Economist Sanjeev Sabhlok, resigned from his job in the Department of Treasury and Finance in Victoria Australia in September 2020 “to protest the outrageous violations of liberty” due to the COVID lockdowns.
My critique of Christopher Snowdon’s deplorable article in The Quillette – Sanjeev Sabhlok's blog – https://t.co/CMs93yySxz
— Marc Morano (@ClimateDepot) January 17, 2021
My critique of Christopher Snowdon’s deplorable article in The Quillette
This is a piece clearly from someone who has worked from home and enjoyed the lockdowns. This was a big test of science and philosophy and we have failed on both counts.
a) The science was very clear: there shall be no lockdowns for flu-like viruses. The last they were tried was for Ebola in 2014 and an evaluation showed that they did not help (targeted quarantines did help). Substantial literature existed in the past to refute the idea of indiscriminate lockdowns, also because these infringe human rights. Snowdon obviously cares not for basic freedoms.
b) The argument of lockdown opponents is not against social distancing per se. Voluntary social distancing and hand hygiene are a part of good practice, as followed by Sweden. They too had lockdowns but these were not coercive. That coercion is the real problem, not social distancing.
c) Australia should never be cited as an example: it is nothing short of the most inhumane totalitarian society in the world today, not a role model for anyone in the civilised world or for anyone who considers himself human. Those of us who have lived through living hell in Melbourne and locked up in Australia like chicken in a coop (borders closed for a year), with wide-scale police brutalities on the young who underwent the most extreme mental torture ever, know that this is the worst form of civilisation in human history. That a few (extremely elderly) lives might have been saved from a natural cause is no excuse to cause such extreme harms. And hundreds of people have also died FROM lockdowns – See my complaint to the International Criminal Court for details. We do not authorise a government to take the life of person X while trying to save the life of person Y.
d) Are we going to do this for all other pandemics in the future? Is this our new “science” – divested entirely from consideration of humanity and liberty? I’m afraid I will never support such “science”. There are thousands of smarter ways to deal with pandemics than the way we have dealt with them in the West, copying Jinping’s totalitarian program.
I see from this article that the IEA might have now effectively become a promoter of police brutalities and totalitarianism. This is extremely unfortunate given the good impression I once held of this institution.