Please show your friends and family if they’re still in the official narrative.
If the world was even faintly normal, this story should at least get a mention on main TV networks. The people surely would want to hear the other side of the argument, that ceding any power whatsoever, let alone potentially some sovereignty in a situation where some kind of public health “emergency”, is extremely troubling.
It’s irrational on its face.
If there ever was a really serious public health emergency, the one thing we can be sure of is that NOBODY knows the optimal response. Nobody.
Centralising power in an unelected, unaccountable, supranational body is unbelievably dangerous as well as anti-democratic.
Worse, because of the way WHO itself is constituted, that power would be in the hands of a single individual, who is neither a biological scientist or medical doctor.
Because NOBODY knows the optimal response, centralising power guarantees several things.
1. The wrong things will be ordered by the WHO (even if they were being benign).
2. Nothing will be learned. Humans innovate to learn, by comparing outcomes of differing policy, chosen locally or nationally. That’ll be lost.
Centralising decision making in crisis situations is about the most dangerous thing you could allow to happen.
Does anyone believe that the policy responses should be the same in a city in the tropics (where flu really isn’t a public health threat), a city in the near arctic & one in a temperate region? The extent to which acute respiratory illnesses have ever been public health emergencies differs starkly in different regions.
Now superimpose additional considerations, such as the demographic profile, of a particular nation. Nations whose population grew rapidly over the last 25y are much less susceptible to illnesses which impact elderly people predominantly. A number of “post-industrial” nations have seen their birth rates fall for half a century and, as a result, have large elderly populations.
There are also social & cultural factors to which the people in a particular location have due regard, when deciding what to do.
The current model that’s being imposed very firmly is a utilitarian maximisation approach. Put another way, the fearmongerers appear to believe that, no matter the impact on others, no stone should be left unturned, no “measures” unapplied, if one more granny can be “saved”.
I submit that for real, practical reasons, centralising power in GLOBAL public health emergencies is tough to beat, if your objective is to maximise suffering and minimise lessons learned.
Do not let your government sign away your rights and freedoms. Any government so doing is committing treason against the people and deserves sanctions appropriate to such crimes (after due process, of course),
Best wishes
Mike
Show more ...