Viral Panic

Situated between Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties on the California coast, Ventura County boasts a population of about 850,000, living amidst pristine beaches, occasionally snowcapped mountains, and plentiful farmland. Since April, Ventura County’s 7-day rolling average for deaths attributed to Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2) has only barely exceeded 2 a handful of times, and for the past 14 days our County has had one death due to the Coronavirus. Only 0.02% of the population has succumbed to Covid-19 and to the best of my ability to determine, all of these poor souls were elderly and/or had comorbidities.

The number of cases per 100,000 has now increased to over 15, but (thank God) while some are being hospitalized, and some even have been placed in Intensive Care Units (ICU), there are still plenty of hospital beds and ventilators in the County. Yet, Ventura County was relegated to the most restrictive of California’s four-tier system along with much of the State before Thanksgiving even though not many people are dying and the hospitals are not being overrun. When reflecting on the data and what governments have done in an attempt to “flatten the curve” or “stop the spread,” why is there such a great disconnect between the lethality of the Coronavirus and governmental response to it?

In The Price of Panic, Douglas Axe, William M. Briggs, and Jay W. Richards offer a contemporaneous answer to this question while at the same time exploring alternative ways to deal with the pandemic that are not violations of mere social norms, let alone the inalienable rights that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. There have been violations of the free exercise of religion and the right to peacefully assemble, both enshrined in the First Amendment. The Second Amendment’s guarantee of right to keep and bear arms, which is fundamental to allowing a free people to defend themselves against both criminals and the government has also been restricted; this is particularly important when the government does not protect its people from criminals. The sanctity of private households, the Fourth Amendment, has been disregarded. Presently in most of California, you are not supposed to have any friends or family over to your house. Many governments have disregarded the right of due process and property, which as part of the Fifth Amendment are not to be ignored. The Twenty-First Amendment’s guarantee to drink liquids of one’s choice is in many places functionally returning to the Eighteenth Amendment. While some may quibble at “intoxicating liquors” as an inalienable right, the ability to drink such liquids is certainly part of the natural law tradition.

Panicked Models

The first part of the book focuses on how the media (both mainstream and social), spread news about the Coronavirus in a viral fashion. This panic was induced by the actual noticing of deaths due to Covid-19 and obsessing over the number of cases, rather than those that were actually really sick or dying rather than merely infected. Further, the media offered no actual context to the number of deaths—that is, no context within which the public might have attempted to understand the threat.

For example, alongside never-ending daily updates of cases, the media never thought to compare this virus to a more-deadly-than-usual annual influenza like the Swine Flu (H1N1, 2009), or the calamitous Spanish Flu (H1N1, 1918-20) that killed approximately fifty million of the five hundred million infected. A lack of context is always dangerous; lacking context on the dangers of this virus led to a media panic.

Public officials were in many cases all too happy to regulate the minutia of individuals’ lives in response to the panic. The experts and the politicians always had a supposedly irrefutable answer for why they trampled on individual’s rights: We’re following the science! However, what is meant by the science here? The authors rightly identify the provenance of the panic as mathematical-cum-statistical models. Thus, the science is not the science of test tubes and petri dishes, but of computer models.

There were two models that lead to the Covid-19 hysteria: Imperial College London’s Medical Research Council (MRC) Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis and University of Washington’s Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME); following The Price of Panic. I’ll refer to these, respectively, as the Imperial College and IHME models. Every model, which is a formal way to describe part of reality, has a dichotomous tension as well as choice between two purposes. The tensity is between overfitting or underfitting the data, that is, scientists hope to avoid the dangers of either a model with large variance or large bias. The goal is to have a model with low variance (it is able to model similar situations with different data) and low bias (it models the given data very well.) They must also choose between a model that is used to explain and one that is used to predict. While some models can be both explanatory and predictive, generally a model will only excel at one of the two. A model with both high variance and high bias, results in a model that produces the greatest possible prediction error. Axe, et al. persuasively argue that both the Imperial College and IHME models are guilty of this double-sin.

The authors point out the Imperial College model, which the World Health Organization (WHO) relied on in early March of this year, was predicting 40 million deaths worldwide and 2.2 million of those in the United States. This would mean Covid-19 would be as dangerous as the Spanish Flu, which came on the heels of World War I and with the rudimentary medical science of a century ago. Not only was the model incorrect in its mortality predictions by late March by a factor of two thousand times, there were numerous issues with its methodology, code, replicability, and complexity. For example, the Imperial College model assumed that there is no natural immunity to Covid-19 (which given how children fight the virus is prima facie at least a questionable assumption) and their code was riddled with errors that gave inconsistent outputs based on different inputs.

Like the Imperial College model, the IHME model was in the business of making a number of predictions, but unlike the Imperial College model it did give plus-or-minus bounds for each one of them, e.g. the number of US hospital beds that would be needed on April 14: 13,000 to 192,000. That is certainly a wide range of values, particularly when you realize this prediction was made the day before on April 13th! In sum, for both of these models, politicians and health officials took worst-case scenarios from dubious models as if they personified religious truth, and then bandied the models about with the fervor of the most extreme fundamentalist resulting in lockdowns, social distancing, and masks. The use of these models turned a pandemic into a catastrophe.

Panicked Tyranny

While there is no evidence that imposing lockdowns, social distancing, or masking on everyone was helpful in “flattening the curve” or “stopping the spread,” I’ll just consider the most egregious of these three measures from a liberty standpoint, viz. lockdowns; however, much of what I say here about lockdowns can be extended to social distancing, masks, etc. There are a number important questions with respect to lockdowns that while being asked, have not been afforded the national and local discussions they deserve.

Are lockdowns legal? I cannot be alone in my surprise at how many “emergency powers” governors, mayors, and appointed governmental executives like Directors of Public Health have over us. If all a governor has to do is to close down, say, gun stores is to declare an emergency and then use emergency powers from his own declaration, then we should all be concerned about such power being left unchallenged. The legislatures, boards of supervisors, or city councils, should stand against actions of executive tyranny, but they have remained silent with a handful of exceptions or have been even more extreme than the executives whose power they should temper. The courts exist to thwart excessive governmental power, but sadly as is the norm in the United States, some judges uphold the Constitution while others play the role of both executives and legislatures, but not jurists. That being said, there does thankfully finally seem to be a trend toward courts being more respectful of the rights of the individual particularly with respect to the dicta of governors.

Even if the lockdowns are legal and effective in stopping the spread (more on that below), are they morally justified? Is it appropriate to radically alter society due to a single virus that has over a 99% survival rate in the general population, and much higher for those who are not elderly and/or suffering from comorbidities? There is not a sound moral argument that demonstrates that the Coronavirus should be used as a reason to not allow people get cancer treatment or other life-saving medical treatments. It is not moral to consider the dangers of Covid-19 without considering the expense of more children being abused. It is unconscionable to not protect those that are truly susceptible to the dangers of Covid-19, while forcing protection on those of us that don’t need it. It is demonic to destroy social ties and jobs with the result of growing feelings of isolation and an increase in the number of suicides without a consideration for any illness except the Coronavirus.

The authors of The Price of Panic conclude that Americans’ response to the pandemic panic could decide if America continues to exist with a government of the people, by the people, for the people or instead with a government of the experts, by the experts, for the experts with their all too willing politicians excited to have any excuse to not let a crisis go to waste.

Over the last few weeks, I have spoken to owners and employees at a number of breweries and gastropubs across six counties in Southern California as they were facing the inevitable lockdown and ban on outside eating. It is absurd that these businesses spend so much money obeying the whims of California’s government while trying to stay afloat, only to be shut down over and over again. There is a steep economic and mental cost to these lockdowns which cannot be ignored in the name of so-called science.

In introductory ethics, one is often given some forced-choice problem such as saving a baby or saving ten elderly people. To strain the metaphor, those supporting the lockdowns approached this dilemma by killing the baby and nine of the elderly in order to save one person with Covid. Perhaps one could make a utilitarian argument, faulty as it would be, for the lockdowns if Covid-19 actually was Spanish Flu-level dangerous as it was originally thought to be, but even then that argument would still have to be made—and it ought to have been debated in state legislatures across the nation. The rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the very foundation of the United States and lockdowns are anathema to all three of these principles.

Perhaps the legal and moral questions are not persuasive, or you are naively willing to cut the government some slack to supposedly save lives. But if the lockdowns are a failure in practice, then Americans are enduring violations of their legal and moral rights for no reason whatsoever. If the lockdowns could really alter the course of the pandemic, then the number of cases (and hence, deaths) should have dropped significantly whenever lockdowns took place (with the necessary ten day or so time lag.) As the authors perceptively point out, when looking at a graph of confirmed cases or cumulative cases for a country or state that had a lockdown without knowing when the lockdown occurred there is no way to guess when the lockdown actually occurred. This surely makes one question the efficacy of lockdowns. Axe, et al. also compare US states that had ranged from severe lockdowns to limited infringements on civil liberties; and the conclusion is that all states began to level off with the number of cases whether or not there were lockdowns due to undoubtedly a myriad of factors such as the changing seasons and the onset of herd immunity. While there is no clear evidence that lockdowns do work, neither is there any evidence that they do not work. For such an extreme measure to be enforced on a free people, we need better arguments to give up our liberties and humanity than we have thus far.

Lessons from Panic

I am left with a few thoughts after reading this impressively concise book, one written on a firm deadline regarding a dynamic situation with the goal of informing the general public of the perils that are associated with the pandemic panic. The authors did an excellent job explaining complex topics and tracing the evolution of our present pandemic predicament.

The manifest hypocrisy of so many of the political leaders who are at the forefront of the tyranny highlights that they do not believe the so-called experts but merely use their pronouncements that without tyranny there will be of millions of deaths as an excuse to violate the liberties of those they loath the most: small business owners, religious believers, gun owners, and Trump supporters. This leads to the second thought: we cannot but see so much of the governmental overreach as a harbinger of when governments around the world declare “Climate Change” to be a health emergency. It too will be based on faulty and unreliable models, and the political leaders will still take private jets and as they hope to ban gas combustion cars for the serfs. “Climate Change” is, don’t forget, an existential threat.

I am in no rush to die; I hope to grow old with my wife, watch my children grow into adulthood, be blessed with grandchildren, and so much more. But I know that I am going to die. The vagaries of life mean that it could happen at any moment, and there is no governmental power of earth that will stop me from dying. The inalienable pursuits of life, liberty, and happiness do not mean that I will live with wanton abandon, but with prudence. The virus justified commandments from different levels of government do not allow me to practice that virtue, but rather constrain my liberties and freedom; they shrink who I am as a human. Lockdowns, mask mandates, and social distancing that apply to everyone are not effective tools against the Coronavirus, but they are effective tools against allowing humans to interact with one another. I don’t fear Covid, but I do fear the destruction of that which binds us together as humans: socializing, reading expressions, and human touch.

It is telling, of course, that many politicians only rely on the experts that grant them the power to control people’s lives, with regrettably few exceptions. The authors of The Price of Panic conclude that Americans’ response to the pandemic panic could decide if America continues to exist with a government of the people, by the people, for the people or instead with a government of the experts, by the experts, for the experts with their all too willing politicians excited to have any excuse to not let a crisis go to waste. Lamentably, I concur with the authors’ verdict.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on December 16, 2020 at 09:56:24 am

Yup. Yup to all of it. Only moreso. We live in low, desultory times. But these are not desultory times for our would-be betters and overlords, our pharisaical media-tech-political class. They, unquestionably, have plans; plans for us, plans for their own ascendency.

read full comment
Image of Michael Bond
Michael Bond
on December 16, 2020 at 16:29:00 pm

I agree that they have plans however, if they try to implement these plans the USA as it exists today will come to an end. States will secede and new countries will come out of it.

read full comment
Image of Todd
on December 16, 2020 at 09:57:55 am

A fantastic article summarizing the reality of Covid vis-a-vis the response. The quick trigger to the abuse of rights under the guise of "what has to be done" has been pulled many times throughout history, and demands light be shed upon it. The Ventura County example (and others like it) is so integral to demonstrating the total disconnect between threat and response. Curiously, these same government entities let riots burn a city without a response, but violate whole populations because of a theoretical risk of a 99.9% survivable threat. And worse, those wielding the power demonstrate no remorse or contrition in their actions, they instead revel in it. They diminish those that complain to justify it. They use the overwhelming power of government to attack them for daring to resist being abused. Taken in part, the actions are misguided. Taken in their entirety, the actions demonstrate wielding raw political power.

read full comment
Image of Edmund
on December 17, 2020 at 13:17:47 pm

Regarding the plague and the economic reset, while traveling the internet today, I stumbled upon this:

* COVID-19 Destroys the Weakest and Poorest Dr. Joseph Mercola
* COVID-19 has been called the great equalizer, but nothing could be further from the truth. The disease clearly affects certain groups far worse than others, and the countermeasures implemented to quell the outbreak have been a phenomenal boon for wealthy globalists while decimating the lives of the rest.
* While 45.5 million Americans filed for unemployment due to pandemic lockdowns, 29 new billionaires were created. The five richest men in the U.S. grew their wealth by a total of $101.7 billion (26%), between March 18 and June 17, 2020, alone
* Now, as reckless government overreach has destroyed many small businesses and engineered catastrophic unemployment around the world, world leaders are joining the World Economic Forum in calling for a Great Reset of the global economy that will benefit wealthy powerbrokers while enslaving and impoverishing everyone else.”

read full comment
Image of N.D.
on December 16, 2020 at 11:29:02 am

Hmmm! How am I to address Brendan Purdy, Ph.D.?
Let me count the ways: as "Mr." if "he" is among Purdy's pronouns, or as "Professor" if Purdy teaches and is tenured; or maybe, like "Dr. Jill Biden," as "Dr." if he, as she, lacks self-esteem, requires flattery and self-inflation for ego-enhancement, and seeks to impress by virtue of formal title. Yet, Purdy seems of much stronger stuff than Dr. Jill, and, in any case, unlike her, he is degreed-up in important scientific fields of expertise, including mathematics (how would Pascal address Purdy?,) and Purdy writes the essai (how would Pascal's unwanted idol, Montaigne, address Purdy?). Unlike Dr. Biden's fields of mere "education" and political opinionating, Purdy's endeavors are ones in which learning is intellectually demanding, advanced degrees are not handed out like candy at a Halloween party, and writing is rigorous. It hardly seems fair to call the academically-elevated, verbally-perspicacious Purdy "Dr." if the commonplace-scholarship and lowly-worm opinionating of Mrs. Biden also warrant such a formal salutation.

So, I will go with "Purdy" and say that Purdy has produced yet another fine review of what appears to be yet another rare book, that though new is worthy of its price and time.

I must express my especial gratitude for the (author's and reviewer's) succinct summation of the national crisis which has arisen from our national propensity toward rote deference to soi-disant "expertise,'' which, looking at the abundant empirical and scientific evidence amassed in the past 9 months of pandemic-excused, massive home incarceration and economic destruction, the whole world now knows to be an "expertise" which was not solidly science-based but, rather, was founded instead on the crassly self-serving, shamefully dishonest, politically-saturated sands of scientism, and is, in fact, not expertise at all, but rather a mere false veneer of unwarranted scientific credibility for bureaucratic authoritarians who cannot be trusted with unrestrained legal authority, a constitutional conclusion all the more compelling given that such politically-motivated scientism and its pseudo-scientist, bureaucratic exponents are, in fact, controlled lock, stock and barrel by politicians who too often are imbued with indifference, if not hostility, to the welfare of political opponents and who display neither the wisdom and maturity, the legal impartiality, the moral integrity, nor the true scientific expertise to judge existential tradeoffs between outcomes with dire consequences.

Finally and most importantly, Purdy provides an ominous warning: We must beware the ideology of climate change scientism, by comparison to which the ideology of China Virus scientism is small ball and through which those who would rule over us seek to gain the whole world while we lose our freedom in it. There is nowhere near a valid "consensus on the science" of climate change, but there is an illicit, existentially dangerous, ideological alliance around the use of climate change scientism as a weapon of mass destruction.

Purdy's book review and the book from which it arose sound "a fire bell in the night." There must be no more undue deference to the crypto-scientism of incompetent, if not malign, political rulers. Until the regulatory judgements of civil authorities shows themselves to be morally, scientifically and legally worthy of deference, a "nation under God" must use the courts and the voting booth to take back their country.

read full comment
Image of paladin
on December 16, 2020 at 12:06:45 pm

What a ridiculous load of twisted half-truths and lies... There are 2,400 people dying every day from Covid. The death toll in less than one year is already higher than that of Americans killed in ALL of WW2. Masks, distancing and shutdowns are PROVEN ways of reducing the spread. The virus was nearly knocked out last Summer when the states that were initially hit hard closed down and required masks. THEN the Southern (aka Republican-led) states, like Florida, began to get hit and they did NOTHING, until it was so out-of-hand they had to close down, by which point it was spreading everywhere else again.

The author should also explain how any Covid measures are somehow restricting 2nd-amendment rights. That's just plain stupid. As for the 4th amendment, that says you can't force people to give shelter to troops. It says NOTHING about a right to have people over to your house for parties. And the right to drink alcohol has not been infringed. You just have to do it at home. Boohoo snowflakes.

Wearing a mask and distancing are just a civic-duty right now. Like supporting the troops. You DO support the troops don't you?

read full comment
Image of William Higa
William Higa
on December 16, 2020 at 13:42:51 pm

It is a cold virus that doesn't kill many people. If you want us to destroy the economy due to COVID-19 what will you demand that we do when something dangerous comes along?

I think you lack context. COVID does not kill healthy people so why lock them up? And if the data indicates that COVID reduces deaths from the flu, pneumonia, lung cancers, and heart disease, where is the problem? Adjust the data to identify the correct causality and there is no problem. Keep it as it is, and you have to conclude that COVID is a cure for a lot of other diseases. Again, where is the problem?

There was a time when science needed paying attention to the scientific method and was not political. There was a time when dead people could not vote in your country and when courts were ruthless on governments that overstepped their bounds. I suggest that those were better days and your compliance to false authority and willingness to bend the knee would make your country an even worse place than it has become.

read full comment
Image of Vangel Vesovski
Vangel Vesovski
on December 16, 2020 at 15:14:54 pm

Actually, New York, California, Illinois and other "Mask Mandated" states have a higher rate of infection than does Florida or Texas. And the worst "epicenter" was in the New York, New Jersey metroplex NOT in Florida or Texas.
Get back to MSNBC and try to get more ill considered, ill informed misinformation.

read full comment
Image of gabe
on December 17, 2020 at 15:46:13 pm

I've lived in my Florida town 45 years. I own a service activity used by a significant number of people. I don't know anyone who has died from the virus. My 78 year old brother in law contracted the virus in a hospital but returned home two weeks later. If matters are as you described, what accounts for my experience? The pandemic's threat is more political than medical.

read full comment
Image of Harry Taft
Harry Taft
on December 16, 2020 at 13:34:27 pm

A brilliant commentary, Brendan. I just bought the Kindle version of the book.

This crisis should be a lesson for those who do not understand how French citizens wound up supporting mass murder in the name of liberty, Russians in the name of equality, and Germans in the name of national purity. Only the children of the enlightenment can make an idol out of science and not see the irony.

read full comment
Image of Vangel Vesovski
Vangel Vesovski
on December 16, 2020 at 14:20:47 pm

Mr. Higa's comment is very useful.

It contains glaring errors that could have been avoided by less than a minute's internet searching. For example, it is the Third Amendment that prohibits quartering of troops, not the Fourth. The death toll from COVID, even if taken at face value, is about 75% of the number of Americans killed in World War II (407,000). Mr. Higa's comment contains obvious lapses in logic. He does not explain how COVID policies in Southern states led to a wave of new infections in Japan, Europe, and even South Korea. In addition to errors of fact and logic, he demonstrates a basic gullibility when he asserts that masks, distancing and shutdowns are proven, or rather PROVEN, to work, when the very best that can be said of such an assertion is that the evidence is conflicting, but favoring the opposite conclusion. The assertion that the efficacy of the subject interventions is proven requires an alternate and idiosyncratic definition of the word.

The reason why Mr. Higa's comment is useful is that it raises the question of why anyone would not only believe such poorly reasoned and counter-factual assertions, but seek to convince others of them. It gives some insight into those who will latch onto anything, whether it is demonstrably false, unverified, illogical, or arbitrary, in support of ideologies that apparently have other origins. It is a rather striking example of exactly what Mr. Higa seems to want to counter: the idea that COVID policies are concerned with something other than public health, and are based on things besides facts, science and basic reasoning.

read full comment
Image of z9z99
on December 16, 2020 at 14:27:54 pm

Glad you posted this. I was wondering how such a shallow mind found its way to Law & Liberty. There'll be no refuge from the trolls soon.

read full comment
Image of Mike Timmer
Mike Timmer
on December 16, 2020 at 15:09:24 pm

The daily tally of Covid deaths is bannered on all of the major media sites in an almost perversely, prideful way....300,000 AMERICAN DEATHS! NEXT TARGET 350,000 BY FEBRUARY! Then they go out of their way to shame people if they don't wear a mask. After all, if you don't wear a mask, you can't be a good human being. I mean, if you don't wear a mask, then you're the reason so many have died.

There's an interesting statistic, unadvertised, that never makes the headlines, never quoted by the leftist "Karens" out there that are so concerned with saving the world from the 2020 pandemic. This year ALONE over 860,000 American babies were killed in our government sanctioned abortion clinics (almost 3X the number of Covid deaths).

We are more concerned about how we can prevent the loss of life in the morbidly obese, the aged, the asthmatic, diabetic crowd which MIGHT BE at risk, then we are about the WILLFUL slaughter of babies that have no way of defending their lives.

I know I sound heartless...I'm not...just trying to throw some truth into the mix.

read full comment
Image of James
on December 16, 2020 at 15:21:53 pm

Mr. Higa's comment, as Z points out, is very helpful in that it so clearly embodies and reflects the essential nature of the crass politicization of science that is scientism. But, besides its value as a qualitative reference, Higa's opinion has great quantitative value, as well. How so ever many votes, legal and unlawful, were received by presidential candidate Joe Biden, that is the numerical political strength of the opposition which must be defeated in the courts and at the voting booth if we are ever again rationally and honestly to "follow science," rather than emotionally to be deceived and led by scientism in national public debate.

read full comment
Image of paladin
on December 16, 2020 at 16:37:50 pm

There are at least two important lessons learned from scientism's destructive regulatory response to the China Virus: 1) Government must not continue obdurately to profess to "follow the science" even when it leads down a rat-hole and many months after we have learned that the best public health response is not home-imprisonment with cloth masks and six feet of separation and that closing small businesses inflicts more economic, physical, mental, and moral harm than it prevents, and 2) by empirically observing the health vulnerabilities of the entire public, the "science" of illness resistance must come to recognize that public health is both social and individual because man was created a social being, not a solitary animal, who survives and thrives best in community. If we are to protect public health and save lives we must strengthen resilience by reducing, not exacerbating, social isolation and by mitigating, not worsening, fear.

King Lear in the storm demonstrated what Hobbes taught, perhaps from Shakespeare: that in a state of nature man is a beast with "no arts; no letters; no society; and... worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man (is) solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Thus, the key to combating the China Virus Plague is not masks and lock-downs but, as Professor Gunderman argues elsewhere on L&L, "... to recognize that health is as much a social as an individual attribute (and) to look at communal patterns of life...(and to ask questions and seek solutions) at the level of neighborhoods, drawing out the interplay between social connectedness and resilience in the face of disaster."

read full comment
Image of paladin
on December 16, 2020 at 19:19:50 pm

To me as a Ventura resident, this essay is meaningful. Its conclusions reflect my own thinking since the beginning of this virus episode. We are clearly in the midst of an epidemic of fear, which can be more harmful than the virus epidemic itself. If the virus's end is indeed approaching with the new vaccines, the fear epidemic may last much longer and do more harm to our national psyche than the virus itself. i predict that when the historians write of this period, they will be astounded at the arbitrary tyranny forced on the population, accompanied by the hypocrisy of those in authority. As an American, I am embarrassed and horrified at the ineptness and mendacity of so many of the politicians and "experts" who have advised them.

read full comment
Image of Jane Johnson
Jane Johnson
on December 16, 2020 at 21:01:28 pm

While I agree with everything the author says, I think he lets the American people off to lightly. The political leaders did not impose their tyranny in a vacuum - many people supported them and in fact demanded more. I know many people who are falling all over themselves to show their servitude. I know many people who hysterically say unmasked people should be arrested and people violating lockdowns shot. We get the government we deserve.

read full comment
Image of Bark Wonley
Bark Wonley
on December 17, 2020 at 06:06:32 am
Image of Maine's own Handy N Handsome
Maine's own Handy N Handsome
on December 17, 2020 at 15:14:32 pm

“The public is told, he says, that with respect to these vaccines, the mRNA “will go into the cell and instruct the DNA to code a particular protein, which will then fight against the virus.”

Since these mRNA vaccines are novel, and thus a new type of vaccine, and , according to CDC, “ the mRNA from the vaccine, never enters the nucleus of the cell and does not affect or interact with a person’s DNA”, but rather mRNA vaccines “take advantage of the process that cells use to make proteins in order to trigger an immune response and build immunity to SARS-CoV-2, why hasn’t the CDC revealed the particular protein that will be coded, least that particular protein can be both beneficial and harmful, and an excess or a shortage of that particular protein, could, in essence, cause a problematic immune response, putting someone at risk who would have had an appropriate immune response, had they not received the vaccine?

read full comment
Image of N.D.
on December 17, 2020 at 15:19:08 pm



read full comment
Image of N.D.
on December 16, 2020 at 08:41:56 am

[…] Source link […]

on December 22, 2020 at 07:00:35 am

[…] Another glowing review. […]

on December 29, 2020 at 07:28:40 am

[…] the panoply of rights, “temporarily” suspended for reasons never fully scrutinized by the people or their […]

on January 04, 2021 at 07:45:45 am

... [Trackback]

[...] Read More: lawliberty.org/book-review/viral-panic/ [...]

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.