The mainstream media has provided us with over 5 months of interminable 'debate' about the coronavirus COVID-19. Except, of course, there has been no real debate, just the constant re-stating and reinforcement of one single message - the government message - the message of medical 'science' - the message of conventional medicine.
- There is no treatment available
- Only when a vaccine is produced will we have any protection
- So wash your hands
- Keep social distance
- We have to lockdown the economy
- Followed by all the nonsense instructions that accompanies these policies
There has been similar non-discussions in the past. Let's consider and compare the coronavirus debate with just one of them - perhaps the Vietnamese war, or the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Whilst the war in Vietnam was being waged there did appear to be a discussion, but in reality there was none.
- the Vietcong is a dreadful, murderous enemy; and they must be defeated at all costs
- (for which read "the virus is a dreadful enemy and must be defeated at any cost")
- we should have pursued certain accepted/acceptable policies earlier; or later
- (social distance and lockdown policies were imposed on us too late, or lifted to early)
- we got this policy wrong, it should have been (very slightly) different - harder or softer
- (we should not have allowed horse racing meetings, or football matches to proceed; and we should not have returned older people from hospital to nursing homes)
- we should have given our troops the correct equipment, sooner, and more of it
- (our front line staff lacked the protective equipment they needed)
- the bombing campaign, and the use of agent orange was ineffective, or counter-productive
- (should we wear masks, or not)
- we need more troops, more munitions, more and more of everything, to defeat the enemy
- (the virus cannot be defeated without a vaccine, we desperately need a vaccine; it is our only hope)
Only when large numbers of people began to question the Vietnam and Iraq wars did the real debate take off, when the mainstream media could not but report that there was serious opposition - another point of view.
Should we be in Vietnam, or in Iraq at all?
Similarly, there will be no real debate about coronavirus COVID-19 until the same fundamental question is asked.
Is the policy being pursued sound, or sensible?
Is it working, will it ever work?
Is the policy the best, or the only way to respond to the epidemic?
If there are more effective ways of dealing with COVID-19 there is no point discussing whether social distancing, lockdown policies, or the wearing of face masks have been carried out adequately, or in a timely fashion. We would be discussing an irrelevance. And that is what we are doing. We are discussing the implementation of a policy - but we are not discussing whether the policy itself is the best response to the pandemic.
PS.
For a list of questions we should be asking about coronavirus COVID-19, go to this link. For a list of my blogs asking these questions, go to this link.
