Lockdowns are unlawful and should never be attempted.

But imagine if ebola (with a fatality rate of about 50%) suddenly becomes highly infectious, would lockdowns be justified then? 1/n

Politicians are elected to serve the people and should never have the right to imprison the people they are hired to serve, even under the pretext of 'for your own good'. It is just absurd to think so. 2/n

Many are arguing that lockdowns were imposed without a cost-benefit analysis... fair enough argument... logical if you want to start a new business or conduct a new project. Not for lockdowns! 3/n
@toadmeister

Will there ever be any circumstances under which a cost-benefit analysis will weigh in favour of lockdowns?
What is the role of government?
Where do we draw the line of what is permissible in a state of emergency?
4/n

Governments' role in a public health crisis is limited to this:
1) ensure that the public remains calm
2) inform the public accurately about the lethality of the disease so individuals can assess their own risks and take necessary personal precautions
5/n

3) support the healthcare system to rise to the challenge by allocating resources, building makeshift hospitals to increase nb of beds and recruiting more healthcare staff possibly from final year medical and nursing students as aids to existing staff.
6/n

4) support individuals or groups who are at greater risk from the disease or who suffer greater losses due to the crisis.
That's it.
Governments' role stops there. No matter what the disease is.
7/n

When the world is faced with a public health threat...
Don't mess up people's brains by comparing the CFR of one disease with the IFR of another like @WHO & @DrTedros did on March 3, 2020. This is false information that leads to fear and panic.
8/n
https://aromatumbleweed.blogspot.com/2020/07/a-call-for-investigation-crime-against.html

Point 1 & 2 already not respected.
Then don't tell people that in order to protect the healthcare system we must lockdown to stop transmissions. This is the wrong strategy. The right strategy is point 3. If you end up not using the makeshift hospitals, close them down ...
9/n

and cut your losses.
Finally, don't send sick patients into care homes. You are killing the vulnerable population by doing that!! It's basic common sense. Inept governments didn't even know this much! Point 4 was flipped upside down by Governments!
10/n

Let's go back to our ebola example.
When you inform people accurately about the lethality of a disease, you don't need to lock them up to make them do the sensible thing. People will do the sensible thing on their own. 11/n

They will see that those not taking precautions are dropping dead. They will see dead bodies on the streets. They will know they need to take precautions. We are wired for survival. We will do the right thing by instinct.
No one needs to force us to protect ourselves. 12/n

It is also the case that with a highly deadly disease like ebola, the affected person becomes less mobile. This is nature's way to reduce the spread. It is an in-built mechanism to self-isolate when sick.
Nature is a miracle. We'd be wiser to let it run its course. 13/n

Conclusion:
Even in the event ebola becomes super infectious, lockdowns remain unlawful and should not be attempted.

Under no circumstance are lockdown legal or justified.
No cost-benefit analysis is needed there. 14/n

For those of you who are getting ready to throw that argument at me that not all people are sensible or know how to do the right thing, my answer to you is this: you think there are smart people who know what is the right thing to do for themselves & stupid people who don't. 15/n

... you are condescending and arrogant. All individuals know what is best for themselves. And only they know what is best for themselves.
Under no circumstance, do people at the top know better what is good for people on the ground. 16/n

We are a very resilient and ingenious species. When they told us we must social distance and wear protective equipment, we got very creative to reach these goals. Stupidly creative, might I add, because the goals were stupid to start with. 17/n

We saw stupid glass separators, stupid visors, stupid cloth masks, stupid squares on the floor for children to stand in, stupid marks on the floors to walk in one way or the other... as if the virus respects all these boundaries!!
18/n

Had we been given the right goal of protecting the vulnerable, we would've seen human ingenuity in action. We would've come through for our vulnerable. We would've thought of different ways of doing things and little solutions here and there to meet personal needs.19/n

That's the right way to solve a complex problem. With little solutions emerging from personal needs and circumstances. Not with top-down one-size-fits-all coercions and mandates. This is the difference between decentralised and centralised problem-solving. 20/n

The first relies on individual ingenuity, the second reflects a slip into authoritarian and dictatorial rule.
Haven't we burnt our fingers enough?
Haven't we learned our lesson yet? 21/n

@threadreaderapp unroll