The Price One Pays: Liquidation of the Uncompetitive

I'm saving this excellent thread by Dr. Satoshi Akima FRACP. It's tongue-in-cheek, but of course some are sharing bits of it as proof that we need to let 'er rip! missing the point that this is what it looks like to bring some inane views to fruition. The unmistakable tip off that he's satirizing the policies of our day is his final screenshot from the introduction to Architects of Annihilation: Auschwitz and the Logic of Destruction, by Götz Aly and Susanne Heim. 

At the heart of Covid minimisation lies a Social Darwinist assault on medicine. It emanates from the implicit neo-Darwinism lying at the core of neoliberalism, which assumes all societal progress is driven by unfettered market competition. 

Government intervention in the natural competitive order undermines market competition, destroying society by propping up uncompetitive entities that ought to be permitted to be liquidated by natural attrition. We cannot repeat the mistakes of the Soviet block and its unnatural state interference in capitalist competitive marketplaces. A state lead moonshot approach to solving the Covid crisis will see the West suffer a downfall like the Soviet Union. While liquidation of the uncompetitive is painful short term, it will be for the betterment of society in the long run: it is "creative destruction." Costly interventions such as lockdowns, masks, air filtration and next-gen vaccines must be opposed for being violations of Nature. Unnatural interventions put the state in debt while creating immunity debt. It is better to get the creative destruction by the liquidation of the uncompetitive done upfront than suffer such dept-creating interventions that prolong pandemics, thus aggravating suffering long-term. 

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger! It is better to get the infection done and over with now to strengthen the immune system with natural immunity. If you don't strengthen your immune system naturally, you will get into immunity debt and will suffer more later. Medical interference in infections is a violation of the natural law of the survival of the fittest. By allowing the sick to survive, medicine perpetuates the unsustainable survival of unfit entities while undermining the long-term evolutionary interests of the species. Medical intervention, like economic intervention in the "natural" order of the marketplace, just "kicks the can down the rod" by delaying the inevitable and desirable liquidation of the uncompetitive. This debt to Nature must be paid back in suffering, compounded with interest. 

The decades of life expectancy gained wince the 19th century count for nothing. the economic contributions of the biotech sector have only been negative. They have merely put us into incalculable debt to Nature by allowing the survival of the unfit while creating untold immunity debt. The elimination of cholera and typhoid through modern clean-water systems and the eradication of smallpox have caused us to accrue centuries worth of immunity debt to Nature. A debt that we must start to deleverage immediately if we are not to compound the suffering. So let rip with smallpox, plague, and cholera in the community straight away, for it is in the interests of the betterment of the species. Unnatural medicines like vaccines must be replaced with the natural short-term pain of the swift liquidation of the uncompetitive. That means embracing a model of letting the sick and weak die a merciful death by euthanasia. This allows society to be governed again by a natural medicine that engenders progress through the principle of "survival of the fittest." Only the fit must survive. The sooner the liquidation of the uncompetitive by merciful and humane euthanasia can be achieved, the more this encourages progress through a natural evolution of the species shaped by unfettered competition. This is just the unavoidable "price one pays for progress." 

Clarifying the pink bits above:

Later these men would actually boast of their role as 'crisis managers in the Third Reich' . . . while patently criminal acts were spuriously dignified as historical necessity, 'the price one pays for progress.' . . . These young, career-minded technocrats and academics, whose plans and ideas are the focus of the present study, regarded Europe--densely populated and shaped by the complex vagaries of history, full of differences and contrasts--as a drawing-board on which to work out their grand designs. For them eastern Europe was one vast wasteland crying out for "readjustment' and 'reconstruction.' They wanted to rationalize production methods, standardize products, introduce an international division of labour, modernize and simplify social structures, reduce the number of 'unproductive' people to an absolute minimum. The ultimate aim was to harness large tracts of Europe to the interests of the German economy and the German striving for hegemony. The architects of this policy looked to the new, scientifically based concept of 'demographic economics' to help them attain their goals as cheaply and quickly as possible. The size and qualitative composition of the population were to be continuously monitored and regulated through government programmes of birth control (and birth promotion), resettlement and extermination.

I've said this before: allowing people, particularly children in public schools and "essential" workers, to be infected with a brain-invasive disease very much feels like a cull. We're enduring a horror show and placating the public with minimal efforts. 

Another thread of a variety of voices is about one such effort: WRDSB will pilot a long-term project to study data from 3 schools provided with CO2 monitors. Good for the trustees who promoted this; I know how ridiculously difficult it was to get it to this point. But I suggested that they go further, that teachers should also be trained to know in what the CO2 monitors mean in real time, so they can open a window when it hits 700ppm, learn how to check air flow and when to notify admin about high levels, etc. Unfortunately, trustees can't advise on what teachers are trained to know, of course, and they don't want to affect the study by having teachers react to the monitors! This leads to a frustratingly helpless image of teachers in a room full of children, with CO2 monitors hitting well over 2000ppm, and doing nothing to mitigate the problem as we all wait a few years for the powers that be to sort out what to do with their data.  They're hoping data will lead to equipment to reduce CO2 levels, but all they need is to open a window (for schools that have windows, that is). We can't wait for each school to be equipped with new HVAC system before we act to reduce CO2 levels now. 

It's like studying the effect of extreme heat on children, and not being allowed to open a window as kids keel over because it might ruin the data. School children shouldn't be treated as guinea pigs. The only difference with Covid is that we don't see them keel over. We see them absent for a few days, come back sickly, then maybe hear about them dying of a stroke in their twenties. But that's long after they left our schools, so it's not our problem. This isn't on current trustees at all because this really is the best that can be done under our our bureaucratic rule by nobody. 

One parent questioned the suggestion to donate cash to buy HEPAs for schools, and argued against these plodding efforts, a concern that one commenter found disappointing. Here's her pointed response to that:

It's disappointing that my 7-year-old has been forced to take "personal responsibility" for her own health because the adults that are supposed to be watching out for her don't seem to care enough to do so. It's disappointing that I'm desperately trying to keep my kids healthy in a system that thinks buying a few CO2 monitors is something to celebrate instead of a shameful symbol of bureaucratic inaction. So you'll have to excuse me if my comments come off a little disappointing. Want to know what else is disappointing? It's disappointing that somehow every adult in the school got the message that no mandates mean they can't even say the word "mask," let alone wear one. It's disappointing that families have to choose between their kids' education and health. It's disappointing that my daughter got Covid from her kindergarten classroom after avoiding it for 2.5 years and then learning it didn't even have a HEPA unit as promised. It's disappointing that I feel like I have to choose between my career, financial stability, and the safety of my children because I don't feel like I can safely send them to school anymore. And it's disappointing that I'm one of the lucky ones able to make that decision. So is the lack of action or interest in keeping kids safe I've witnessed this year. Why won't the board allow $200 CR boxes in classrooms but will spend 4 times that on equipment that doesn't even get turned on because it's too loud (if you're lucky enough to get one)? It's disappointing that when I ask a teacher or administrator about almost anything, I get blank stares and an appeal to "board policy." It's disappointing that the schools aren't safe, caring, or inclusive but seem to have taken it as a challenge to be as unsafe as possible.

My response to the parent, possibly my last as a free agent, unbound by a political role as of tomorrow. I'm currently just a lowly citizen candidate writing this: 

It's absolutely terrifying to have to drop off children to a school knowing that so few are masked during a pandemic with Covid hospitalizations significantly higher than the past two years. It's crazy-making that nobody will act and children are doing their own risk assessment. CO2 monitors are one thing that can get squeaked by. I want more open and clear education about Covid in schools, but that will be a hard sell. I've shared this Covid Info Poster with parent groups who might spread it further. Leaders are not protecting children. If you live near deep water, everyone teachers their kids to swim and watch the edges. In urban areas, kids are taught about walking safely in busy streets. We need to teach kids (and staff) about safety during a pandemic, which means wearing a mask.

The parent DM'd me asking, if trustees can't do more than this, then what has to happen to protect our kids? I answered:

I think the only thing that will flip this is if parents join en masse--massive strike or student walkout, etc. But in order for that to happen, more people need to understand the reality of Covid. Too many really believe it's over. Even some of the smartest people I know have stopped worrying about getting it the second or third time. They're so misinformed and don't want to learn about it. I thought a one-pager might help. We need more people to GET it, and then get them together to refuse to participate in a society or system that refuses to protect our children. Once there's a tipping point of people, then elected officials will HAVE to act to save their own jobs. 

I'll end this with this very brief tweet from Kashif Pirzada, MD with an image from Yoni Freedhoff, MD,

Your child wearing a mask in class, during this crazy RSV/Flu/EV-D68/Covid season, is better than spending 13 hours in an ER waiting room. 

ETA: and Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC who just fell ill with Covid, saying the quiet part out loud: