Just thinking about the experts. Who are they and how do I know if I can trust them when they wield unelected, politically granted power over the people who did not elect them?
How can I be confident in the ostensibly unquestionable public health experts’ rulings, especially when private health experts, who have real credentials, field experience, nothing to gain and much to lose from lying to or misleading the public, show up in numbers to express a common dissenting analysis?
Why would the official public health experts (who are politically top-down appointed and vested with the power and responsibility of stewarding the wellbeing of a body politic) not consider the plausibility of a credible alternative perspective to the mainstream, politically established narrative/declaration? Why would the valid question be so vigorously silenced?
Does this not seem disingenuous or at least malfeasant? What if people disagree on the solutions based on their individual evaluation of the evidence? What if, for some, the fiat-mandated cure is worse than the pathogen? Granted, cooperation, respect, and perhaps compromise among people are necessary to maintaining a civil society, however, what is civil, what is fair, what is lawful, about quelling transparency and diversity and denying people the opportunity to speak for themselves, to reason for themselves, to argue based on factually informed conviction in contradiction to the prevailing narrative?
Without passing judgement over motive, it is apparent to me that a few make many great decisions of governance over the many as though the solutions are manifest, immutable, and unquestionable when they are clearly not. It seems that the issue is not merely that the mandated solutions are unpopular but that those affected by them are both not heard and actively ignored in their struggle to survive. Dare I say, this is not right? I do.
Master the Mind 