Cattle are easily startled and prone to stampeding on the basis of nothing. Human beings shouldnt be.
Especially over a bug.
Yet they are stampeding and mask-wearing, too.
Why?
Yes, I know . . . people have died! And so will we all, eventually. From one thing or another. But very few of us from Corona. Why limit the shutdown to just Corona? Does this make any kind of logical sense assuming the logic (people have died!) that has been used to cripple the entire country?
Is there a specific number of deaths due to X you name it that is too few to justify another lockdown?
We are told about 23,000 people have died from Corona (though many of these probably died from old age, or from smoking, or a variety of things and just happened to have the bug in their systems when they died).
But lets say its 30,000.
If this justifies the government assuming dictatorial powers, the suspension of basic civil liberties and the imposition of extreme, open-ended restrictions on millions of people then is there any logical basis for objecting to the same measures applied because of the ordinary flu?
Roughly the same number of people die each year, their deaths attributed to or accelerated by the flu, sans the Wu.
This was considered normal not a happy thing, of course but part of the cycle of life. People get sick and some of them die. A police state lockdown on the basis of the flu season was never proposed even though the ordinary flu can be very bad (fatal) news for a small percentage of the population, if they catch it.
Each flu season, the vulnerable elderly and others in that category those vulnerable to illnesses becoming their final illness have been encouraged to take precautions. To avoid public places; to stay home. Maybe take a flu shot as a pre-emptive.
But the rest of the population wasnt ordered to take them.
Why the change? And whats the difference?
WuFlu is worse than flu!
Well, maybe. The actual death toll so far is not.
But its certain that medical malpractice is worse than both the flu and WuFlu combined, in terms of the number of people killed about 250,000 every year and those deaths are arguably much more tragic because they are the direct result of human negligence/recklessness applied to specific innocent victims.
An elderly person developing pneumonia because they caught the flu or WuFlu and dying is just life, unfortunately. It catches up with all of us.
You cannot avoid old age and the declining ability of the body to withstand physical stress. This includes running marathons as well as bouncing back from a bad bug.
Should marathon running be locked down because it poses a higher degree of risk of dying for the elderly and asthmatic? Should we all be forced to live in hyperbaric chambers or wear masks/get vaccinated as a condition of being allowed outside because someone might get sick?
How many someones is too many?
Winter kills, too. Should cold weather or hot weather also trigger mass lockdowns? If not, why not?
People die! 
Its not a joke question. Its a question about a principle. If it is acceptable to impose extreme restrictions on everyone because someone or a few someones (no specific someone, just someone) may be at higher risk of death because of a possibility whether catching WuFlu or just the flu or running marathons or walking up three flight of stairs, or because its -20 outside then is there any logical end to this crusade?
And a crusade is exactly what this is.
We are in the midst of a religious movement one premised upon faith in experts. And religious movements run amok often end up justifying the most extreme things from burning people at the stake for heresy to locking down an entire country. With health and safety priests serving as the grand inquisitors.
If it saves even one life. Remember that one?
If 30,000 deaths justifies a police state lockdown then why not 20,000? How about 10,000?
How about one? 
Where is the line? Whats the number? This many is acceptable but this many plus one more isnt?
Maybe kill them all or at least threaten to and god will know his own?
Its now the operating principle of the Coronad States of America. The same principle that can force you to wear a seatbelt at gunpoint can force you to wear a mask, also at gunpoint. The same principle that forces you to accept being required to produce your papers on demand in order to be allowed to use the public right-of-way can also force you to produce papers that you have been vaccinated to be allowed in public.
In both instances, you are presumed to be a potential threat to the safety of . . . someone. Not anyone in particular. Just someone. It works just as well for sickness as it does for safety.
There is no number.
Just because.
. . .
Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics or anything else? Click on the ask Eric link and send em in!