MISCONDUCT IN PUBLIC OFFICE
Coronavirus -v- Democracy
According to the UK’s HCID classification, COVID-19 is not a High Consequence Infectious Disease. Avian Influenza Strain A – A(H5N6), which does not meet of the HCID criteria that airborne HCIDs are measured against, is counted among the 16 HCIDs listed on the government website; COVID-19 simply does not make the list.
There are two reasons given to explain COVID-19’s removal from the list on March 19th, 2020. The first is that the disease’s actual mortality rate was never high enough to make the grade for HCID classification, and the second is that we now have “greater clinical awareness and a specific and sensitive laboratory test” … Bayesian Reasoning considered?
It is being said that COVID-19 engenders that a whole host of unprecedented and ever-increasing rules be imposed on the population as an appropriate response… how are we defining ‘appropriate’? If we had national lockdowns for HCIDs like Monkeypox, SARS and A(H5N1), I didn’t hear of them; did you? But we are having lockdowns for low consequence COVID-19 – why?
Since the disease appeared on the scene, various Agencies (governmental and non-governmental alike), the free press, and social media have kept the voting public informed about COVID-19; and we have been listening attentively. Up until July 2020, when it was announced that the wearing of a face covering in shops and supermarkets in England would become mandatory – guess what? Hardly anyone chose to so ‘protect the NHS’ of their own free will, Public Officials included. Comparatively, (according to the grapevine), hardly anyone in the control group that is the Swedish nation had elected to wear face coverings.
Democracy means that it is the people who rule; we are governed by consent.
When the British public ‘went to the polls’ (i.e. from simply observing what the man-on-the-street in England was choosing to do of his own free will), neither the people, nor their MPs elected to wear face coverings of their own accord. So, who was it that decided to mandate that we all wear face coverings? … And who/what gives that entity the right to go against the clearly communicated public vote?
No, no, no, no! Scientists and medical experts are not dictators, they are simply servants, public servants. The ‘Health Authorities’ are responsible for conducting research (according to the scientific method), publishing their findings, and explaining to the public exactly what those findings mean. The adoption and implementation of any research findings is decided by (or on behalf of) the populace, at the vote – it’s called Informed Consent.
If the public ‘vote’ on the face covering issue is invalid, how does public opinion get to be valid on other matters?
All this begs the question:
Is England governed by consent, or is it… a tyranny?