Today the NYT ran an article, the significance of which is not so much what is said, but the fact that the article appeared in such an ueber-MSM outlet. The article is a call to America to ask the "hard Covid-19 questions." The point is that, two years on, we have yet to really face up to those questions:
The authors, two public health professors, focus on the issue of how to deal with children's health concerns. Nevertheless, the manner in which the entire article is framed basically throws the doors wide open to discuss just what we've been doing and to re-examine what we should be doing. Make no mistake about it--the authors are not anti-vaxxers, However, one position they stake themselves to is that Zero Covid is not a realistic goal. But that, tacitly, has been the goal up until know, and to that extent this article is a frontal assault on the official narrative--the Covid Regime as we have known it. The editors at the NYT certainly understood that.
An open discussion that accepts that Zero Covid is not a realistic policy goal necessarily opens the door to any number of ideas that, until the Israeli study blew the doors open, were considered heretical. That dynamic is changing day by day, and this article could be a significant marker of progress toward questioning everything that's been going on.
While the availability of vaccines refocused the U.S. response to the pandemic, many policy questions remain. Should vaccinated people get boosters? Does everyone need to wear a mask? Are unvaccinated children safe in schools?
We think much of the confusion and disagreement among scientists and nonexperts alike comes down to undefined and sometimes conflicting goals in responding to the pandemic. What are we actually trying to achieve in the United States?
If the goal is getting to zero infections and staying at that level before dropping restrictions, one set of policies applies. If the goal is to make this virus like the seasonal flu, a different set of policies follows.
This reveals the crux of the problem in the United States. It’s not just the C.D.C., but everyone — including us public health experts — who is not always connecting our advice or policy recommendations to clear goals. The conflict is not about masks or boosters, it’s about the often unstated objective and how a mask mandate or a “boosters for all” approach may or may not get us there.
If the goal is zero spread, which we think is not realistic, then the country would need to keep many of the most restrictive measures in place — an approach that has serious public health consequences of its own. ...
The emergence of the Delta variant has, understandably, caused many Americans to step back and use caution. But the same questions will be there when we emerge from this Delta surge, whether in a few weeks or next spring. We shouldn’t let ourselves off the hook with “easy” decisions today. At some point, the country needs to have an honest conversation with itself about what our goals really are.
I'd also like to recommend the linked video: "INJECTIONS & INJUNCTIONS" PART 1: PARADOX. It's about 50 minutes long and requires some careful listening, but you'll be glad you spent the time and effort.
Among the questions that are referenced in the video, are political issues of human nature that are very much among the questions that we need to be asking. Is the Covid Regime the slippery slope? Consider these quotes in that regard:
Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy. ... It is to be expected that advance in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries.
Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.
-- The Impact of Science on Society, Bertrand Russell, 1951
You will own nothing and you will be happy.
-- Klaus Schwab
Denial of reality and creation of surrealism was one of the hallmarks of Communism. On the surface, we may speak about political propaganda, but Satter goes further than that. The people were accustomed to the constant stream of lies, unaware of the truth about the Soviet system, as well as the world outside this “hermetically sealed” atmosphere. It affected their interior lives to the point that the entire culture began to morph into a static dream. Most people were willing players in this theater of the absurd, and courage to challenge the system was woefully lacking. The mental exhaustion also led to acquiescence to the system, and people became mere cogs in the powerful machine.
Satter concludes that at the center of it all was (and perhaps always is when it comes to totalitarian regimes) a moral crisis. Although it started with the promise of “brotherhood and unity,” Soviet Communism quickly devolved into a political nightmare. Nekrasov, too, admits that unless there is an acknowledgement that a country suffers from indifference to morality, then other totalitarian systems will emerge under the guise of freedom.
“Age of Delirium” is not just about the totalitarian surrealism of the Soviet Union but about the factors that contribute to building a totalitarian system and regime. Man ceases to be human once he accepts a metaphysical takeover by ideology, cleanses himself of moral responsibility, and quietly and indifferently accepts that he has allowed himself to turn into a beast, all in an effort to be God.