Are we allowed to ask if lockdowns work, or if they’re worth it?

Some social media companies have taken it upon themselves to decide what we can and can’t say, question or believe. They think they’re doing this in the public interest. E.g., they — geniuses that they are — understand “the science,” and they’re doing their part to stop stupid people (who don’t understand “the science”) from spreading false information that will cause other stupid people to do bad things.

I hope the arrogant bastards get what they deserve from that, but … be that as it may, from a certain point of view, you’re only allowed to ask specific things. As with most of these woke-aligned campaigns, it’s futile to ask for a list, or ask who curates the list, or what rules they use. It’s all subject to change. It’s like the ministry of truth in 1984. “We have always been at war with Eastasia.”

Let’s take it as a given that we want to slow the spread of COVID-19 — to save lives, to keep the hospitals from being overcrowded, etc. If we agree on the goal, do we have to agree on the method to get there? Who, for example, has definitively decided that lockdowns are the right way to achieve this goal, and where is the evidence that lockdowns work? (An additional question is whether they are worth the cost. Here’s an article about physicians who say they do more harm than good.)

Here’s an interesting article from a few months back examining studies allegedly showing that lockdowns work, … or don’t work. You can find them going either way, of course.

I don’t know the answer, and I suspect it would take at least a day’s work to get close to knowing the answer — which I’m not going to do. I’m not even sure it’s possible to know “the answer” at this point, and it doesn’t matter in any event. Gov. Hogan isn’t going to ask me for policy recommendations.

Here’s what amazes me. In the midst of this confusion and lack of certainty, the geniuses at Facebook know who to censor. They know what speech is in the public good and what isn’t. Facebook Sparks Another Free Speech Debate by Removing Anti-Lockdown Event Posts

Free speech looks like it will be one of the casualties of COVID.

November 545: Five topics in five minutes

P&C review DuClaw’s Candy Cane Imperial Stout, one of the latest in their Pastryarchy series. Then they do five quick topics in about five minutes each.

#1. The Left controls every institution in America — education, fashion, most of the news, Hollywood, etc. So if there’s “institutional racism” in America, who’s to blame?

#2. Mexicans celebrate their indigenous populations on holidays and such, but they are not treated well. It’s a caste system.

#3. A French feminist is promoting the idea that women should erase men entirely from their lives.

#4. Pigweed shares his Zen experience with ambient videos and challenges Crowhill to pick one.

#5. Is religious revival the only hope for restoring America?

We end with our man of the week: Megyn Kelly

Anti-Trumpism and a Biden administration

With Trump in office, liberals seemed to consolidate behind a unified anti-Trump agenda. In a way, it radicalized them. The important thing was to be against Trump, therefore any nut who was against Trump was acceptable.

Here are two possible theories about a Biden administration.

1. The radical elements of the left — that were tolerated because they were anti-Trump — have become mainstream (for Democrats), and Biden will be captive to them. They have the energy and the enthusiasm.

2. Now that Trump is gone, more moderate Democratic elements can reassert themselves and cast off the nutty fringe. The “deep state” on the left will beat back the newcomers.

I hope for #2, and fear #1. But I don’t know which one to expect.