Questions and Consequences
Imagine the morality of compelling everyone to take an untested drug only to later discover that its efficacy is extremely low or even nonexistent. That would be bad enough if you knew the drug was perfectly harmless. But what if you have no idea whatsoever.
What kind of people do such a thing?
One argument these people use is that while the vaccines may not prevent one from contracting the disease, they do lessen the severity. No small thing. But if the vaccines do little or nothing on the prevention front, no one should care if someone else has taken the vaccine or not – Because the severity of a disease, one may or may not contract, makes no difference to anyone, other than the individual patient. So this is an argument for individual choice, not compulsion.
And yet, why have so many people wanted to deny others this choice?
I do not for one minute think these people care about the health of strangers. If they did care in the least, they would want to know more about the drugs they are forcing on others. So no, let's not pretend they care. I have made the argument before that this is about simple obedience.
Again, what kind of people are we talking about here?
All of them? I mean, can it really be all of them?
One final question: What percentage of Germans supported Hitler's policies? Whether they actively participated or not, what percentage supported what he was doing?
The totalitarians who enacted these Covid policies should be charged with abuse of office. That's easy. As to the argument that they legitimately enacted emergency powers? I think that is a question for a jury. What did they know and when did they know it? These are questions of fact, not law. Here's another question of fact: Were their actions driven by legitimate emergency necessity, or simply unbridled lust for power?
Further, it is also clear that many of these so-called emergency actions were unconstitutional. It matters not what the respective state constitutions or city charters specify. There is no US constitutional allowance for the suspension of the First Amendment right of freedom of assembly. If you think such a power is warranted, fine. You are welcome to amend the Constitution.
The more difficult question is what to do with the rest of you?
If you supported lockdowns and mandates and masking...you should be ashamed. And you should be shamed. Because Gretchen Whitmer and Gavin Newsom and your local school board did not act alone. They acted with the support of millions.
Yes, I realize this support ranged from skeptical, to moderate, to enthusiastic, to downright overzealous. But there needs to be consequences for that support, and any role you may have played in enacting and enforcing these policies.
Some of you committed fraud, some harassment, and some only wrongful termination (which is not a crime as far as I know). Many of you violated HIPAA privacy rules. Many of you loudly scolded and shamed your neighbors going about their business at the grocery store. It is also not a crime to be a vile, reprehensible human being. Although it is worth knowing. And the more widely known, the better.
We cannot charge you as mere supporters. So...we need a sort of truth commission. And we need to put your names on a list. Something akin to the Sex Offenders List. We can call it the Lockdown List or some such. If it were up to me, I'd call it the Obedience Enforcers List or the Covid Obedience Collaborators List.
Covid Collaborators for short. That's got an appropriate historical ring to it.
I think what we need is a sort of Covid Collaborators Wiki-like website where we can name individuals and organizations, with photos, and details of their collaborations. Like all Wiki sites, anyone can add and edit. But let's get the details out there. Finally, we should house it in the only country that I know of that behaved rationally during the pandemic, Sweden. Or better yet, somewhere beyond the reach of the US government and the lefty tech establishment. So Sweden...or Nigeria.
As for libel laws, I don't think that's a problem if we house it in Nigeria. But we could head off claims of libel by requiring entries to be confirmed by some number of people. So for example, perhaps we require three or more people to add an entry. Three is not enough? Make it more. For those of you who acted in a grievous manner, I don't think we will have trouble finding multiple witnesses. You were so shameless and self-righteous in your actions.
In any case, all of you belong on it.