Thursday, January 20, 2022

Comparing Lockdowns to the Iraq War

Both seem to follow a seven-step pattern:

1. SCARY PROBLEM causes panic among the population (9/11, COVID-19 outbreak)

2. General feeling that politicians must do SOMETHING to stop SCARY PROBLEM

3. Politicians roll out a SOMETHING despite the fact that there is no evidence the SOMETHING will do anything to solve the SCARY PROBLEM (Iraq War, lockdowns)

4. Public (and media) supports politicians doing this SOMETHING, assuming they can trust the experts and that politicians wouldn’t be advocating for it if it wasn’t going to help solve the SCARY PROBLEM

5. The SOMETHING doesn’t do anything to stop SCARY PROBLEM and actually causes more harm than good, but the public doesn’t recognize it and still continues to support the SOMETHING as a matter of inertia

6. Public finally realizes that the SOMETHING is actually doing more harm than good, and that their politicians are more inept and less driven by evidence than they thought

7. Public loses trust in those in the government who advocated the SOMETHING (Rumsfeld, Fauci)

1 comment:

  1. Interesting--but do panics always lead to harmful actions? Do you see any cases where a panic leads to productive reforms?

    ReplyDelete