Masks & Lockdown FAQ

I read a lot of QAnon-adjacent social media, and also a lot of the comments on COVID-19 news articles, because I hate myself and want my soul to hurt. There is ferocious resistance to just about every attempt to save human lives – mask mandates, lockdowns, vaccines - for reasons ranging from politically-motivated selfishness to recalcitrant ignorance to sheer, unbridled lunacy.

As a result, I have written this delicate and even-handed exploration of the scientific and legal issues behind governmental responses to the pandemic, which seem to cause considerable concern to those conspiratorially-minded among us. 

It…does not go well.

So buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy: this is going to get rough.

Note: These are all actual arguments I’ve seen used.

 

Masks & Lockdown FAQ

Or: “Something tells me I know better than trained, educated professionals…”

 

Part 1: Masks

1.    “What about my rights!?”

Yep, you definitely still have them. You still have the right to obey traffic laws and gun regulation…and/or remain silent, if it comes to that.

You don’t want to wear a mask, I get it: it’s uncomfortable and a pain in the neck to remember and needs to be adjusted constantly etc.

You know what else is painful? Suffocating to death in a hospital bed. Or watching someone else do so.

Stop framing your mild discomfort as a civil liberties issue, you selfish twat, and help keep everybody healthy.   

 

2.    “The subjugation of a society always begins innocuously: wearing a mask is just a stepping stone to something more!”

It’s true that numerous coups and hostile takeovers in recent memory have used security and safety as the ostensible reason for upheaval of government, tanks in the streets and the arrest of thousands of political prisoners.

Is…is that happening in Australia? Have I missed goosestepping on parliament lawns? Indiscriminate government-sponsored violence? Overt military uprisings? State-wide insurrections? No? It’s probably fine then. There have been zero follow-up “security” measures, and zero military involvement in enforcing mandates (hotel guards notwithstanding).

Show me any example of something insidious being passed through parliament by piggy-backing on mask/lockdown legislation. Show me the law outlining increased military powers over civilian life. Show me the bill forcing pre-schoolers to be microchipped. Show me where everybody is lawfully mandated to line up every Wednesday morning for 15 minutes of governmentally-organised sodomy.

If masks are being used solely to “get us used to the NWO” or some shit, then let’s go through the plan in more detail: what is the specific set of steps that governments will take in order for the NWO / Big Pharma / Illuminati to become all-powerful?

Step 1: concoct fake worldwide pandemic
Step 2: fool entire world into thinking masks work
Step 3: *indistinct gibberish*
Step 4: TOTAL GLOBAL DOMINATION

 

3.    “It’s just about control!”

 

I’d pay more attention to that argument if it wasn’t made on Facebook, you goon. The apparatus of our constant, panoptic, ubiquitous scrutiny is already in place, in the guise of entertainment.

Also, in case it needs to be said, there isn't a single shadowy, global organisation trying to manipulate psychological vulnerabilities so subtly as to orchestrate the global wearing of masks purely for that reason. Simplicity (and common sense) dictates it's probably for the mere purpose of saving lives.

Cloth masks don’t contribute to the domination of Australia by China / the elite cannibal cabal / lizard people. They just don’t. Stop saying that like it’s a real explanation and not just a quick way to let people know you didn’t finish high school.  

 

4.    “Masks don’t work! I saw an interview with some scientists who said they restrict oxygen / promote bacteria / cause impotence! This study showed that…”

Please, I beg you, trust me when I say that is not detrimental to our health to wear masks (for the vast, vast majority of us). TRAINED, EDUCATED PROFESSIONALS - who actually paid attention in science lessons instead of carving their name into desks with a compass - have spent more hours studying this issue than you have been alive and they say it’s fine (for most people). 

The WHO and CDC and CSIRO and all those institutions that burn up so many of our tax dollars aren’t actually just sitting on their hands: this is what they do with their time and funds. A billion-dollar institution’s professional recommendation is not going to be overturned single-handedly by Facebook posts from the guy who works part time at a fuel station and throws rocks at geese on his lunch break.

You’re probably right in that there have been a tiny handful of studies “proving” that masks are toxic / Ivermectin cures COVID from 20 paces, and I bet that thousands of TRAINED, EDUCATED PROFESSIONALS have analysed them closely; they’re definitely aware of whatever bullshit is being tried to be passed off as real science. If your quoted study was real / statistically valid, there would be hundreds of further studies attempting (successfully) to replicate it, and it would have been accepted as science through worldwide consensus and used to inform the policy decisions of national governments. The fact that no government anywhere in the whole world has declared that “masks actually make people sicker” should be a fair indicator of its scientific acceptance.

It’s not valid science. It’s a single, flawed study that has absolutely been heavily scrutinised by TRAINED, EDUCATED PROFESSIONALS, and discovered to be reaching unscientific conclusions (or whatever is specifically wrong with it).

One study does not invalidate 5,000 others. One study does not overturn consensus. Your insistence otherwise, and dependence on isolated pockets of information (without context or education), does nothing for your cause. You are a toddler stamping your foot because you don’t want to leave the playground – mum is not going to be swayed by your arguments, no matter how well-reasoned and logical that other kid told you they are.  

If you have some genuinely problematic condition, then of course judge your own situation accordingly and do what's best for you - it's absolutely feasible that obstructing your face might cause breathing difficulties in some circumstances.

But if you're going to falsely claim asthma / bronchitis / obscure pulmonary condition to avoid wearing a piece of cloth designed to save lives, you are a child. And you’ll be treated like one. Let’s start by taking away your ability to travel. 

5.    “It’s not lawful to force us to wear masks!”

There have been more hours spent studying this issue than you have existed on this earth.

As a bonus, they have been read by men and women who are otherwise qualified to be interpreting law, as opposed to having been repeatedly ejected from of the local magistrates’ court for disorderly conduct.

I promise you that a guy with a Southern Cross tattoo on his neck quoting cherry-picked passages of the constitution on a soon-to-be-deleted Facebook group isn’t going to somehow discover a loophole that invalidates the entire legal framework on which the Australian government has based its policy.

That’s why lawyers are the smug bastards they are – they actually know real things about the mechanics of legislature, and can determine the difference between actual law and the fantastical ramblings of a profoundly uneducated “freedom fighter”.

 

Part 2: Lockdowns

 

6.    “Why is society being locked up for a flu?!”

Statistics and epidemiology is always complex, which is just one of the reasons you’re usually not consulted about it, but let’s assume otherwise for a moment. The mortality rate of the seasonal flu is around 0.1%, compared to COVID being around 2%-ish depending on generally the same factors as the flu: age, co-morbidities, pulmonary distress etc.

That’s twenty times as deadly.

And there are millions of cases of it around the world. And it spreads extremely easily. So it is rather like a flu…after it’s drunk a bottle of whiskey and seen its ex-girlfriend’s new man at a bar.

The reason TRAINED, EDUCATED PROFESSIONALS are so concerned about COVID is specifically because it is SO MUCH WORSE than the flu. Remember the swine flu (H1N1)? And how that also got the whole world in a tizzy? It’s estimated to have had a mortality rate of 0.1% - 0.3%. So, at the very least, COVID is about 7 times as deadly. There were an estimated 1 billion+ infections by the end of the swine flu pandemic, with around 300,000-ish deaths. COVID has already killed over 4 million people, with only 200 million cases.

It’s hard to intuitively grasp these numbers, I understand: our human brains are not natively equipped to deal with numbers this big. That’s why TRAINED, EDUCATED PROFESSIONALS are paid to try and make sense of them, and not unshaven guys who work 2 shifts a week doing night-fill at a supermarket, and spend the rest of their time on Telegram “law” pages.     

 

7.    “I want my freedoms back!”

So fuck what? I want my nana back.

We don’t always get what we want. In an ironic twist, sometimes it’s because medical science has not progressed far enough, and sometimes it’s because medical science has progressed far beyond your education level.

 

8.    “If I’m sick I’ll just stay at home - why are we punishing the well? The vulnerable should take responsibility for their own health!”

Well why not give everybody a handgun and say “only use this to shoot criminals”?

Enough people are untrained and uneducated enough for that to be just super bad. Fortunately, there are enough TRAINED, EDUCATED PROFESSIONALS who have got a much better grasp on how public health works…and they know to take it out of the hands of the public.

Why wouldn’t you just stay home, not wear pants, and day drink? And maybe save a few lives while you’re at it? Why not take the advice of those TRAINED, EDUCATED PROFESSIONALS whose job it is it determine how to keep the most amount of people alive?

 

9.    “The economic cost is too great!”

I am genuinely sympathetic to those who have lost their livelihoods during this difficult time, I truly am. It’s a tough time for everybody, with lots of individual pains and struggles for us all, lost in the vast sea of grief, stress, and anxiety. And it’s really easy for me to talk about economic costs when I’m not actively going hungry or at risk of losing my house or missing out on wages because I have to look after my kids - more could have been done to ease economic burdens for lots of us, absolutely.

I would also argue that the unnecessary and permanent loss of a loved one is also an acute pain, arguably greater than temporary financial distress. Wouldn’t that also be worth taking pains to avoid?

Does grandma have to die because of everybody’s bank balance? Imagine being told that thousands of Australian citizens had to suffer and perish because we wouldn’t stay in our lounge rooms for a couple of weeks? Take a minute to really imagine your parents slowly suffocating to death because nobody felt like playing another game of Uno.

I’m not saying it’s easy: I’m saying it’s worth it.

Obviously, the least amount of economic damage the better: we are a rich and lucky country and nobody wants to see that change. But it’s also important to understand I would raze Sydney CBD to the ground if it meant my Nana was still alive. She passed away years before the pandemic: I just really miss her. And I would sacrifice every single commercial enterprise in Australia to have her back.

I’m sure you feel similarly about your own vulnerable loved ones. 

 

10. “Sweden and Taiwan didn’t lockdown and they’re doing fine! We don’t need to lockdown at all!”

Let’s unpack the stats here.

Sweden has had 14,000 deaths (and just over a million cases) with a population of 10-ish million. Going on population alone, scaled up to Australia’s population of 25 million, that is the equivalent of 35,000 deaths here, as opposed to our current death toll of just under (or around) 1,000.

That’s…a lot of people to sacrifice for the economy. Would you really put 34,000 people on the chopping block so easily, if you had to make that decision?

Even if we didn’t scale up for Australia’s population, and we get the best-case scenario of 14,000 deaths, is 13,000 more lives worth the tiny percentage of growth we might claw back? We’re getting into dark territory if we can actively put a specific monetary value on the life of a citizen and are actively debating paying it.

“I’m sorry your husband was killed by this horrible virus, through no fault of his own and with no specific, active, physical measures to try and control the spread of the contagion. However, you might be pleased to know that his death has equated to another $485,983.42 for Australia’s GDP for the 2020/21 fiscal year!”

We are a fat, rich nation. We have the cash to implement the stimulus packages to blunt the worst (although by no means all) of the economic impact, and what good is money if you can’t actively use it to buy the lives of your loved ones? Sweden does appear to have done better than might be expected without lockdowns, but it’s by no means without costs. 

Taiwan appears to be an incredible case study indeed: no lockdowns and under 800 deaths seems like a fantastic template to copy, and all with a population very similar to Australia!

But I cannot stress enough: they didn’t just “not lockdown” and otherwise hope for the best. They locked their national borders, had a high percentage of people wearing masks voluntarily (in addition to mandates) as well as extensive contact tracing. And look what happened – a drastic reduction in the number of cases and deaths! And while 2020 was a great and safe year for Taiwan, the bubble burst just recently and lockdowns were enacted to contain an outbreak.

My point here is that Taiwan absolutely did a fantastic job of containing COVID, but it was a concerted, dedicated effort involving many other avenues of containment with active lockdown as a last resort. They didn’t just somehow avoid the effects of a highly virulent plague where so many others had failed through the power of friendship.

Part 3: Moon-howling Madness

 

11. “The government is hiding the real science! Hydroxychloroquine / Ivermectin works but it’s being deliberately kept out the hands of the people!”

There was a much-hyped hope in the early days of the plague that a cheap and effective treatment could be found in hydroxychloroquine and/or ivermectin and we could all avoid the worldwide crash. But, spoiler alert, Trump was full of shit and neither worked as preventative or cure.

For those of you saying “the pharmaceutical companies just want to sell their vaccines so of course they said it doesn’t work!”, please just stop to think about that. A handful of drug manufacturers have so much blind, unquestioning control across literally all areas of human endeavour that they can sway the scientific community across the entire world to somehow go along with their scheme of “let’s all produce fake (yet largely identical) experimental results independently in exchange for a few dollars and the loss of our and your professional integrity!”

Are you seriously suggesting that, again, EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF EVERY SINGLE MEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTION IN THE WHOLE WORLD is willing to compromise their entire purpose for existing because they get a kickback? Is every single scientific organisation in the world so blatantly and overtly corrupt?

That seems…unlikely at best.

 

12. “The virus is a hoax – it’s a plandemic!”

So let me see if I understand this correctly.

Every government in the world, consisting of hundreds of thousands of individuals, in absolute secrecy, planned and flawlessly executed a scheme where people are encouraged to stay home and wear masks for a little while, based on the pretext of a fake virus? But also those same governments spend billions of dollars on relief packages and handouts to try to ameliorate the damage caused by the commercial slowdown?

What possible reason could there be for such a conspiracy? Is mild, temporary disruption to social functioning really the end goal of a worldwide plot, requiring untold numbers of people with unheard-of levels of coordination, all in completely unbroken silence? Is that really the best use of time for a group with such insane levels of control, resources, and organisation?

Could you at least pretend to have thought this out beyond parroting nonsense you’ve read on the internet?

I might remind you that, so far, the “control” in Australia has been temporary masks and the odd lockdown, lasting a number of weeks, over an 18-month epidemic. That’s really the end goal of the most powerful coalition of entities the world has ever seen?

Or is it by the pharmaceutical companies? Or Bill Gates? Or the shadowy cabal that maintains power through child sacrifice or some shit?

Work out who it is and get back to me. I have questions, both for you and whoever is signing off on your prescriptions. This concept is offensively stupid, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

13. “You can’t make me get a vaccine!”

No, the government probably can’t. And there is absolutely something to be said about governmental mandates regarding our own bodies.

But Darwin Awards can be awarded for your decisions. And the priest will be sure to mention your tremendously brave and intelligent crusade against fascism in the eulogy…either yours or your grandmother’s. Because your decision may well cost lives.

 

14. “Vaccine passports are coming! And they called me crazy!”

So what’s your plan to try and limit the spread of a killer organism while allowing society to function as best as possible?

Oh, you don’t have one? Your plan is to just “ride it out” and watch tens of thousands of needless deaths in the name of “it’s my right”? Good one, Sun Tzu.

The world wants to return to normal as quickly as possible, but not at the cost of 2% of the population. Fortunately, those in power have got a greater duty of care to society than you seem to have.

 

15. “The PCR test in unsuitable for Covid! Everything using that test is invalid!”

I’m sorry, you must be this scientifically literate to continue this conversation.

If you personally can tell me what PCR stands for and how it works right here and now without looking up Wikipedia (or whatever it is the hell you use to get your “knowledge”), we can talk. Until then, stop pretending. Every anti-PCR argument I’ve seen is based around a very small number of disproportionately vocal “scientists” getting their knickers in a twist because they got an odd result. Rather than reperform the experiment, suddenly the entire system is on trial because they used tap water rather than distilled.

Again, that’s how science works: you keep doing similar things, teasing out the subtle ways in which the results differ, and actively trying to understand the complicated nuance that reality inevitably descends into. What you DON’T do is campaign loudly against a very important (and ingenious) procedure that underpins a huge amount of modern pathology and research with a pissy little experiment or two that you personally got wrong / can’t explain / fucked up.

That’s not science. Attracting a lot of eyes to your cause by being deliberately controversial, with no substance to back it up is naked grifting, or at the very least opportunistic self-advertising. Historically, neither of these activities have been strongly associated with truth.

 

 

 

 

If ever you find yourself furiously (and impotently) railing against the system, please remember that, as a rule, if you’re arguing with a scientist about science, you’re not actually arguing…you’re just wrong.