There are many of us who believe that thanks to continuous scientific and technological advances, our society is not only more productive in its day-to-day life (also an economic issue), but also has a longer life expectancy and a higher probability of surviving diseases that once would have caused death.
Thanks to various trial-and-error oriented methods, we have been able to take steps forward. However, this mentality (which is not at all incompatible with the criterion of the binomial “reason and faith”) is being quite damaged by the ideological and philosophical degenerations that are intrinsic to the revolutionary process.
This is not only evident in the postulates of gender engineering, which seek to destroy an anthropological conception intrinsic to our natural order. Since last March 2020, this has entered quite fully, as a result of an epidemiological circumstance that we know very well.
I am by no means going to deny the existence of this pathogen, which happens to be a coronavirus coded as COVID-19, but rather, I am inclined towards the thesis which, at the time, motivated the former American President Donald J. Trump to speak of the existence of a “Chinese virus.”
I will address specific questions about the line in which most political administrations have dealt with the matter, in a rather scientistic manner but, above all, favorable to a considerable encroachment of liberties (statist opportunity) and to the economic strangulation of society.
There is also the compulsory vaccination and the intricacies of the “famous” vaccination passports, also known as “COVID passports.” Both are measures that are intended to be applied in the United States, although they are not exclusive to the same territory (we can take a look at Europe).
Mandatory vaccination and prohibition of discussion
One is not an enemy based on what some call “modern medicine”. Nor will one doubt that the development of vaccination throughout history has helped to prevent deaths or convalescence of considerable severity (e.g., certain allergies or conditions due to tetanus, polio and meningitis).
Nor will I doubt that, at least according to official data, fewer people die because of COVID-19 (e.g., elderly people in geriatric care facilities). This is true, although I will not deny that traffic accidents and heart attacks are still major factors in mortality in the West.
However, I do not agree that immunological solutions from laboratories such as Pfizer, Johnson, and Johnson should be considered as something “obligatory” in the “state religion”, as something whose benefits are absolutely and fully “unquestionable”.
It is true that all drugs have side effects, but one is also free to question the emergency authorization of certain authorities and to consider other solutions such as natural immunity or other in situ treatments such as hydroxychloroquine or ozone therapy as more suitable and beneficial.
Nor is it acceptable that the coronavirus, despite not being the greatest cause of mortality in the world, is the only health condition for freedom of movement and assembly, regardless of any other infectious and propagating pathological condition (let alone the migratory decontrol promoted by the “prevailing” pro-green consensus).
Privacy is not at odds with quality of care and prevention
Honestly, I do not believe that all healthcare applications of data mining have to involve an absolute invasion of our freedoms. There are multiple anonymization techniques that, in this context, could be applied to the many patient and customer records of pharmacies.
Anonymization prevents the existence of data concepts that facilitate the identification of specific individuals (pseudo-anonymization of data, on the other hand, simply edits the determining information, for example, by replacing it with random codes that are difficult to associate with anyone in the first place).
However, it is not in the interest of modern States, promoters of tracking applications (with the collaboration of large technological corporations, which are not necessarily the best defenders of the free market and the principle of subsidiarity) that data can be limited to improving health and scientific-technological research.
It is seen as a “golden” opportunity to monitor the population (it is also true that to enter some European countries it has been necessary and compulsory to fill in forms informing the state authorities about your travel plans as well as about possible activities in the previous fortnight).
Therefore, betting on a scientific development that is not exempt from free discussion (I insist, without denying the existence of COVID-19) does not imply endorsing the provocation of hysterical fear in society in order to make it more easily assimilate those measures aimed at violating conscientious objection, privacy (intrinsic to property) and free movement.