The government of the United Kingdom recently asked its citizens to cut off all unnecessary contact with other people, including friends and family, in response to recommendations from a British research team. Brits are also supposed to self-quarantine for 14 days if anyone in their home has a cough or a fever. What’s more, the researchers also averred that if the world’s lockdown measures are to truly be effective, they would need to be in effect for 12 to 18 months.
Doggone it. Does that make anyone else want to call the Euthanasia Society to see if they deliver? Oh well, as the Brits themselves say, “keep your pecker up!”
Aris Katzourakis, a Professor of Evolution and Genomics at the University of Oxford, stated that the aggressive social distancing measures implemented now might only “buy time” for the U.K. and other countries to eventually implement aggressive high-tech tracking and surveillance measures. He added, “Once you get things under control, with a lot of targeted surveillance, there are ways of locally relaxing restrictions and returning to some level of activity. [But] it will never be the same until there is a cure, or a vaccine. ‘Returning to normal’ simply isn’t something we should expect to see for a very, very long time.”
It will never be the same? Hmm. The report essentially says that if even one person in the world has the coronavirus, the risk of the virus spreading will require us, meaning governments, to implement aggressive measures to stop it.
Should this report be heeded, that is it for human life on Earth. Ironically, a purported attempt to (unrealistically) minimize the number of deaths will have guaranteed many more… and rendered freedom extinct along with those who perished. The world economy would be virtually destroyed, people destitute, hopeless, deranged. Domestic abuse, addiction and depression would be rampant. Civil unrest would jeopardize the lives of those who hadn’t already taken their own.
Shouldn’t “aggressive measures” be taken to prevent this scenario?
Post a Comment