By Eric Peters - March 28, 2021
Forcing healthy people to wear a “mask” as a condition of being allowed to live was never meant to “stop the spread.” It was meant to establish the precedent – in this case, for forcing healthy people to submit to a vaccination.
To many vaccinations. And more than just that.
A writer for the Daily Beast makes the point – without putting it quite that way.
Instead, he uses the world-turned-upside-down logic of the “mask” pushers – i.e., that you must accept the vaccine as the price of being allowed to work, shop and socialize with others because you haven’t got the right to expose others to sickness.
He writes, in reverse-logic form:
“Just as I may have a right not to wear a mask or get a shot, you have a right to be able to walk down the street without me giving you a lethal disease. Choosing not to get vaccinated isn’t “freedom” any more than driving drunk is. It’s endangering other people. It is profoundly unethical”.
Except it isn’t either thing – if you’re not sick. Because a person who isn’t sick can’t ”give you a lethal disease.”
Presupposing sickness is the same as presupposing guilt, which is vile enough. And much more dangerous to societal health than a virus – especially one that doesn’t kill 99.8-something percent of the people who are infected by it.
Because presupposing sickness would kill 100 percent of everyone’s right to be presumed innocent.
If the person who wrote the article has the right to presume I am sick then surely I have just as much right to presuppose he’s mentally ill, say – and insist on “testing” him to establish that he is not. And to deny him entry into a restaurant or shop if he does not submit – if he does not produce an official document attesting that he has been examined by a psychiatrist and found sane – because otherwise he might be a dangerous lunatic and that risk, which is possible, is simply unbearable.
Perhaps someone will explain why not.
The moral toxicity of this sentence-first/verdict-preordained on the basis of nothing more than someone’s finger pointing fear ought to be obvious (the writer apparently does not understand the difference between ethics and morals).
Both rely on the same hysterically malevolent nothing – an accusation about a possibility purveyed as a certainty used to justify punishment, preemptively. And that is precisely what the writer prescribes: “Too much is at stake to wait for people who refuse to get vaccinated. We need a plan to move forward without them.”
More on this “we” in a moment.
The plan, of course, is to “move forward” by closing the doors to life to people who refuse to get a vaccine that they don’t need – healthy people having almost no risk of being killed or even made seriously sick by this virus – while the risk of taking a vaccine that has been rushed to market, without long-term testing of side effects and that is known to be capable of causing death in some cases is very real and quite possibly greater than the extremely slight, almost nonexistent risk assumed by healthy people choosing not to take the vaccine.
They are to be locked-out rather than locked down.
These “anti-vaxxers” – take note of the language, intended to marginalize and even dehumanize people, in order to make what is done to them seem not only okay but necessary – must be transmuted into a pariah caste; they must be cordoned off, marked as untouchables. No freedom of moment, no freedom of association – even with people who wish to associate with them, it is important to state. As has been the case with the “masks.” It is not sufficient for these j’ accuse hysterics to “mask” themselves and to “mask” their own businesses – if that is what they wish.
Everyone must “mask.”
Which brings up interesting questions about the “masks.”
Shouldn’t the “maskers” be content to “mask” themselves if the “masks” protect them? Shouldn’t the same apply to vaccines? If one has received the Jab, then one is safe – assuming the vaccine is in fact effective. In which case it ought not to matter whether others do not get it, since they can’t get others sick – assuming, of course, that they are in fact sick.
The writer has a very sick answer for this. He says that the vaccine is only “95 percent effective” (a number pulled out of a hat, as “we” really have no idea just how “effective” whatever is in this “vaccine” is, but let’s leave that lie for purposes of the immediate discussion) and thus the possibility of any chance – however attenuated – that someone might be sick and that someone else might get sick justifies both the “mask” and the shot.
Which means more shots, going forward . . .