What You Aren't Being Told About The New Normal Covid Policies. by - L. Norman.

"The weaponization of science to censor those with differing opinions hurts trust in science." - L. Norman.

Summarize this article!

It is truly a sad time for freedom of speech and thought in this country. As science and technology grow, we allow them to be weaponized to threaten those with differing opinions. This isn't just the case against distinguished academics—it has become prevalent in everyday conversations among friends, family, and co-workers. People are beginning to feel too scared to speak their minds, which is a dangerous precedent for the future of our democracy. We must ensure that freedom of speech and thought remains alive by standing up against those using science and technology as weapons. Our nation was founded on civil discourse—it is up to us all to protect this foundation, no matter our opinion.

In recent years, the trust in science built up over generations started to falter. Governmental responses such as lockdowns and vaccine mandates sparked controversy, some of which was based on either shaky or nonexistent scientific data. For those whose livelihoods were affected by the unscientific lockdowns and vaccine mandates, the blow to their life caused by a lack of scientific trust has served as a reminder that they cannot entirely depend on science to make decisions. Therefore, it is doubtful that any promising research or evidence will restore the same trust in science for them ever again.

This is the main article!

On April 2, 2020, a bizarre scene unfolded off the coast of southern California when an unidentified paddle boarder was chased by authorities and then unceremoniously fished out of the sea and taken into custody. While no one knows what inspired this odd pursuit, this incident may be connected to the global efforts to contain the spread of COVID-19, with authorities questioning whether any large public gatherings are happening farther out in the ocean away from prying eyes. Whatever the reason behind his capture, this nameless paddle boarder ultimately found himself facing a day he won't soon forget. (1)

The arrest of a single paddle boarder in Santa Monica Bay for violating coronavirus closings was a senseless act of injustice. They should have met it with an equally clear outcry against it. Unfortunately, people worldwide continue to be admonished and subjected to the same authoritarianism while attempting to navigate an uncertain time. In addition, these acts of law enforcement policing everyday citizens in pursuit of their hobbies or physical activity during a pandemic demonstrate a lack of proportionality and fairness, as well as awareness on the part of state officials that such actions are unnecessarily punitive and excessive. It is our oft-forgotten right – especially during times like this – to express dissent against overreach and arbitrary punishments while being able to take steps toward improving living conditions for ourselves and others.

While it is disappointing that many traditional voices provided cover for the unscientific authoritarian policies rather than questioning them, their reasons are understandable. Fear of contagion and the virus spreading has muddled our thinking and made us easy targets to be misled. The Los Angeles Times quoted a scientist who warned that SARS-CoV-2 could enter coastal waters and transfer back into the air, resulting in baseless fears of solitary paddle boarders bringing a wave of viral disaster along with them when they come ashore. This fear mongering has been used to perpetuate the notion that this virus is so insidious that even those who venture out in nature put us all at risk. It is unacceptable that such outrageous reasoning has been used to keep people away from outdoor recreation. Traditional voices must stand up against this dangerous rhetoric to protect our freedoms.

The sight of a lone paddleboarder being arrested recently was not only an infuriating moment but also a stark visual reminder that things had begun to change drastically in our nation and that we were entering a new era. Unsubstantiated and politicized pandemic messaging from biased news media outlets and public health officials like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Dr. Anthony Fauci created an atmosphere characterized by chaotic misinformation. It sparked tremendous contempt between two increasingly divided sides of the COVID-19 debate. This mistrust of science has continued to metastasize, damaging the individual well-being of people across the country and drastically altering our collective way of life.

The lines have been drawn regarding the spread of distrust in science: between those who accept responsibility and reject criticism. Dr. Fauci has stated that his place as a representative of science means that any criticism of him is an attack on science itself, inferring that he will not yield to scrutiny. Similarly, CDC Director Walensky's passive statement referring to an unreliable meeting of expectations reassures us that much-needed change in her agency will likely come later. These forces opposing change seem rooted in principles that make it highly improbable that any efficacious civil reformation of our current approach to science will occur anytime soon.

The recent announcement from the CDC that it has taken some blame for the increasing doubts surrounding science and its integrity is a start, but much more is needed to restore public trust in scientific endeavors. While promising to share data more rapidly and improving their ability to make well-thought-out policy decisions are positive, they will do little without emphasizing direct exchange and debates. Different views must be heard and discussed openly and respectfully for the public to be sure that scientists can objectively assess a wide range of research while still holding scientific accuracy as paramount. Only through honest, outspokenness will people become confident again in the fellowship's commitment to learning, accuracy, and serving the public good.

In the past two years, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have used cherry-picked data to promote policy that may not necessarily be based on solid scientific evidence. This includes the recommendation of masking school children, even though such an approach has little statistical backing, and pushing the claim that immunity from a vaccine is superior to naturally gained immunity. Such measures fly in the face of science and can create more lasting harm than any immediate benefits they might provide. The CDC's rushed publication of articles recommending these policies in their journal - Morbidity Mortality Weekly Report - serves as further cause for concern about what kind of evidence is being used to substantiate life-altering decisions regarding public health.

It has been discovered that despite numerous vaccine rollouts, the risk of hospitalization upon reinfection if a person has had the vaccine and never had COVID-19 before, is higher than those who have not had the vaccine and have experienced a prior COVID-19 diagnosis. Unfortunately, some buried this data to emphasize the existing vaccines' success. However, this information could be critical in deciding how best to protect oneself against dangerous outcomes of COVID-19-related reinfections. Vaccinations should always occur based on accurate information, so it's essential that all data is known, even if it does not paint an entirely rosy picture.

Dr. Walensky's bold statement that vaccinated people did not carry the virus. They could not become sick, which led to a curious consequence: an outbreak of insensitivity towards unvaccinated people. This untruthful message has been used to justify mockery of those who have lost their lives due to COVID-19, prompting a backlash against the scientific community for what many consider irresponsible communication of results. Must feel any celebration or sense of false security based on such messaging in light of its potential secondary effects.

It is heartbreaking to think that anyone would target families during these difficult times, yet it has happened. Unfortunately, these targeted families are unlikely to hear any acknowledgment of the wrongdoing or an apology from those responsible, even though both Dr. Fauci's vaccine and Dr. Bird's assertions about vaccine efficacy have proven unreliable. The fact that there was misguided hope on the part of Dr. Birx and other similar figures instead of firm scientific facts based on factual data is even more troubling, as it implies a lack of proper caution in their decision-making. It is for this reason that such apologies are necessary and expected, but unfortunately, this effort seems to be insufficient or lacking altogether.

At the start of the pandemic, Dr. Fauci gave us stern advice against buying masks due to their ineffectiveness against a virus spread through the air. This advice came after months of research and thought, yet when the political atmosphere changed, so did Fauci's recommendation. Instead of one mask not offering much protection, he proposed wearing several for more comprehensive coverage. Shockingly, when questioned about this change in his opinion, he candidly admitted it was a lie – an intentional falsehood crafted for the good of society – but a lie nonetheless. While this flip-flop caught many observers off guard, such is often the case in such unprecedented times; a truth once taught quickly morphs into another with each nuance of information coming to light. (2)

Despite having decades of medical and public health enthusiasm, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden and director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has taken a strong stance on the level of vaccine uptake necessary to achieve herd immunity against COVID-19. Rather than relying on scientific evidence or consultation with fellow experts, he chose to guess at numbers meant to persuade people into compliance. His choice may have implications for public trust in future public health policies, as it suggested he was intentionally misleading people to further his desired outcome. This challenge will require effective education programs and transparent leaders prioritizing sound science over quick results. (3)

Dr. Fauci's recent attempts to dodge questions regarding the government's involvement in "gain of function" research sparked much concern. As a respected public health expert and the self-proclaimed spokesperson for "the science," Dr. Fauci had undoubtedly earned the trust of countless individuals over the years; however, his responses during his March 2020 congressional testimony suggested otherwise. should have removed any doubts someone may have had about Dr. Fauci's credibility after witnessing his failure to provide clear answers to his questions. Instead, he obfuscated and provided questionable explanations regarding SARS-CoV-2 and gain of function research that fell far below expectations of transparency and accountability.

Many people felt the loss of trust that the world was experiencing in 2020 due to the pandemic, but it was greatly amplified by activist scientists and most of the news media. People had become increasingly suspicious of the decisions being made to help mitigate the spread of COVID, even when those decisions were sensible and correct. To make matters worse, Dr. Fauci refused to say anything critical of nationwide social justice protests, as these protests could be especially dangerous for virus transmission. They were refusing to address a vulnerability associated with protests, further reducing people's ability to trust their leaders and institutions when making decisions that affected their health and safety. (2)

In the sociopolitical climate of 2020, the news cycle often seems to move at light speed. It is, therefore, somewhat shocking that, during this period, scientists and news sources fostered an anti-Trump sentiment by eagerly reporting alarming alleged death tolls purportedly caused by Trump rallies despite claiming there was "no evidence of protest spread." While it may reflect the cultural divisiveness that has consistently characterized recent times, this tactic does little to create unity in a time when it matters most.

Scientists could use other strategies to determine if attending a protest caused disease transmission or death. These could include analyzing hospital and death records to see if there are spikes in cases that can be correlated with dates of local protests; looking at antibodies tests to identify those who may have been infected without necessarily showing symptoms; and tracking media reports and eyewitness accounts that mention potential connections between protests and illnesses. Of course, the most effective strategy is allowing contact tracers to ask whether someone attended a meetup. This enables scientists to draw more accurate conclusions about these gatherings' impact on spreading infection through communities.

Our society is built upon educated discourse and the open exchange of ideas, but this concept is becoming a thing of the past. In recent years, weaponized science has censored those with differing opinions, labeling them as 'ignorant' or 'abhorrent.' We see it every day in both academia and the media, where individuals - regardless of profession or expertise - are persecuted simply for having a different viewpoint. This misuse of science not only threatens free speech but erodes its legitimacy. It has become so pervasive that we have normalized this behavior, allowing science to be used as an instrument for censorship in unprecedented ways. This can not stand if we want our society to be based on truth rather than rhetoric.

 (Fig. 1. Comparison of daily per capita cases between Texas (orange), which lifted its mask mandate in March 2021, California (red), and New York (Green), which continued its masking policies.) (2)

President Biden's choice of words in accusing the elected leader of Texas of "Neanderthal thinking" for deciding to remove the state mask mandate was a clear example of the politicization of an issue that had become a cornerstone of public health guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic. It contrasted with his praise for states like California and New York for their decision to "follow the science" by mandating masks, even as infection case numbers continue to drop. People have politicized the wearing of masks, leading to more significant divisions within our society instead of relying on science-based epidemiological data. This posturing fails whenever solutions must be rooted in facts rather than partisan politics.

The epidemic curves of the states compared require no further argument. However, it has been unfortunate to witness the onslaught of divisive rhetoric in its place of informed conversations. "Slander dissenters" and "censor intelligent discussion" are becoming increasingly popular on either side to win arguments without utilizing facts. This situation impedes our ability to develop sound public policy and stops us from learning from each other and growing as a nation. Consequently, we find ourselves at a stalemate instead of a positive progression that benefits all parties involved.

In the age of social media, falsehoods can spread more quickly than ever imagined. This adage has become more apparent lately that information travels faster than can verify facts. The truth is often left scrambling to catch up in the race for public opinion and control the narrative. Thankfully, it is present and is slowly progressing towards catching up with such stories as those questioning mask mandates due to evidence and emerging data showing a lack of effectiveness. It has taken a while, but there's an encouraging sign that the truth is gaining its footing in this uncertain world.

Governor Ron DeSantis has proven himself to be a steady and reliable leader, but this has in no way made him popular with certain members of the news media. His leadership during the coronavirus pandemic caused such outrage that there were attempts to get "Ron DeathSantis" trending on social media. DeSantis' team claimed he was being attacked with "Neanderthal thinking." This jab highlighted the risks of a mob mentality taking control of opinion and the importance of leaders remaining steadfast when times are tough. DeSantis will not back down in the face of adversity - an attribute many have found admirable throughout his time as governor. (4)

Regarding the country's COVID-19 policy, Florida is a prime example of lots more than "follow the science." Looking at their data on the issue, you can see that politics, lies, and vindictive moral superiority are all too intertwined in their respective policies. It's no surprise that looking at the data based on Florida's approach tells a much different story than what is portrayed nationwide. Going with the same rhetoric being put out there isn't enough; personal opinion and agenda have become increasingly present in decisions made by politicians regarding this pressing pandemic.

 (Fig. 2. Age-adjusted COVID-19 deaths in Florida and California. The circles are proportional to the state population. Although these states adopted dramatically different policies, they had comparable outcomes.) (2)

For many years, falsehoods about the Covid-19 pandemic and its treatments have led to a severe lack of trust in science. One of the hardest-hit groups has been those who lost their livelihoods to unscientific lockdowns or vaccine mandates. It is hard to see how they could fully restore the trust in this group, but Dr. Walensky and Dr. Fauci could take specific measures to regain it partially. For example, dialoguing with these groups and actively listening without judgment can lay the groundwork for mutual understanding and rebuild some of the shattered bridges between science and those who have had their lives torn apart by it. Acknowledging mistakes made along the way is also necessary to show humility, an important trait when attempting to gain someone's trust again. Taking steps forward to help repair some of the destruction caused by decisions based on "science" would speak louder than words and make a massive difference in restoring people's trust. Here is a list to help Dr. Walensky and Dr. Fauci regain some of their faith.

1. There is no denying that public health relies on community cooperation to succeed, yet too often, authorities take coercive measures to force compliance. This needs to be more effective and highly beneficial to the trust between the healthcare system and those seeking help. Voluntary efforts have been shown time and time again to provide much higher levels of engagement and encourage healthy behaviors, which ultimately results in a reduction of illness within a population. By taking these proactive steps to empower people to make healthier decisions willingly, we can ensure better outcomes for our collective health. Going back to the basics of voluntary public health initiatives is essential if we want to restore trust within the healthcare system and promote healthy living practices.
2. The lack of diverse perspectives in policy debates about the coronavirus pandemic has only worsened the suffering people worldwide experienced. Had voices such as those represented by the Great Barrington Declaration been heeded, millions of young people would not have died needlessly from malaria and opioid overdoses due to unprecedented disruptions in healthcare services. Furthermore, a balanced approach to understanding and mitigating risk could have saved hundreds of thousands of children from starvation due to restrictive policies' economic impacts. We must be much more mindful and inclusive when inviting dissenting experts to the table for open policy debate; failure to do so has already cost lives and will no doubt continue to do so unless decisive action is taken.
1. With the current pandemic, it can be easy to slip into moralizing, attributing some form of personal failure to people who become infected and showing off a sense of "higher than thou" superiority. Unfortunately, this type of thinking not only harms those being treated with something akin to blame but also encourages dangerous public health messaging that could affect us all. We need to recognize that viruses are neutral and infection is something no one can control or take responsibility for. We must remember this in our conversations, especially those through which we influence others on how they should act during a crisis such as this one.
3. You need to apologize sincerely, like this "My sincere apologies go out to all those who were wrongly dismissed, publicly humiliated, inexcusably censored, or unfortunately hurt during the implementation of this policy. In light of what has happened, it would be disingenuous of me to say that counter data or lack thereof was not considered when devising these plans. I knew full well the consequences that putting such regulations into effect would have on innocent people, but I opted to ignore them to remain steadfast in my conviction. To those suffering from my decisions, I am deeply sorry and regret my selfishness."
4. Public health officials must realize that exempting the American people from nuance and honesty about the state of the world does us no favors. We may not care for what we hear, but knowledge will allow us to make better decisions - if not for ourselves- as responsible members of our larger community. Refusing to answer complex questions will only lead to guesswork and speculation, and none of that will help combat the current threats to our well-being. George Santayana wrote that those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it; however, with honest guidance from credible public health experts, we may avoid our mistakes altogether. Even in such trying times, speaking honestly is a fundamental responsibility on their part, an act that could bring about much-needed relief and security for us all.

As these pandemics continue to plague our world, we must be proactive in finding solutions. We must look at all sides of the issue, understand the risks and rewards involved, and consider personal freedoms alongside public health considerations. Above all else, we must remember that our decisions directly impact individual and collective outcomes; therefore, it is up to us –- with empathy and honesty -– to create an environment where everyone can thrive. (5)

A reference list

1. "United Arab Emirates: UAE Leadership Congratulates Citizens, Residents on Breakthrough COVID-19 Treatment." MENA Report, Albawaba (London) Ltd., May 2020.
2. We Must Have The Truth - by Quoth, the Raven. https://quoththeraven.substack.com/p/we-must-have-the-truth
3. "Nikkei Finishes above 25,000 for 1st Time in 29 Years." Jiji Press English News Service, JIJI Press America, Ltd., November 11, 2020.
4. Terry l Clark school board district 5 - spxln.aus-berlin.de. https://spxln.aua-berlin.de/news/kntp
5. On all sides - definition of on all sides by The Free Dictionary. https://www.thefreedictionary.com/on+all+sides

Here is where I got the info for this article!

• https://www.infowars.com/posts/we-must-have-the-truth-about-the-new-normal-covid-policies-unleashed/
• https://brownstone.org/articles/we-must-have-the-truth/
• https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-03/paddle-boarder-arrested-in-malibu-after-flouting-coronavirus-closures
• https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/12/mask-guidelines-cdc-walensky/621035/
• https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7032e1-H.pdf
• https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm
• https://www.foxnews.com/media/la-times-columnist-anti-vaxxer-kelly-ernby-death-covid
• https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/06/29/world/covid-19-mandates-vaccine-cases
• https://www.independentsentinel.com/jim-jordan-gets-dr-birx-to-admit-that-they-lied/
• https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/noble-lies-covid-fauci-cdc-masks.html
• https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.html
• https://www.nationalreview.com/news/nih-admits-to-funding-gain-of-function-research-in-wuhan-says-ecohealth-violated-reporting-requirements/
• https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/31/anthony-fauci-refuses-to-say-whether-mass-protests-should-be-limited-to-stop-coronavirus-spread/
• https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/31/trump-study-coronavirus-rallies-433760
• https://www.healthline.com/health-news/black-lives-matter-protests-didnt-contribute-to-covid19-surge
• https://www.businessinsider.com/nyc-contact-tracers-not-asking-people-attend-george-floyd-protest-2020-6
• https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56275103
• https://www.flgov.com/2021/04/12/governor-ron-desantis-holds-roundtable-with-public-health-experts-to-discuss-big-tech-censorship/
• https://www.sfgate.com/coronavirus/article/bay-area-mask-mandate-results-17271294.php
• https://www.newsweek.com/deathsantis-sign-creators-say-florida-governor-letting-coronavirus-flourish-1519454
• https://www.bioinformaticscro.com/blog/states-ranked-by-age-adjusted-covid-deaths/
• https://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/government-relations/advocacy/achieving-a-fair-and-effective-covid-19-response-an-open-letter-to-vice-president-mike-pence-and-other-federal-state-and-local-leaders-from-public-health-and-legal-experts-in-the-united-states/
• https://www.who.int/news/item/06-12-2021-more-malaria-cases-and-deaths-in-2020-linked-to-covid-19-disruptions
• https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/issue-brief-increases-in-opioid-related-overdose.pdf
• https://time.com/5864803/oxfam-hunger-covid-19/
• https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/12/tis-the-season-for-shame-and-judgment/617335/

---------------------END OF DOC TIME 01/14/2023-----------------------

 -------------CRITICAL THINKING NEWS BY - L. NORMAN. -------------