Early on in this circus, we reported on a statement by UK health officials about social distancing. They wanted to impose it and figured one meter would be adequate (no science, by the way) but settled on two-meters. Why? The experts didn’t think their citizens could quite figure out one-meter.
And that is about as clear a statement as you can find on the “science” behind social distancing. There isn’t any.
No one can prove it works or does not. There are no clinical trials. In fact, the basis for the theory comes from a 14-years old’s high school science project back in 2006. A computer model developed with the help of her dad, who has no medical training or experience.
A computer model, you say?
Like the Murray Model that scared the crap out of everyone but turned out to be so abysmally incorrect that it was quietly disappeared in the night, though not soon enough, its developer was fired, shamed, and has also gone persona non grata.
Or how about those climate models? Thirty years of fear and not one thing right. Their temperature prediction has failed to materialize, and as an institution (cabal, is a better word), the project as yet to predict anything with even the smallest degree of accuracy.
Yes, like that.
But when has that stopped them? They are still milking the false polar bear extinction narrative, and people who get paid a lot of money continue to repeat the lie that Americans dispose of 500 million plastic straws every day. That ‘fact’ comes to us form a 9-year-olds science project.
There is no actual peer-reviewed science behind either social distancing or quarantining healthy people. What there is, are thousands of doctors who have called this political reaction, including making healthy people wear masks, a mass-casualty incident.
None of those losses to quality of life, or life itself, will make the headlines. The talking heads will spout fake infection rate spikes – and yes, these too are suspect – but not the real casualties. Not until they become a useful tool for even more government intervention, interference, and regulation.
And I’m not even sure if this is a fight we can win, but that does not mean we will stop fighting it.