If you spent your days on social media during the pandemic (and why wouldn’t you, or what else would you be doing?) you have been subjected to avalanche of “studies” proving the effectiveness of Covid “mitigation” measures. “Followers of THE SCIENCE” made sure you knew how many lives were saved by the mask mandates; how many grandmas were alive because you were not allowed to leave your house; how many people each unvaccinated person killed that day.
THE SCIENCE was so compelling you probably knew the name of every person who posted the studies. You had to – every ten minutes, they reminded you how many people owed their lives to their “following of THE SCIENCE.” They had numbers, graphs, and quotes from scientific journals. Their SCIENCE was irrefutable.
All that was before the report cards came out showing that “following THE SCIENCE” produced nothing but misery without much “lifesaving” to show for it. But “followers of THE SCIENCE” are far from ready to acknowledge defeat. Only today, they claim that THE SCIENCE behind Covid mandates does not matter much any longer. Today, it’s only morality behind it that matters.
Now, they completely dismiss the “facts and figures” they were citing just a year ago. Even though they were wrong on every count, they still had “good intentions” – and that’s all that matters. Even though the results they produced are miserable on every level, they did it for the right reasons.
Here is The Atlantic magazine calling for “pandemic amnesty” for “followers of THE SCIENCE,” because “getting something wrong wasn’t a moral failing:”
“Given the amount of uncertainty, almost every position was taken on every topic. And on every topic, someone was eventually proved right, and someone else was proved wrong. In some instances, the right people were right for the wrong reasons.”
For people we knew as The Branch Covidians, it’s no longer about saving lives. “Followers of THE SCIENCE” haven’t saved any lives – but they destroyed many. Lockdown enthusiasts denied people their ability to earn a living; they caused developmental delays in children; they set back learning; they caused psychological problems. But they felt very moral doing it.
Those who were guided by the science (not blindly “following” THE SCIENCE) allowed their residents to navigate Covid to the best of their ability without imposing on others:
These leaders did not lose any more lives than the governors who imposed draconian lockdowns. But even so, we must believe they are still “evil” because “they were right for the wrong reasons.” Ron the Terrible was only right because he wanted to sacrifice teachers and children to serve his political goal – not because the data showed early on that the kids were at very low risk. Turns out he was right – but according to The Atlantic, his success was only due to a “hefty element of luck.”
The “moral” politicians “followed THE SCIENCE.” They locked people up in their homes and went out partying. They sent their kids to private schools while yours were stuck at home. They hung out at the beach while they wouldn’t let you near one. But all the while these politicians evaded their own restrictions, they were making their residents feel safe. Because of that, CBS medical experts will not judge them harshly:
“I can’t say one right, one wrong. And that’s part of the problem. It’s not a binary black/white issue.”
“Nature,” formerly known as a scientific publication, agrees:
“Analysing competing harms and benefits often comes down not to scientific calculations, but to value judgements, such as how to weigh costs that fall on some sections of society more than others. That is what makes lockdowns so hard to study — and can lead to bitter disagreement.”
Apparently, Nature is not a scientific magazine any longer – it’s a religious one. They completely fail to produce any conclusive scientific connection between lockdowns and Covid mortality. Instead, they claim that policy, ultimately, must be made based on “ethical judgments.”
As far as Covid is concerned, it’s safe to assume that the left fully adopted AOC’s school of thought: “it’s more important to be morally right than to be factually correct.” And they apply it to everything.
“Gender-affirming care” may disfigure your child without any psychological benefit. But how “immoral” is denying your child their “true identity?”
Asking Venezuela or Saudi Arabia to drill for oil produces the same (or worse) harm to nature as drilling in the US. It also empowers foreign dictators and causes skyrocketing inflation. But it makes us feel morally superior to other countries.
Even though Black Lives Matter used multi-million-dollar donations for personal financial benefit, their sentiment was noble.
It is well known that the road to hell is paved with good intentions – but the liberal philosophy is based on the necessity to divorce intentions from the outcome. For a conservative, your intentions are only as valuable as the results they produce. If your thinking is not grounded in data, logic, and facts, your outcome will ultimately destroy lives, one hundred percent of the time. People will suffer from your misguided policies, no matter how “moral” you feel about them.
When one side of the debate is grounded in science and reason, and the other makes policy based on feelings, the Darwin law of survival will ultimately pick the winner. Remember which side were you on.
