No. We’re not accepting apologies for interventions that would be unethical even if they had worked
Civil liberties don’t depend on data
THEM: Given what we knew, we were doing the righteous life-saving interventions any good government would do.
US: We knew, we told you, and you demonized us. And whether the interventions work is irrelevant: civil liberties prevent you from doing them EVEN IF THEY WORKED.
No. We’re not forgiving anyone until
we tally the damage
all those responsible are charged
they admit the evil they did.
In short, there’s no right way to do the wrong thing.
Excellent point! The argument should always have been ethical and maybe emotional. It is a dogma like religion now and reason does not work against that. I don't know if you are aware of Neil Oliver who is a braodcaster on GB News in the UK? He said his reaction to the first lockdown was primal. As if a lizard part of his brain woke up and said there's a kind of danger he's never encountered before. I think a lot of us felt that and we should've used those primal feelings to fight back instead of trying to use logic, it was like bringing a knife to a gun fight. I think part of the reason they got away wth it initially was because it was only suppposed to last a couple of weeks, then it was a fait accompli, no way back.