Pandemic ethics

Natural immunity to insanity

Is your morality universally applicable, or is it subject to arbitrary and convenient conditions based on how you feel on a certain day? If your moral principles are subjectively and inconsistently applied, then is that meaningful morality at all? Or are your presumptions of ethos nothing more than a pretentious self-righteous facade of self-aggrandizing benevolence, applied only when benevolence is easy? The bottom line is, what worth is your morality if it fails when tested?

In 2020-2022, we saw the true face of humanity, as we always get the truth of something under pressure. We saw friend turn against friend, family against family, lover against lover. And all for what? An unrealistic risk assessment perpetuated by the consolidated media, corrupt politicians, and fund-leeching academics? Or insane collectivist presumptions of (im)morality force-fed to us through braindead mantras, such as “We’re all in this together” or “You’re killing grandma” or “I’m protecting others.”

The COVID fiasco showed how truly evil humans can be, not when they are frightened, but when they get the sweet taste of power from their presumed self-righteous victimhood. Nothing grants you more arrogance than the aggrieved indignation of pretending to be someone else’s victim. And COVID presented an opportunity of pretentious victimhood; the perfect excuse for the powerless to get a taste of power by telling others what to do. “Deliver your liberties and suffer every indignity to protect me! Me, me, meeeeeee!!!!”

---

Regardless of how transmissive or dangerous a pathogen truly is (not how bad its PR narrative makes is seem), you must first consider what actions you, and you alone, must take to safeguard from it. More importantly, you must consider what “mandates” you are permitted by morality, common sense, and your own self-interest to force upon others. Even if morality is not your main driver in life, then self-interest is: you might assume that enforcing your arbitrary measures on others is somehow protecting you in the here and now when you hold power, but let’s see how protected you feel when you find yourself frail and vulnerable, in need of care from your aggrieved indignant entourage. Long-term self-interest trumps the short-term.

Regardless of how hazardous you imagine a threat being, you cannot force people to escape their default state - that of inaction - into acting a certain way to protect you. Not acting to protect you is not the same as acting to hurt you. To force people (under threat) to do something means that you now become a threat to them by initiating aggression. Therefore, they now feel the need to take measures to protect themselves from you. Just like you are willing to do anything to protect yourself from a threat, so are they; even more so, because you are a motivated individual rather than an unconscious threat of nature, and you are thus an easily defined target.

---

People cannot threaten you by not doing something. People cannot threaten you by doing what they always did either. People conducting their daily activities was never a threat to you, until you subjectively and arbitrarily decided it was. For example, if me not wearing a mask was fine with you one day, then this shouldn’t change when there’s an arbitrarily defined pandemic. The only thing that should change is your personal safeguards, because we each have our own personal risk assessment for ourselves. If you want your risk assessment respected, then you must first respect the risk assessments of others as those assessments pertain to those people. If we all began imposing on others what we thought was best for “the collective,” then I say we begin by forcing people to exercise with high intensity 7 hours a week, ban all murder scenes in movies and TV, criminalize bad language, ban all modes of transportation (like cars and airplanes), shut down the internet, and ban all sugar and starch. You sure you want to go that road?

By not doing, people aren’t initiating any aggression against you. Not protecting you is not the same as hurting you; it’s a false dichotomy to assume that people either protect you or hurt you. But by you doing, in this case, using the threat of violence against them, by imprisoning them, or by forcibly denying them access to vital services, you here are the one doing the hurting. You are initiating aggression. You become just like the very threat you self-righteously believe grants you your imagined “justification” to initiate aggression against others. If you initiate aggression, then people will feel justified in reciprocating against you.

Therefore, it is not moral, nor is it in your self-interest, to violently impose mandates on people; whether the medical threat is real, exaggerated, or imagined. Yes, we live in a society, which is why you must respect people’s wishes. They don’t owe you anything other than leaving you alone. You owe them that too.

Society breaks down when people force things on each other, not when they respect each other enough to leave them alone, and each take their own risks in life.

---

If you feel threatened by something, and others don’t, then you must have the humility to understand that you are the one responsible for your own protection. If people don’t see the same risk as you do, then perhaps you should consider the off-chance than it is you who could be wrong. In any case, risks apply to people differently, which is why you must respect other people’s risk assessments; otherwise you become the villain.

If you want to reduce your perceived risk with the help of other people, then you can only provide incentives, not threats. The difference is huge. With incentives, you offer an over-and-above reward to people who comply with your requests; and you don’t dish out punishment if they choose to decline. This is fair, because you aren’t entitled to anyone’s reluctant submission. With threats, on the other hand, you offer no reward for compliance; only the avoidance of punishment. I’ll let you decide which one is more meaningful, and which one makes you feel safer: one’s recalcitrant submission to health mandates he’ll deliberately sabotage out of spite? …or one’s voluntary courtesy of applying health standards out of respect for being respected, and being rewarded. And the reward could be as simple as the grace of a kind unentitled request, and a ‘thank you.’

---

The common objection is this: “But what if someone has an STD, and knowingly has sex with me? Shouldn’t they be forced to take measures?” This is simply a childish avoidance of self-accountability. This is making your health the responsibility of others. Are you sure you can trust other people with your health?

Whom you decide to have unprotected sex with is 100% your responsibility, and not theirs. Are you seriously suggesting that you rely on other’s diligence to safeguard your health? Whether they knowingly or unknowingly infect you with a pathogen is irrelevant, because in the vast majority of cases, people unknowingly transmit pathogens to each other - every single day. We can all unknowingly contract any infectious disease at any given time, so it’s hypocritical to lean back and rest assuming you’re safe just because people around you haven’t announced to you their infectious diseases. Because you can’t know what diseased people around you have, you assume you can contract any disease at any given time: so whether people follow health mandates or not is irrelevant - you still have to protect yourself. It is up to you - and you alone - to protect yourself. Whatever health mandates you assume people submit to, is still your risk to take when deciding to have unprotected sex with someone, or even to expose yourself outside in a public space.

Nobody infects you on purpose. You get infected out of your own negligence.

It is absurd to make your health reliant on whether people know they have an infectious disease or not. Your health is your responsibility 100%, and each behavioral risk you take is yours to own. So, forcing people to get tested for a disease is not only useless, it is also hypocritical. There are countless other diseases; should you be forced to be tested every day for all of them? Who gets to arbitrarily decide which diseases is worth testing for, and for which “vulnerable” group?

So, when you decide to go outside in a public space, it is you who is initiating the act, so it is you who must take every measure in your power to protect yourself.

---

If anything, assuming that people are complying with health mandates to “protect you” gives you a naive sense of safety that puts you in even more danger out of your deluded self-assuredness and inevitable recklessness.

---

Entitlement

No one can hurt you with their inaction; by ‘not doing.’ No one is obliged to help you, even if they can. You are not entitled to anyone going out of their way to act in your favour.

Nobody owes you anything unless you offer than incentive, and they voluntarily agree.

In first aid training, the first thing they teach you is that you’re not obliged to help any casualty at all - legally or ethically - even if you can. It is not your contractual job, and you are not expected to risk your own health, or the omnipresent possibility of harming someone, by trying to help.

You can’t hurt people by ‘not’ doing, but you can hurt people by ‘doing.’ In the case of an infectious pathogen, you hurt people by violently enforcing your arbitrary and scientifically unfounded measures - based on appeals to emotion, no less. You violently enforce whatever policy deluded you into “feeling safe,” while you deprive that same feeling of safety from people who perceive your aggression as a gross violation of their liberties.

You feel safe by making others feel unsafe.

If a novel pathogen changes your risk assessment, then it is you who must change your behavior - no one else.

If you demand that others behave the way you want them so as to accommodate your subjective sense of increased risk, then you simply expect others to manage your fears for you. You feel threatened by something, so you transfer that insecurity onto others who don’t necessarily feel as threatened by the thing you imagine threatens you. This is making your problem someone else’s, just because you circumstantially hold power.

It is illogical entitlement to presume that anybody owes you anything, without feeling that you owe the same courtesy back.

---

If we are faced with a common threat like a pandemic, first you must understand that what constitutes a pandemic - its definition - is subjective, and fluid according to arbitrary criteria by corrupt fund-leeching academics.¹²

Second, you must understand that, your aggression against people cannot be justified on the premise of “protecting yourself.” Every single crime and atrocity in history is morally “justified” in the eyes of the perpetrator, who sees himself as the victim when he’s the villain. If you think you have the right to put a gun to someone’s head so as to submit them to an arbitrary measure that supposedly protects you from a pathogen, then you won’t have a problem with a mugger shooting you for your wallet; the mugger too is trying to protect himself from hunger. Why are you being selfish enough to want to keep your money? Isn’t he entitled to it?

The question in both cases is: What are YOU doing about your own fears? How much consideration do you think you’re entitled to from other people when you don’t even show any consideration for them? And no, doing things to supposedly “protect them” when they never asked you to doesn’t count; that’s just what you tell yourself as you pat your own back.

If you don’t show compassion to your fellow neighbour, then why the hell would you expect your neighbour to show compassion to you? Your neighbour is not obliged to take any action to protect you. Not taking action to protect you is not the same as taking action to hurt you. The only one consciously taking action to hurt someone is the one who enforces arbitrary behaviors under threat of brutal violence, aiming to reach some utilitarian goal… some arbitrarily defined “greater good” that is always the source of the greatest evil.

And how safe can you feel knowing that your neighbour is forced to reluctantly and indignantly take arbitrary action that you imagine somehow safeguards you? How confident do you feel when the waiter serves you your food after you’ve berated and humiliated him? Are you certain that those you’ve threatened into submission won’t feel indignant and aggrieved against you? Are you sure they won’t be recalcitrant in their compliance, and may thus feel justified to even go out of their way to sabotage those “protective” actions? Are you confident they will forget the humiliations they suffered from you, and not get back at you at the first opportunity? Do you not see that nothing “good” matters if it’s involuntary?

Available measures

If you don’t first take every single measure available to you to safeguard yourself, then you forfeit your imagined entitlement to other people’s “duty” to safeguard you.

If you skip your motorcycle helmet, and then ride recklessly over the recommended speed limit, then it would be pretty rich for you to complain when a car driver cuts you off. If you are an obese chain smoker who’s never entered a gym, you shouldn’t have the nerve to demand that others “wear a surgical mask to protect you” when you don’t even bother protecting yourself. If you demonstrably don’t value your own health, then why the fuck would anyone else do? Nobody can take any action to actively hurt you, but they are not obliged to take any action to actively protect you either.

Similarly, if it is within your power to wear two masks, then it is illogical to only wear one and demand that others wear that extra mask. Yes, the TV scientists told us that when both people in an interaction wear a mask, transmissibility is reduced drastically. But wouldn’t it be easier for you to wear that second mask rather than go around approaching people and asking them to wear it instead? Isn’t it easier to take your health in your own hands rather than rely on others to do it for you? Isn’t it hypocritical to demand from others to protect your health when you so recklessly leave your health in the hands of strangers?

If instead you decide to wear that second mask, you get to control how well it is worn, how clean it is, and its quiality. Relying on others to protect your health is irresponsible, and it shows that you don’t really want to protect your health; you’re just looking for an excuse to order people around to make you feel good about your miserable self. That’s it, isn’t it?

Don’t expect others to protect your health, when you don’t even bother protecting it yourself.

If you don’t take all available measures to protect your health, then no one is obliged to take any measure to protect yourself, especially when they are doing nothing out of the ordinary to harm your health. Simply living their lives like they always had does not constitute aggression against you just because you imagine “it’s different now because we have an arbitrarily defined pandemic.”

Available measures include wearing two or even six masks, choosing to wear an N99 mask instead of a measly N95 or surgical mask, wearing a full hazmat suit and helmet, or simply staying home without expecting others to do so too. What? N99 masks are expensive? Multiple surgical masks as inconvenient? You value your health so little that you allow some inconvenience to get in the way? Then you prove that you don’t really value your health as much as you demand others to value it for you. So, why the hell would anyone involuntarily inconvenience themselves to protect your health when you don’t even bother the inconvenience of protecting your own health? See how you are willing to inconvenience others for your health, while you don’t bother inconveniencing yourself for your own health? Is that illogical or is that simply selfish and evil?

You can keep lying to yourself that you’re taking measures to “protect others,” but if you cared about others, you’d be respecting their liberty to not go out of their way to supposedly “protect” others; people like you, no less, who prove they don’t care about them.

Responsibility

It’s your responsibility for getting infected because people can’t know what they are infected with all the time, and if it’s transmissible, and if you are vulnerable and susceptible to infection. And you can’t go after people just because you chose to associate with them; unless you want to be punished for all the times you were part of a chain of transmission of anything.

No. Your health is your responsibility. It’s hypocritical to make others responsible for your health when you so clearly don’t want to be responsible for your own health. The normal by-default condition of human experience is to freely associate and share pathogens.

If you want to take extra care of yourself, either because you are frail, or scared of something novel, then fair enough. But it is you who is responsible to safeguard yourself. No one else is responsible for your health, unless you’re as stupid as to relinquish control of your health to others. You are the one who must stay home, you are the one who must wear that second mask, you are the one who needs to limit his movements. To expect that from others is an entitlement that you plainly don’t have. You cannot force anything onto others. If others inadvertently transmit pathogens between themselves - which we all do on a daily basis - then they aren’t forcing anything on you because you are free to disassociate, or you are free to take every precaution available to you to reduce your chances of being infected.

What? You don’t like being forced to take precautions? Then why the fuck do you feel entitled to force others to take care of your health when you don’t even utilise all available measures to take care of your own health?

No one is forcing you to associate with them. Yet you want to force others to take action they wouldn’t voluntarily take, just because you imagine this will safeguard your health; especially when you don’t take the same measures to safeguard your own health, no less.

Take again for example the insane mask mandate. The illogical premise suggested that, if both people in an interaction wore a useless surgical mask, then the risk of transmission was reduced significantly more than just one wearing a mask. This, by the way, they based on zero scientific methodologies (proven by the lack of demonstrable relationship between mask mandates and cases/deaths in different regions). But even if that mandate were truly helpful, then wouldn’t it be more logical for the one more concerned about transmission to wear that second mask than rely on others to wear it? Even if others wear a mask, are you sure it’s a quality mask? Are you sure it’s not damaged or overused? Are you sure they are wearing it correctly? Are you sure they haven’t sneezed in it a hundred times, making it more of a source of transmission than him not wearing it? Wouldn’t it be wiser to wear two masks instead, and not depend on others to safeguard your own health? So, you see, your health is your responsibility, whether people help you safeguard it or not. You can’t rely on other people, and nor should you.

Take the analogy of computer viruses and malware. To expect others to use an anti-virus to “slow transmission” over the internet is ludicrous. If anything, this deluded self-assurance that everyone is taking measures puts you in more danger. You are safer assuming that no one is taking care of their systems, so you act accordingly.

Whether people take protective action or not, you must take every precaution as if they weren’t; so mandates are useless. Be paranoid if need be, but don’t presume that everyone else is taking care of your health, because they are not motivated. And to rest “assured” that others are keeping you safe is you not keeping yourself safe.

If you rely on others to take steps to safeguard your health (especially if they are forced to reluctantly and recalcitrantly do so), then you forfeit your imagined “right” to others safeguarding your health. Why? Becuase relying on others to take care of your health for you means you don’t really value your health. You are reckless with it, because you could be using available measures, and you choose not to. And if you complain about the inconvenience of having to wear a second mask, then again, you prove that you don’t value your own health enough to be inconvenienced. Yet you feel entitled to others valuing your health more than you value it. This is like a socialist who never works out complaining about poor health, and then demanding that health-conscious people pay for his medical bills. STFU already.

---

COVID mandates were arbitrary, and they were proven in real time to be useless. Mask mandates and lockdowns varied vastly from country to country, yet cases and deaths (perhaps most, if not all, falsely attributed) did not at all support the hypothesis that those measures would work. Quite the contrary; countries with lesser measures did the same or better than those with the most harsh mandates (see, for example, the cases of Florida,³ Sweden,⁴ and Japan⁵). Let us not mention how countries with extremely low COVID “vaccine” uptake, such as Ukraine⁶, managed to get over the COVID without the deaths we were all threatened with; they even had enough surplus population to wage a war of attrition with Russia. Besides, all COVID data are scientifically invalid, because case and death attribution criteria were grossly arbitrary, fluid, and unscientific.

Mask mandates didn’t work, lockdowns didn’t work, and bullshit restrictions didn’t work; other than to suppress this economy to deflate fiat currencies that were opportunistically inflated to supposedly address this arbitrarily deemed “pandemic.” See ‘What was COVID.’

The bottom line

If you are afraid of something, then YOU do something about it.

If YOU are afraid of an infectious disease, then YOU must wear 2 or 3 masks.

YOU stay home.

YOU wear an N99 mask instead of a measly N95 or surgical mask.

YOU wear a hazmat suit or a space suit, rather.

YOU get injected with experimental compounds without any depth or breadth of data to support fraudulent safety and efficacy claims.

YOU close down your shop.

YOU social-distance.

YOU brand yourself as a hypochondrial imbecile.

YOU protect your grandma, instead on relying on strangers to protect her.

YOU become the outcast.

YOU take charge of your health, rather than expect others to do it for you, when you don’t bother doing it yourself.

---

Thank you for reading. I appreciate your time. All my work here is free.

Like, comment, share, or subscribe for free… or not. It’s all the same.

---

1. https://principia-scientific.com/flawed-definition-of-pandemic-used-to-declare-public-health-emergency/

2. https://undercurrents723949620.wordpress.com/2021/03/22/the-definition-of-pandemic-has-been-altered/

3. https://nypost.com/2022/02/23/without-mandates-or-lockdowns-florida-better-managed-covid-than-ny/; https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/dec/02/ron-desantis/florida-doing-better-covid-19-locked-down-states/

4. https://www.realclearscience.com/2020/07/08/sweden_fared_much_better_than_predicted_291335.html

5. https://www.voanews.com/a/covid-outlier-japan-searches-for-reasons-for-its-success/6368222.html

6. https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/17/covid-19-vaccinations-in-europe-which-countries-are-leading-the-way