Reblogged:News From the Next Nonperson of Europe

[Gus Van Horn blog]

I recently noted the change in status of un-locked-down Sweden from shining city on the hill for leftists advocating state-run medicine to boogeyman/nonperson for leftists advocating indefinite, society-wide lockdowns.

Norway would appear to be joining Sweden soon, if it isn't already there: From the right side of the British press comes a piece discussing a recent report from Norway's health ministry that raises the question of whether lockdowns were necessary to get the epidemic under control:

This is not the only way -- if it even is a way -- to fight for racial equality or better policing. (Image by Tito Texidor III, via Unsplash, license.)

[T]he Norwegian public health authority has published a report with a striking conclusion: the virus was never spreading as fast as had been feared and was already on the way out when lockdown was ordered. "It looks as if the effective reproduction rate had already dropped to around 1.1 when the most comprehensive measures were implemented on 12 March, and that there would not be much to push it down below 1 ... We have seen in retrospect that the infection was [already] on its way down..."

This raises an awkward question: was lockdown necessary? What did it achieve that could not have been achieved by voluntary social distancing? Camilla Stoltenberg, director of Norway's public health agency, has given an interview where she is candid about the implications of this discovery. "Our assessment now, and I find that there is a broad consensus in relation to the reopening, was that one could probably achieve the same effect -- and avoid part of the unfortunate repercussions -- by not closing. But, instead, staying open with precautions to stop the spread." This is important to admit, she says, because if the infection levels rise again -- or a second wave hits in the winter -- you need to be brutally honest about whether lockdown proved effective.

Indeed.

I expect this news, if it ever spreads in America, to be ignored by that swath of intellectuals, criminally negligent media, and politicians who supported the lockdowns well past the point they could be excused on grounds of panic or ignorant concern.

That policy arguably made the country ripe for rioting, which many of the same people now encourage even as they they admit it could seed a second wave of the epidemic. In the meantime, some quarters of the press are still salivating -- even on the sports pages -- at the prospect of Sweden having a comeuppance for not following the contextless nostrums of state control.

I, for one, find such a quick, whim-like 180 on such an invasive and costly policy to be disturbing, to say the least. Were they serious then, and are they serious, now? About anything? Do they care? And will they turn right around and try to lock everyone up again when they get bored of the riots?

In the name of clarity, let me state again that society-wide, indefinite home detention is a misuse of government and should never have been implemented over wide geographical areas in the first place. Nevertheless, it is important to note that even if one grants their propriety as policy, they were unnecessary for the stated goal of their advocates. On top of that, the article discusses some of their steep costs, such as lost educational time.

-- CAV

Link to Original