The hierarchical arguments against the Covid interventions

The hierarchical arguments against the Covid interventions.

(1) NO EMERGENCY

The data showed it was a nothing burger even in early March 2020.

(2) CONFUSION JUSTIFIES NOTHING

Even if the data were unclear, uncertainty doesn’t justify overturning society.

(3) PRONE TO SEE THE APOCALYPSE

Even if the data about a perceived pandemic appeared certain, one must doubt it, as people have an instinctual fear of the mythical pandemic, and are prone to seeing one where there is not.

(4) INTERVENTIONS DON’T WORK

The interventions didn’t slow the spread, were recommended against as of 2019, and were only done out of panic, looking to be doing something, and copycatting other nations.

(5) INTERVENTION HARMS

Even if the interventions had narrowly slowed the spread, no cost-benefit analysis was done demonstrating that the benefits outweighed the harms. Instead, the one thing — infections — received infinite weight to all else. The interventions in fact had epic harms.

(6) CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

Even if the interventions had narrowly slowed the spread and cost-benefit analyses were in its favor (and we could trust the analysis wasn’t biased), such analyses never consider the inevitable creation of an “unclean” out group, those skeptical of the interventions thrust upon society, who can easily become the victims of democide, and if that happens the mainstream community will only say to themselves, “Good riddance.”

(7) VOLUNTARY

Even if the interventions worked and had no harms of any kind, people would do them voluntarily.

(8) INVIOLABILITY

Even if the interventions worked etc. and people wouldn’t do them voluntarily, our civil liberties are FOR the perceived emergencies.