Lockdowns are a burden, an imposition, a severe restriction of liberty. It is certain and indisputable that they cause harm. Therefore, if lockdown supporters cannot prove with something approaching certainty they work, then lockdowns cannot and should not be imposed.
Tuesday, May 26, 2020
The logic of it all — or the lack thereof …
… Bad Arguments For Lockdowns & The Burden Of Proof. Also: US States Analysis – William M. Briggs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Why all the new standards? No one can prove that abortion is killing human life? No one even knows how to observe human life.
ReplyDeleteBut, back to the virus, where this new standard is applied with provable deadly consequences. We all know how viruses work in essence. There's no need to prove that 100,000 people have died at the very least. There's no need to prove that we catch them from other people. That's what a virus is by definition. And this one is worse than any other since the Spanish flu.
It's a made-up argument to say that a burden of proof is needed to invoke public health policies. Yet, how will be so, is when we can track deaths back to an unmasked person, and find them guilty of serial murder. That would be in the first degree. Because to not go out with a mask, is to be so careless as to knowingly kill someone. Denying it will be no more of a defense, than burning a building down at night, then questioning how could you know that people were inside. "Prove I must have known people were inside a locked building when I lit the match."
Why are these people feeding the deniers with these made-up arguments? How are they finding publication? We are facing a deadly pandemic. They should be writing something constructive.