Connect with us

COVID-19

The Media Wants a Return to 2020

Published

8 minute read

From the Brownstone Institute

By Ian Miller Ian Miller 

They’re never going to stop.

We’re a few months away from the end of 2024, four and a half years after the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. It’s a truth that should clearly be universally acknowledged by now, that the pandemic policies enacted by global governments were a catastrophic failure.

Mask mandates were pointless, harmful, and completely ineffective. School closures were one of history’s biggest mistakes, causing learning loss among young people that will set them back an entire generation. Business shutdowns achieved little except for hurting small business owners at the expense of massive corporations and necessitating a rolling series of money printing leading to rampant inflation.

Then we witnessed the formerly unimaginable emergence of vaccine passports.

Regardless, those policies have generally, and thankfully, come to an end. Overwhelming evidence, data, and scientific studies have confirmed that the Anthony Fauci-CDC doctrine was based on nothing, and accomplished less. But among the fearless media columnist set, there’s a desperation to return to the glory days of pandemic restrictions. The latest example coming from an opinion article published over at The Hill, complete with the usual misinformation, poor reasoning, and willful ignorance of current realities.

Continuing the trend that Fauci started.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Chief Medical Advisor to the President, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky on December 27, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Media Personalities Can’t Let Go of Bad Covid Policies

The column by Aron Solomon presents several absurd arguments, blaming a “recent surge” on “new variants” and saying we “need to take stock of where we are” with the virus.

“The recent surge in COVID-19 cases has disrupted summer travel plans, overwhelmed healthcare facilities in certain areas, and left many Americans dealing with the familiar symptoms of fever, cough and fatigue,” Solomon writes. “The summer months, typically associated with lower respiratory virus activity, have instead seen a significant uptick in COVID-19 infections.”

This is factually inaccurate.

The summer months have traditionally been associated with higher respiratory virus activity in certain parts of the country. The South and Southwest have consistently seen higher Covid spread in the summer months, corresponding with past flu patterns. Even the extremist public health agencies such as the one that dictated their edicts to the city of Los Angeles have acknowledged that summer surges have happened every year since 2020.

Sure enough, that’s exactly what the data shows, summer increases in Covid spread, decreasing over time as population immunity grows and testing decreases.

But Solomon’s run of misinformation wasn’t done there.

He then blames the “relaxation of public health measures” for the increased Covid spread this year.

“Second, the widespread relaxation of public health measures has created an environment conducive to transmission,” he writes. “Mask mandates, social distancing guidelines and restrictions on large gatherings have all but disappeared. This return to normalcy, while massively psychologically and economically beneficial, has provided the virus with ample opportunities to spread.”

The pointless mask mandates disappeared years ago in many parts of the country, which is just as well as they conclusively did not matter. Comparing regions with and without mandates has consistently shown that areas with mandates have the same Covid rates, if not worse. Even in California.

It just doesn’t matter, because masks don’t work.

Solomon then advocates for the return of pandemic restrictions and a “commitment to public health” to combat the summer 2024 surge.

“While much progress has been made in terms of vaccination and treatment, the current surge is a stark reminder that complacency is not an option. The road ahead will require a renewed commitment to public health, both from government leaders and from individuals.

We all need to prepare for not only the possibility of continued disruptions but for another new normal that might be a little closer to 2020 than how we’ve recently been living. That means preparing for future waves and the long-term implications of a world in which COVID-19 remains a persistent, if manageable, threat.”

Beyond the absurdity of demanding restrictions that have already failed, Solomon is ignoring that there was effectively no “surge” in summer 2020, in any meaningful metric. Getting sick, unfortunately, is a part of life. People will have colds, flus, Covid, and their resulting symptoms forever. No matter what we do.

But what matters is whether these waves lead to a substantial increase in associated deaths. They conclusively have not. Per the CDC’s Covid Data Tracker, Covid-associated mortality is essentially near all-time pandemic lows.

Roughly 1.8 percent of all registered deaths across the country were even tangentially associated with Covid. Those massive peaks though? Those came with the strictest restrictions of the pandemic, the restrictions Solomon wants to return.

Even the massive increase in 2021-2022 came after vaccines and boosters were widely available.

But a combination of immunity across a wide swath of the population effectively ended the pandemic. It had nothing to do with any pandemic policies from governments here or abroad. The fact that this is even remotely up for debate is a testament to the power of media misinformation and a willingness from people like Solomon to ignore contradictory information.

There is no emergency, there is no need to reinstate restrictions of any kind to deal with Covid. Especially because those restrictions are useless anyway.

Republished from the author’s Substack

Author

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

COVID-19

Crown seeks to punish peaceful protestor Chris Barber by confiscating his family work truck “Big Red”

Published on

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that the Ontario Court of Justice will hold a hearing at 10:00 a.m. ET on Wednesday, November 26 at 161 Elgin Street, Ottawa, regarding the Crown’s attempt to permanently seize “Big Red,” the 2004 Kenworth long-haul truck relied upon by peaceful Freedom Convoy protestor Chris Barber and his family trucking business.

Constitutional lawyer Diane Magas, who represents Mr. Barber, is opposing the forfeiture.

“The impact of the forfeiture of ‘Big Red’, which is an essential part of the operation of Mr. Barber’s trucking business and is relied upon by Mr. Barber, his family as well as employees, is not what Parliament had in mind when enacting those forfeiture provisions, especially considering the context of a political protest where the police told Mr. Barber where to park the truck and when Mr. Barber moved the truck after being asked to move it,” she said.

Mr. Barber, a Saskatchewan trucker and central figure in the peaceful 2022 Freedom Convoy, depends on this vehicle for his livelihood. The Crown alleges that his truck constitutes “offence-related property.”

The November 26 hearing will address the Crown’s application to seize the truck and will include evidence regarding ownership and corporate title. The Court will also consider an application filed earlier this year by Mr. Barber’s family, who are asserting their rights as interested third parties and seeking to prevent the loss of the vehicle.

Mr. Barber was found guilty of mischief and counselling others to breach a court order following the peaceful Freedom Convoy protest, despite his consistent cooperation with law enforcement and reliance on legal advice during the events of early 2022. At sentencing, the Court acknowledged that he “came with the noblest of intent and did not advocate for violence,” emphasizing that Mr. Barber encouraged calm and compliance.

Mr. Barber said, “‘Big Red’ is how I put food on the table. I followed every instruction police gave me during the protest, and I never imagined the government would try to take the very truck I rely on to earn a living.”

Continue Reading

COVID-19

New report warns Ottawa’s ‘nudge’ unit erodes democracy and public trust

Published on

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has released a new report titled Manufacturing consent: Government behavioural engineering of Canadians, authored by veteran journalist and researcher Nigel Hannaford. The report warns that the federal government has embedded behavioural science tactics in its operations in order to shape Canadians’ beliefs, emotions, and behaviours—without transparency, debate, or consent.

The report details how the Impact and Innovation Unit (IIU) in Ottawa is increasingly using sophisticated behavioural psychology, such as “nudge theory,” and other message-testing tools to influence the behaviour of Canadians.

Modelled after the United Kingdom’s Behavioural Insights Team, the IIU was originally presented as an innocuous “innovation hub.” In practice, the report argues, it has become a mechanism for engineering public opinion to support government priorities.

With the arrival of Covid, the report explains, the IIU’s role expanded dramatically. Internal government documents reveal how the IIU worked alongside the Public Health Agency of Canada to test and design a national communications strategy aimed at increasing compliance with federal vaccination and other public health directives.

Among these strategies, the government tested fictitious news reports on thousands of Canadians to see how different emotional triggers would help reduce public anxiety about emerging reports of adverse events following immunization. These tactics were designed to help achieve at least 70 percent vaccination uptake, the target officials associated with reaching “herd immunity.”

IIU techniques included emotional framing—using fear, reassurance, or urgency to influence compliance with policies such as lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine requirements. The government also used message manipulation by emphasizing or omitting details to shape how Canadians interpreted adverse events after taking the Covid vaccine to make them appear less serious.

The report further explains that the government adopted its core vaccine message—“safe and effective”—before conclusive clinical or real-world data even existed. The government then continued promoting that message despite early reports of adverse reactions to the injections.

Government reliance on behavioural science tactics—tools designed to steer people’s emotions and decisions without open discussion—ultimately substituted genuine public debate with subtle behavioural conditioning, making these practices undemocratic. Instead of understanding the science first, the government focused primarily on persuading Canadians to accept its narrative. In response to these findings, the Justice Centre is calling for immediate safeguards to protect Canadians from covert psychological manipulation by their own government.

The report urges:

  1. Parliamentary oversight of all behavioural science uses within federal departments, ensuring elected representatives retain oversight of national policy.
  2. Public disclosure of all behavioural research conducted with taxpayer funds, creating transparency of government influence on Canadians’ beliefs and decisions.
  3. Independent ethical review of any behavioural interventions affecting public opinion or individual autonomy, ensuring accountability and informed consent.

Report author Mr. Hannaford said, “No democratic government should run psychological operations on its own citizens without oversight. If behavioural science is being used to influence public attitudes, then elected representatives—not unelected strategists—must set the boundaries.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X