of variants. We found substantial heterogeneity in the IFR by age, location, and time. Age-specific IFR estimates form a J shape, with the lowest IFR occurring at age 7 years (0·0023%, 95% uncertainty interval [UI] 0·0015–0·0039) and increasing exponentially through ages 30 years (0·0573%, 0·0418–0·0870), 60 years (1·0035%, 0·7002–1·5727), and 90 years (20·3292%, 14·6888–28·9754).
Among all countries and territories, we found that the median IFR decreased from 0·466% (interquartile range 0·223–0·840) to 0·314% (0·143–0·551) between April 15, 2020, and Jan 1, 2021.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02867-1/fulltext
“flu-like illness, which today’s epidemiological data concludes likewise”
Like dogs gnawing at an Orwell bone they won’t give up. A million plus dead from the “flu-like illness”.
Republican Glenn Youngkin’s upset victory in Virginia’s gubernatorial election likewise was seen partly as an expression of frustration with COVID-19 policies—in particular, a statewide mandate forcing students in K–12 schools to wear masks
It was clearly the remote learning revealed CRTization of the curriculum and a backlash against the NEA/AFT.
Agreed.
Things like masking may have played into it, but what really pushed him over the top was his opposition saying parents shouldn’t have a say in what their children learn in school. They were PISSED about the curriculum, and then that comment was just so dismissive… that was gasoline on the fire.
Remember how Reason refused to use the name ciaramella during the first impeachment. Good times. Good times.
That guy needs a legal reckoning….
We’re way past the point of legal remedies
Trump’s reluctance to promote vaccination while he was in office can be explained by his fear that it would anger his supporters—
He was never reluctant. This is just a lie. The vaccine came out after the election. He promoted and took credit for the vaccine. While in office. He also promoted other mitigation activities which the left still refuses to promote going as far as to not provide alternatives to states or attempt to block production of alternatives.
In an otherwise good article your TDS still showed Jacob.
Trump, literally, had no problem bragging about it. He had openly boasted about the damned vaccines. I don’t get why Reason has so utterly missed this.
Or is lying about it.
Lying about Trump is a job requirement.
Indeed. Unless I was living on a completely different planet, not only did Trump boast about the vaccines, but leading Democrats urged people not to take the vaccine because Trump was boasting about it. Andrew Cuomo publicly stated that he was going to work with other Democrat governors to block the vaccine, although he quickly changed his tune when Trump made a public statement telling New Yorkers that they may not be allowed to receive the vaccine based on their governor’s position.
It seems they were both putting politics over saving lives. Point goes to Cuomo though for his being the face of COVID information + book along with the nursing home body count reality.
defined to include statements that it deemed “misleading” even if they were arguably or verifiably true
This doesn’t accurately convey the absurd totality of it. There were unfalsifiable opinions and even whole groups of people deemed misinformation.
And he misses government being the primary purveyors of misinformation. Fauci working directly with media to suppress valid information.
Founding fathers:
Those who choose safety over freedom deserve neither.
Democratic party:
Those who choose freedom over safety* deserve to be de-platformed.
No, the greatest threat to liberty from the COVID era was the coordinated government and media message that Americans should be frightened and obedient, and the enthusiastic agreement from far too many people.
^
“enthusiastic agreement from far too many people”
Yes. I’m still kind of shocked at how quickly people acquiesed (sp?) to many absurd restrictions on freedom. They were giving people tickets for watching the sunset FROM INSIDE THEIR OWN CAR close to where I live.
The best defense against bad speech is good speech. Or even plain old mockery.
Case in point, apropos the topic: Bleach as a Covid cure. It’s ridiculous. And extremely dangerous. And a past president briefly toyed with talking about it. But it’s still ridiculous and extremely dangerous.
Some social media blocked such claims, which is their right (they are private entities who get to moderate their content). But what really killed off that idea was the extreme mockery over it. The whole idea of bleach as a cure has been around for a very long time, and it was not at all new when some crank suggested it for Covid. But censorship is not the answer.
I think Facebook needs a turd button, so I can mark posts as turds. Have the posts show they got 14.7k turds but only 57 likes. Just an idea. Heck, let’s have that here on the Commentariat, let us vote diamond or turd on posts,
Biden said Trump said drinking bleach could help fight the coronavirus. Trump did not specifically recommend ingesting disinfectants, but he did express interest in exploring whether disinfectants could be applied to the site of a coronavirus infection inside the body, such as the lungs. We rate Biden’s claim Mostly False.
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/07/13/fact-check-did-trump-tell-people-to-drink-bleach-to-kill-coronavirus/113754708/
You know that’s not true and I’ve had this talk with many anti trump folks too. If I didn’t know the exact scientific process but understood a concept I’d talk about it in relatable words or something in life that is like a process that we desire but is not the same thing. I.e. maybe we could do something like how bleach sanitizes something to get rid of it. That load of telling people to bleach is a load of crap.
And remember the guy who died from drinking fish cleaner? Turns out it was likely murder.
I did not say Trump said to use bleach. I said he briefly expressed interest in it. Big different. But you cannot say he didn’t say that because he did. He did NOT say use bleach but he DID say hey let’s look at bleach for a bit.
Not claiming Trump was a bleacher, nor that he invented this. Just that he mentioned it. That’s how dangerous this idea is, that a credulous president would mention it and thus inadvertently give it credence in the minds of a few.
Please read what I said and not imagine that I committed blasphemy. Jeepers.
LOL it was the media relentlessly mis-parroting the quote that gave it life.
If memory serves, the bleach thing was, at worst, Trump mangling the description of an experimental treatment he was briefed on. It was a possibly a gaffe, not unlike what we get every day from Biden’s cognitive decline, but in Biden’s case the news media does not go apeshit conspiracy theory about what Biden means.
and titanium for lightweight but strong comments, talc for spouting pablum, coal for fiery orators, fools gold for democrat apologists, plutonium for heavy thoughts…
Greatest COVID threat to freedom? A long, long, list to choose from. But #1 on my list is the continued use of states of emergency to bypass the rules of democracy. There is no reason for that in 2022. Modern technology gives legislators the ability to meet any time, any where in the world.
Good one. How many dictatorships start with a state of emergency that never ends?
Agreed!
https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/everything-is-an-attack-on-democracy
If you pay even a passing attention to politics, you’ve noted Democratic politicians proclaiming that everything from Facebook to Republicans themselves are trying to undermine democracy. Joe Biden called January 6th “The worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War.” Indeed, because Democrats loudly proclaim to be “defending democracy”, anything that threatens them anywhere is declared an “attack on democracy.” (Just add “insurrectionist” to the long list of ‘deplorable’ adjectives.)
It’s sort of a sick irony that the very people who call everything a ‘threat to democracy’ are the people who most ignore the rules of our Republic. As I previously discussed, the new idea of America was that nobody was above the law, and that government officials who passed laws were held to account by voters. Over and over during his short administration, Joe Biden has ignored the proper rule-making process of our Republic while proclaiming to be saving it.
With executive orders, he shut down the Keystone pipeline and suspended other energy projects. He sanctioned Russia (long before the war) and shut down travel that Trump had opened. Vaccine mandates were executive orders. Now, certainly Biden isn’t the first president to use the executive order, but he may be the most hypocritical by sidestepping the proper lawmaking procedures of the country for the biggest issues of the day.
“Democracy” is now just a code word for the established institutional elite. Or something close to that. I’m trying to decide what’s the best way to put it.
I think you put it just right.
I’m too disgusted for anything resembling an articulate discussion.
Fuck your TDS lies, fuck Joe Biden, fuck the CDC and Anthony Fauci. Those are some of the greatest threats to our remaining liberties.
Also, Pfizer’s not-Ivermectin protease inhibitor Paxlovid that you should take more of when it fails to stop the spread of Covid or treat your symptoms has contraindications for hepatitis… Which can be caused by Pfizer’s vaccine that also doesn’t stop Covid, but has nearly 1,300 side effects.
worst part was the censors were us. well not *me* but those other jerks.
Unelected county level bureaucrats shutting down businesses and quarantining healthy people was the greatest COVID threat to freedom. Followed by elected state governors shutting down businesses and quarantining healthy people using “emergency” powers that lasted for 2 years.
Lasted? Past tense?
Pretty sure Newsome extended his emergency a few months ago. Though maybe it actually expired last month. I can’t tell you for sure because people here have been mostly ignoring him for over a year.
I try my best not to pay any attention to Newsom. As far as I know San Diego county is still in a state of emergency and our local health tsarina won’t even establish criteria for when the state of emergency can end.
Yeah, an endless emergency for a county with elderly vaccinated, reasonable numbers ( a few hundred reported a day out of 3 million) and people decidedly NOT going to the ICU in any substantial numbers.
The adage about power corrupts is true. Nobody wants to let it go after they have it. And many genuinely think they’re doing good, but the corruption makes them blind to the fact that people do not want their goddamned “help” anymore.
But it’s for our SAFETY!!!
“There was no censorship because only government can do that” – Reason
Mandatory lockdowns, mandatory vaccinations, and economic shutdowns making people dependent on government were bigger threats to freedom.
And let’s not forget Trofim Fauci’s idiotic pronouncements. Remember him saying “people need to get over this idea of individual freedom” when asked about Sturgis?
“Now is the time to do as you are told”
“ I am the science”.
A. Fauci
Get the Gov-Guns AWAY from the Press.
The pro vax crowd would have been happy to drag anti vaxers into the street for a firing squad or for banishment. It was scary.
The truth is whatever they tell us it is. If they stood in front of the media and said a million people died from covid yesterday how would we know any different and every media outlet would run with it for days. Maybe, MAYBE someone would research it and find out that it was a lie, like Vietnam civilian deaths for example. But it would take weeks or months, maybe longer for a reporter to uncover the truth. In the meantime, the goose steppers would hang all the deniers questioning what we were told. Reporting is a lot of regurgitating what officials say. So the truth is whatever they tell us it is.
That’s what I heard too.
Thanks for your beyond belief blogs stuff. looking for a Accountant In St Neots ? Check out this!
When you’ve lost Slate.com…
https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/noble-lies-covid-fauci-cdc-masks.html
Aside from whether it’s right to tell noble lies in the service of eliciting socially beneficial behavior, there is also the question of efficacy. Experts on infectious diseases are not necessarily experts on social behavior. Even if we accept Fauci’s claim that he downplayed the importance of wearing masks because he didn’t want to unleash a run on masks, we might wonder how he knew that his noble lie would be more effective than simply being honest and explaining to people why it was important to assure an adequate supply of masks for medical workers.
Amplifying out-of-date statistics and building a model to support vaccination that has questionable assumptions work to support rapid deployment of two doses of mRNA to all healthy kids aged 12 to 17. That may be the CDC’s policy pursuit, and one we are sympathetic to. However, distorting evidence to achieve this result is a form of a noble lie. Accurately reporting current risks to adolescents, and exploring other dosing possibilities, is part of the unbiased scientific exploration of data.
We worry that vaccine policy among supporters of vaccines is increasingly anchored to the irrational views of those who oppose them—by always pursuing the opposite. Exaggerating the risk of the virus in the moment and failing to explore middle ground positions appear to be the antithesis of the anti-vax movement, which is an extremist effort to refuse vaccination. This seems a reflexive attempt to vaccinate at all costs—by creating fear in the public (despite falling adolescent rates) and pushing the notion that two doses of mRNA at the current dose level or nothing at all are the only two choices—a logical error called the fallacy of the excluded middle.
Noble lies—small untruths—yield unpredictable outcomes. Nietzsche once wrote, “Not that you lied to me, but that I no longer believe you, has shaken me.” Public health messaging is predicated on trust, which overcomes the enormous complexity of the scientific literature, creating an opportunity to communicate initiatives effectively. Still, violation of this trust renders the communication unreliable. When trust is shattered, messaging is no longer clear and straightforward, and instead results in the audience trying to reverse-engineer the statement based on their view of the speaker’s intent. Simply put, noble lies can rob confidence from the public, leading to confusion, a loss of credibility, conspiracy theories, and obfuscated policy.
Noble lies are a trap. We cannot predict the public’s behavior, and loss of trust is devastating. The general population is far too skeptical to blindly follow the advice of experts, and far too intelligent to be easily duped.
Fauci is ethically, morally, and intellectually superior to all the people he’s lying to so it’s OK. It’s for their own good.
I had to imagine that the mayor of Champaign IL *had* to have had her maniacal plan at the ready, probably in a special red folder in the center drawer of her desk, just waiting for the chance to unleash her dream of ultimate power. This was her set of orders on March 13th. And they call Trump “authoritarian”.
https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/wandtv.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/5/51/551ced24-6535-11ea-9826-4f4fd396dacb/5e6b960454b21.pdf.pdf
After the declaration of an emergency, the Mayor may in the interest of public safety and welfare make any or all of the following orders and provide the following direction:
(1) Issue such other orders as are imminently necessary for the protection of life and property.
(2) Order a general curfew applicable to such geographical areas of the City or to the City as a whole, as the Mayor deems advisable, and applicable during such hours of the day or night as the Mayor deems necessary in the interest of public safety and welfare.
(3) Order the closing of all retail liquor stores, including taverns and private clubs or portions thereof wherein the consumption of intoxicating liquor and beer is permitted;
(4) Order the discontinuance of the sale of alcoholic liquor by any wholesaler or retailer;
(5) Order the discontinuance of selling, distributing, or giving away gasoline or other liquid flammable or combustible products in any container other than a gasoline tank properly affixed to a motor vehicle;
(6) Order the discontinuance of selling, distributing, dispensing or giving away of explosives or explosive agents, firearms or ammunition of any character whatsoever;
(7) Order the control, restriction and regulation within the City by rationing, issuing quotas, fixing or freezing prices, allocating the use, sale or distribution of food, fuel, clothing and other commodities, materials, goods or services or the necessities of life;
(8) (a) Order City employees or agents, on behalf of the City, to take possession of any real or personal property of any person, or to acquire full title or such lesser interest as may be necessary to deal with a disaster or emergency, and to take possession of and for a limited time, occupy and use any real estate to accomplish alleviation of the disaster, or the effects thereof; (b) In the event any real or personal property is utilized by the City, the City shall be liable to the owner thereof for the reasonable value of the use or for just compensation as the case may be.
(9) Order restrictions on ingress or egress to parts of the City to limit the occupancy of any premises;
(10) To make provision for the availability and use of temporary emergency housing;
(11) Temporarily suspend, limit, cancel, convene, reschedule, postpone, continue, or relocate all meetings of the City Council, and any City committee, commission, board, 6 authority, or other City body as deemed appropriate by the Mayor.
(12) Require closing of business establishments.
(13) Prohibit the sale or distribution within the City of any products which could be employed in a manner which would constitute a danger to public safety.
(14) Temporarily close any and all streets, alleys, sidewalks, bike paths, public parks or public ways.
(15) Temporarily suspend or modify, for not more than sixty (60) days, any regulation or ordinance of the City, including, but not limited to, those regarding health, safety, and zoning. This period may be extended upon approval of the City Council.
(16) Suspend or limit the use of the water resources or other infrastructure.
(17) Control, restrict, allocate, or regulate the use, sale, production, or distribution of food, water, fuel, clothing, and/or other commodities, materials, goods, services and resources.
(18) Suspend or limit burning of any items or property with the City limits and up to two (2) miles outside the corporate limits.
(19) Direct and compel the evacuation of all or part of the population from any stricken or threatened areas within the City if the mayor deems this action is necessary for the preservation of life, property, or other disaster or emergency mitigation, response or recovery and to prescribe routes, modes of transportation and destination in connection with an evacuation.
[sic, 20 omitted in original]
(21) Approve application for local, state, or federal assistance.
(22) Establish and control routes of transportation, ingress or egress.
(23) Control ingress and egress from any designated disaster or emergency area or home, building or structures located therein.
(24) Approve the transfer the direction, personnel, or functions of City departments and agencies for the purpose of performing or facilitating emergency or disaster services.
(25) Accept services, gifts, grants, loans, equipment, supplies, and/or materials whether from private, nonprofit, or governmental sources.
(26) Require the continuation, termination, disconnection, or suspension of natural gas, electrical power, water, sewer, communication or other public utilities or infrastructure.
(27) Close or cancel the use of any municipally owned or operated building or other public facility.
(28) Declare, issue, enforce, modify and terminate orders for quarantine and isolation of 7 persons or animals posing a threat to the public, not conflicting with the directions of the Health Officer of the community.
(29) Exercise such powers and functions in light of the exigencies of emergency or disaster including the waiving of compliance with any time consuming procedures and formalities, including notices, as may be prescribed by law.
(30) Issue any and all such other orders or undertake such other functions and activities as the Mayor reasonably believes is required to protect the health, safety, and welfare of persons or property within the City or otherwise preserve the public peace or abate, clean up, or mitigate the effects of any emergency or disaster.
Notice how if the City Council were to start to question her orders, she could suspend meetings of the City Council.
Great scare quotes. Supposedly “fake news” like hospitals inventing the scamdemic death count, vaccines causing infertility and other widely believed news items of vital importance to the population and critical to achieving outcomes like:
“We find that approximately 234,000 deaths since June 2021 could have been prevented with primary series vaccination”
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/covid19-and-other-leading-causes-of-death-in-the-us/