Is it ok to put innocent people in prison if you can afford to make the cell materially comfortable? That may seem like an absurd question, but many of those who pushed for lockdowns have used this argument.
When the pandemic hit the West, almost everyone was on board with “15 days to slow the spread.” However, those 15 days quickly turned into 15 months, mask mandates, and vaccination passports.
As the incursions into liberty expanded, an increasing portion of the population voiced opposition. According to W.H.O., it was becoming increasingly clear that the dangers of COVID-19 for most people dwarfed in comparison to the Spanish flu in 1919, and even to other common causes of death around the world like neonatal conditions, diarrhea, malaria, tuberculosis, H.I.V., diabetes, and traffic accidents.
But for some reason, the liberties of the healthy majority were sacrificed for the safety of vulnerable groups. For the first time in history, the healthy had to be quarantined. Those who objected pointed to the Hong Kong pandemic in the late 1960s that killed between one and four million people. It was such a non-event and non-panic that in 1969, 400,000 youths were gathering in Woodstock. Barely anyone noticed the pandemic.
If we could keep society open then, and even during the Spanish flu, where more than 18 million people worldwide died, why should we treat COVID-19 as the black plague and lockdown society? The near-universal answer to this question has be...