History up to end of 2019: Governments doing everything in their power to prevent and reduce unemployment. Applying policies forcing people to work ever harder and longer. Continuing to follow austerity agendas in curtailing unnecessary public expenditure, even to the extent of failing to fund necessary expenditure. Obsessive attention to health so as to reduce demands on NHS and GPs. Lackadaisical policing, ignoring shop lifters, telling householders they did not have the resources to investigate burglaries or car thefts.
2020: Deliberately destroying the small businesses which provide fifty per cent of employment, forcing millions into unemployment and telling people to stop work. Opening the flood gates on public money expenditure. Forcing the populace to adopt unhealthy lifestyles like staying indoors most of the time where in boredom and frustration they over-eat, drink to excess and take drugs, and limit being outside in health giving fresh air and sunshine. Make it difficult to access A & E and GPs even for life threatening conditions. And suddenly the police are available to tell people they are not allowed to walk or drive to the countryside, sit on a park bench or beach, visit a park, swim in the sea or allow their children to use a playground.
Government policy up to 2019 makes a kind of sense. Taken together it implies government understands that people need work in order to pay for necessities, and public services cost money so preventing abuse and waste is sensible use of resources. Western societies have been effective societies based on these policies and supporting systems since the 2WW. But in 2020 we entered an alternative universe where what makes our social machinery work, on which we are all dependant for survival has inexplicably and suddenly been thrown in the bin.
All because of the emergence of a new flu like disease, no worse than flu in its effects, and in order to have our lives returned to the normality we knew prior to 2020 our governments which over the last year have mandated wholesale social destruction are now demanding that all of us submit to a new experimental vaccine – against a flu! Not the bubonic plague. Not Ebola.
If the government had done nothing over the last year against this new virus, nursing home residents would not have been decimated by the compulsory intake of virus carriers. Hospitals who after all are the experts in quaranteeing and creating sterile barriers could have sectioned off a hospital entrance and wing for the exclusive use of those suspected of suffering the new virus ( which could easily been funded with the money wasted on the Nightingale Hospitals). People classed as vulnerable could have been advised to take extra precautions, and the year would have passed without the wholesale societal damage directly caused by government. And the death rate for 2020 roughly equivalent to other years could have been even lower.
After all this could anyone with a grain of sense believe anything the government says, or take the government’s word that a new, rushed, experimental vaccine will be safe.
So what does it mean when governments suddenly reverse policies which have been the norm and effective for the last seventy years.
This surely should set alarm bells ringing. The government seems to inhabit a dream world where a brand new vaccine is going to solve all of society’s problems, problems made much worse by the destruction of livelihoods across vast swathes of the population. The same government which is paranoid in case we catch flu, but is indifferent to people dying of heart attacks, strokes, cancer and other life-threatening illnesses because they cannot access medical treatment.
The dark thought occurs to me. Perhaps it isn’t going to matter that all those businesses have gone bankrupt and millions are unemployed because the vaccine is going to solve all that. After the vaccine the unemployed will have magically disappeared and those businesses will be unneeded.
It won’t be the first time governments have culled unwanted populations.
But I hope not. But a sudden extreme reversal of policy must be significant.
But significant of what?