If it was a real emergency and wearing a mask or getting a vaccine helped, people would WANT to do those things. In other words, there is never a need to force people to do them because in a real emergency (if it was beneficial to do so) people would freely choose to do those precautions.
The way to tell that most people never thought masks were as useful or COVID was as dangerous as purported is to see how many never freely chose to mask up on airplanes when they didn't have to.
In a real emergency no one has to force people to take care of themselves. They do it freely. We just all had different beliefs about the best way to take care of ourselves, and that's okay. We will never need to mandate precautions because of this.
Exactly right. Free societies are well-equipped to deal with emergencies within their existing frameworks. In fact, it is in emergencies that free societies thrive and demonstrate their superiority over authoritarian ones. This piece from Mises early in the pandemic proved to be spot-on with the passage of time:
No, Authoritarian Governments Do Not Outperform "Open Societies" in a Crisis
"Those calling for swift action and pointing to China's quarantining multimillion-people cities as a "success recipe" to stop the contagion must believe either that the hierarchy properly transmits the right information and filters out irrelevant data (which is simply impossible) or that information does not matter (the horrific "we must do something" view, which will be deadlier than the virus).
It is true, as Danielle Pletka argues, that dictatorships only make pandemics worse. Swift, forceful action on the *wrong* information, or without respect for human life and liberties, is and can be nothing but disastrous. History is littered with examples of such regimes, and their track record is without exception abhorrent.
It may seem counterintuitive, but the truth is that decentralized decision-making and market-style systems always beat centralization and power—because they aggregate and condense information much more appropriately and because they allow for actions more appropriate to local conditions. I understand that fear, fueled by alarmism, can lead to panic and poor judgment. But the call for authoritarianism as a solution, regardless of the threat, is much worse than poor judgment.
It is not only ignorance of how hierarchies work, but a type of ignorance that has historically always ended in mass murder. If it sounds like a quick fix, stay away. It may be quick but not a fix. It is incumbent upon us to not listen to the false prophets and to resist the temptation to believe impossible promises."
Thing is, it wasn't just libertarian publications that told us the truth early on. Even one of the CCP's offical English-language publications, The Global Times proved to tell us the truth of what would happen in a free, western liberal democracy if it chose to implement an authoritarian pandemic response in the middle of a crisis. And while it touts the superiority of its system, trying to sell other nations on its virtues, it recognizes one size does not fit all. It is, in all honesty, little different than how the US has touted the superiority of liberal democracy, sold other nations on its virtues. Flexing its soft power.
Global Times, April 22, 2020, "COVID-19 reveals countries’ differing capacity"
"The key to improving state capacity lies in how to boost the leading role of their own governance system, not breaking away or subverting the existing one."
"[Western countries] are subject to different systems and traditions that impede them from directly copying China. Even if they do, the effect will be just the opposite."
[Translation: Stick with what you do best in your nation. If you do liberal democracy lean into it during the pandemic, apply that governing model. Don't try to copy our system. It won't fit and you'll end up with an even worse outcome than us and than what you'd have had in your liberal democratic system. They gave good advice. They were right. Our own homegrown sophisticated betters ignored them.]
Even the World Health Organization echoed the CCP's March, 2020 message to western liberal democracies in its June, 2020 guidance on masking:
Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19
World Health Organization, Interim guidance, 5 June 2020
(p1) "According to the current evidence, COVID-19 virus is primarily transmitted between people via respiratory droplets and contact routes." [Note: the droplets route of transmission has since been proven to be false. As the Mises piece cautioned faith in authoritarianism requires one to, "believe that the hierarchy properly transmits the right information"]
(p.7) "The decision of governments and local jurisdictions whether to recommend or make mandatory the use of masks should be based on the above criteria, and on the local context, culture, availability of masks, resources required, and preferences of the population." [Translation: Before requiring masks you must know your culture, including being a western liberal democracy, with an educated populace with strong constitutional and cultural protections for individual liberty and freedom]
(p7-8) "Potential benefits/advantages
The likely advantages of the use of masks by healthy people in the general public include:
• reduced potential exposure risk from infected persons before they develop symptoms;
• reduced potential stigmatization of individuals wearing masks to prevent infecting others (source control) or of people caring for COVID-19 patients in non-clinical settings;
• making people feel they can play a role in contributing to stopping spread of the virus;
• reminding people to be compliant with other measures (e.g., hand hygiene, not touching nose and mouth). However, this can also have the reverse effect (see below);
• potential social and economic benefits. Amidst the global shortage of surgical masks and PPE, encouraging the public to create their own fabric masks may promote individual enterprise and community integration. Moreover, the production of non-medical masks may offer a source of income for those able to manufacture masks within their communities. Fabric masks can also be a form of cultural expression, encouraging public acceptance of protection measures in general. The safe re-use of fabric masks will also reduce costs and waste and contribute to sustainability."
[Note: Every single "benefit" listed is based in social and behavioral science, not medical science. With the first one listed subsequently disproved when the small droplet route of transmission proved false]
Potential harms/disadvantages
"The likely disadvantages of the use of mask by healthy people in the general public include:
• potential increased risk of self-contamination due to the manipulation of a face mask and subsequently touching eyes with contaminated hands;
• potential self-contamination that can occur if nonmedical masks are not changed when wet or soiled. This can create favourable conditions for microorganism to amplify;
• potential headache and/or breathing difficulties, depending on type of mask used;
• potential development of facial skin lesions, irritant dermatitis or worsening acne, when used frequently for long hours;
• difficulty with communicating clearly;
• potential discomfort;
• a false sense of security, leading to potentially lower adherence to other critical preventive measures such as physical distancing and hand hygiene;
• poor compliance with mask wearing, in particular by young children;
• waste management issues; improper mask disposal leading to increased litter in public places, risk of
contamination to street cleaners and environment hazard;
• difficulty communicating for deaf persons who rely on lip reading;
• disadvantages for or difficulty wearing them, especially for children, developmentally challenged persons, those with mental illness, elderly persons with cognitive impairment, those with asthma or chronic respiratory or breathing problems, those who have had facial trauma or recent oral maxillofacial surgery, and those living in hot and humid environments."
[Note: Every single "potential harm/disadvantage" has been proved true. Real, actual harms, only now, two years later being acknowledged and addressed by authorities. Yet still being ignored in jurisdictions where mask mandates are still required or have been reinstated]
"If masks are recommended for the general public, the decision-maker should:
• clearly communicate the purpose of wearing a mask, where, when, how and what type of mask should be worn. Explain what wearing a mask may achieve and what it will not achieve, and communicate clearly that this is one part of a package of measures along with hand hygiene, physical distancing and other measures that are all necessary and all reinforce each other;
• inform/train people on when and how to use masks safely (see mask management and maintenance sections), i.e. put on, wear, remove, clean and dispose;
• consider the feasibility of use, supply/access issues, social and psychological acceptance (of both wearing and not wearing different types of masks in different contexts);
• continue gathering scientific data and evidence on the effectiveness of mask use (including different types and makes as well as other face covers such as scarves) in non-health care settings;
• evaluate the impact (positive, neutral or negative) of using masks in the general population (including behavioral and social sciences)."
[Note: Have any of these WHO recommendations been followed where masks have been required? I've not seen any of them. I only remember hearing, "Just wear the damn mask." demands from Governors (Colorado's Jared Polis), Biden, and other national and local health officials and judges imposing sentences admonishing the disobedient for their "dangerous and selfish exercise of freedom."]
If it was a real emergency and wearing a mask or getting a vaccine helped, people would WANT to do those things. In other words, there is never a need to force people to do them because in a real emergency (if it was beneficial to do so) people would freely choose to do those precautions.
The way to tell that most people never thought masks were as useful or COVID was as dangerous as purported is to see how many never freely chose to mask up on airplanes when they didn't have to.
In a real emergency no one has to force people to take care of themselves. They do it freely. We just all had different beliefs about the best way to take care of ourselves, and that's okay. We will never need to mandate precautions because of this.
Exactly right. Free societies are well-equipped to deal with emergencies within their existing frameworks. In fact, it is in emergencies that free societies thrive and demonstrate their superiority over authoritarian ones. This piece from Mises early in the pandemic proved to be spot-on with the passage of time:
No, Authoritarian Governments Do Not Outperform "Open Societies" in a Crisis
Mises Institute, March 13, 2020
https://mises.org/power-market/no-authoritarian-governments-do-not-outperform-open-societies-crisis
"Those calling for swift action and pointing to China's quarantining multimillion-people cities as a "success recipe" to stop the contagion must believe either that the hierarchy properly transmits the right information and filters out irrelevant data (which is simply impossible) or that information does not matter (the horrific "we must do something" view, which will be deadlier than the virus).
It is true, as Danielle Pletka argues, that dictatorships only make pandemics worse. Swift, forceful action on the *wrong* information, or without respect for human life and liberties, is and can be nothing but disastrous. History is littered with examples of such regimes, and their track record is without exception abhorrent.
It may seem counterintuitive, but the truth is that decentralized decision-making and market-style systems always beat centralization and power—because they aggregate and condense information much more appropriately and because they allow for actions more appropriate to local conditions. I understand that fear, fueled by alarmism, can lead to panic and poor judgment. But the call for authoritarianism as a solution, regardless of the threat, is much worse than poor judgment.
It is not only ignorance of how hierarchies work, but a type of ignorance that has historically always ended in mass murder. If it sounds like a quick fix, stay away. It may be quick but not a fix. It is incumbent upon us to not listen to the false prophets and to resist the temptation to believe impossible promises."
Thing is, it wasn't just libertarian publications that told us the truth early on. Even one of the CCP's offical English-language publications, The Global Times proved to tell us the truth of what would happen in a free, western liberal democracy if it chose to implement an authoritarian pandemic response in the middle of a crisis. And while it touts the superiority of its system, trying to sell other nations on its virtues, it recognizes one size does not fit all. It is, in all honesty, little different than how the US has touted the superiority of liberal democracy, sold other nations on its virtues. Flexing its soft power.
Global Times, April 22, 2020, "COVID-19 reveals countries’ differing capacity"
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202004/1186435.shtml
"The key to improving state capacity lies in how to boost the leading role of their own governance system, not breaking away or subverting the existing one."
"[Western countries] are subject to different systems and traditions that impede them from directly copying China. Even if they do, the effect will be just the opposite."
[Translation: Stick with what you do best in your nation. If you do liberal democracy lean into it during the pandemic, apply that governing model. Don't try to copy our system. It won't fit and you'll end up with an even worse outcome than us and than what you'd have had in your liberal democratic system. They gave good advice. They were right. Our own homegrown sophisticated betters ignored them.]
Even the World Health Organization echoed the CCP's March, 2020 message to western liberal democracies in its June, 2020 guidance on masking:
Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19
World Health Organization, Interim guidance, 5 June 2020
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/332293/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.4-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
(p1) "According to the current evidence, COVID-19 virus is primarily transmitted between people via respiratory droplets and contact routes." [Note: the droplets route of transmission has since been proven to be false. As the Mises piece cautioned faith in authoritarianism requires one to, "believe that the hierarchy properly transmits the right information"]
(p.7) "The decision of governments and local jurisdictions whether to recommend or make mandatory the use of masks should be based on the above criteria, and on the local context, culture, availability of masks, resources required, and preferences of the population." [Translation: Before requiring masks you must know your culture, including being a western liberal democracy, with an educated populace with strong constitutional and cultural protections for individual liberty and freedom]
(p7-8) "Potential benefits/advantages
The likely advantages of the use of masks by healthy people in the general public include:
• reduced potential exposure risk from infected persons before they develop symptoms;
• reduced potential stigmatization of individuals wearing masks to prevent infecting others (source control) or of people caring for COVID-19 patients in non-clinical settings;
• making people feel they can play a role in contributing to stopping spread of the virus;
• reminding people to be compliant with other measures (e.g., hand hygiene, not touching nose and mouth). However, this can also have the reverse effect (see below);
• potential social and economic benefits. Amidst the global shortage of surgical masks and PPE, encouraging the public to create their own fabric masks may promote individual enterprise and community integration. Moreover, the production of non-medical masks may offer a source of income for those able to manufacture masks within their communities. Fabric masks can also be a form of cultural expression, encouraging public acceptance of protection measures in general. The safe re-use of fabric masks will also reduce costs and waste and contribute to sustainability."
[Note: Every single "benefit" listed is based in social and behavioral science, not medical science. With the first one listed subsequently disproved when the small droplet route of transmission proved false]
Potential harms/disadvantages
"The likely disadvantages of the use of mask by healthy people in the general public include:
• potential increased risk of self-contamination due to the manipulation of a face mask and subsequently touching eyes with contaminated hands;
• potential self-contamination that can occur if nonmedical masks are not changed when wet or soiled. This can create favourable conditions for microorganism to amplify;
• potential headache and/or breathing difficulties, depending on type of mask used;
• potential development of facial skin lesions, irritant dermatitis or worsening acne, when used frequently for long hours;
• difficulty with communicating clearly;
• potential discomfort;
• a false sense of security, leading to potentially lower adherence to other critical preventive measures such as physical distancing and hand hygiene;
• poor compliance with mask wearing, in particular by young children;
• waste management issues; improper mask disposal leading to increased litter in public places, risk of
contamination to street cleaners and environment hazard;
• difficulty communicating for deaf persons who rely on lip reading;
• disadvantages for or difficulty wearing them, especially for children, developmentally challenged persons, those with mental illness, elderly persons with cognitive impairment, those with asthma or chronic respiratory or breathing problems, those who have had facial trauma or recent oral maxillofacial surgery, and those living in hot and humid environments."
[Note: Every single "potential harm/disadvantage" has been proved true. Real, actual harms, only now, two years later being acknowledged and addressed by authorities. Yet still being ignored in jurisdictions where mask mandates are still required or have been reinstated]
"If masks are recommended for the general public, the decision-maker should:
• clearly communicate the purpose of wearing a mask, where, when, how and what type of mask should be worn. Explain what wearing a mask may achieve and what it will not achieve, and communicate clearly that this is one part of a package of measures along with hand hygiene, physical distancing and other measures that are all necessary and all reinforce each other;
• inform/train people on when and how to use masks safely (see mask management and maintenance sections), i.e. put on, wear, remove, clean and dispose;
• consider the feasibility of use, supply/access issues, social and psychological acceptance (of both wearing and not wearing different types of masks in different contexts);
• continue gathering scientific data and evidence on the effectiveness of mask use (including different types and makes as well as other face covers such as scarves) in non-health care settings;
• evaluate the impact (positive, neutral or negative) of using masks in the general population (including behavioral and social sciences)."
[Note: Have any of these WHO recommendations been followed where masks have been required? I've not seen any of them. I only remember hearing, "Just wear the damn mask." demands from Governors (Colorado's Jared Polis), Biden, and other national and local health officials and judges imposing sentences admonishing the disobedient for their "dangerous and selfish exercise of freedom."]
(1/2)