A good friend of mine is a doctor who is angling hard against the prevailing narrative of COVID. He believes the risks are over represented and the collateral damage is under considered.
We can’t talk about pandemic responses that target those at risk because we can’t discuss the risks that certain people have.
Lockdowns aren’t really working.
Not everyone is equally at risk.
Targeting places instead of populations isn’t strong policy.
And at the current rate, we’re only heading towards mandatory vaccines, of which the risks are not yet understood, and greater social control of our bodies when, perhaps, it’s not warranted.
We can’t say “this is how we beat it” when things are at their worst. There are, in fact, massive profit machines directing our response trajectory.
Intersectionalism has been a controversial social movement, and those who used it the most as a cultural talisman are universalizing the pandemic response. Ironic, and ineffective?
We can’t talk about pandemic responses that target those at risk because we can’t discuss the risks that certain people have.
Lockdowns aren’t really working.
Not everyone is equally at risk.
Targeting places instead of populations isn’t strong policy.
And at the current rate, we’re only heading towards mandatory vaccines, of which the risks are not yet understood, and greater social control of our bodies when, perhaps, it’s not warranted.
We can’t say “this is how we beat it” when things are at their worst. There are, in fact, massive profit machines directing our response trajectory.
Intersectionalism has been a controversial social movement, and those who used it the most as a cultural talisman are universalizing the pandemic response. Ironic, and ineffective?