"We would've done everything differently": Newsom reflects on Covid approach

[Creeping Incrementalism]

TrappedinCalifornia, if you're reading this, I'm responding to your post from 6 months ago only now, because I had gotten tired of CalGuns slowness on the old bulletin board software. Now, I'm giving it another try.

Based on all the books and magazines I read about epidemics & pandemics as a matter of personal interest, all of which were published before Covid (mostly published before 2010), a couple of points I will make is:

About the statewide lockdowns of Covid for years, vs. the individual city restrictions for Spanish flu in 1918, or closing schools for polio in the early 1900s, for periods of a month or two:

that month or two and the possibilities were still viewed as 'interminable' by some and 'not long enough' by others.

One month is probably beyond the pale. The 2 years we went through in California is certainly beyond the pale. For me at work because I would not vaccinate, I was segregated in some degree for 2.5 years. My company is in one of the major metro areas in California, was not as extreme as some companies, and not "parochial" as you put it, in any sense of the word.

While you may have never 'seen' them, the discussions, debates, and machinations have long been out there. It's why many reference COVID as a 'test' to see how much the current population would tolerate.

No, it was not "long out there" in the mainstream epidemiology. Where do you get that assetion?

I say this because, while this isn't my profession, I long found the idea of epidemics interesting and read a lot about it. All the books and articles I read, until around 2010, would only ever bring up the topic of state/nation-wide lockdowns, both in general and holding out until a vaccine was developed, to dismiss the idea out of hand. Or to tell us how stupid the Hollywood movies were.

The closest to lockdowns as I recall, didn't exist until the decade of 2010 to 2020, and then only rarely, and it wasn't mainstream epidemiology. One book published circa 2017 suggested "social distancing", a term which it had to define because it was so new, and even then only as an optional general idea, not anything like a severe lockdown. Any "machinations" were only brought up by control-freak professional disaster planners, not epidemiologists, and the plans were kept effectively locked away in their files. I do recall an article in Time circa 2010 during swine flu alarmism pondering if people would put up with a few weeks or maybe a couple months of lockdowns, but it was presented as not much more than idle speculation. That is all I recall seeing. Locking down for 1 - 2 years until a vaccine came out was never discussed as realistic. So the mainstream medical profession did a total 180 when it came to the various restrictions until individuals were vaccinated. If the people of California had been wise, they would have realized the flip-flopping, and been skeptical of lockdowns and vaccine mandates.

Actually, many were opposed to the lockdowns and for the same reasons you were.

For me, over 50% support for lockdowns or vaccine mandates is where a society becomes immoral enough to take the blame. I recall California was polling 70% plus in favor of our severe lockdowns. Later, nationwide, it was 50% - 60% in favor of vaccine mandates at work. I'm sure California would have been well above the national average.

While it could have been worse (Australian-style quarantine campes, or I can imagine using a database to link essential/vaccination status with license plate readers, and then hunting down the non-essential or unvaccinated if they left home), like I said, over 50% is my limit. So maybe South Dakota is the only state I approve of.

Anyway, I can't blame Gavin Newsom. I blame the people of California.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

No, it was not "long out there" in the mainstream epidemiology. Where do you get that assetion?

It may not have been in 'mainstream epidemiology,' but it had been in the courts and in the political realm for well over 100 years. It's not about what was or wasn't implemented. It's about the idea being out there and, to some degree, the attempts being made to enforce them which were related to all kinds of things, including pandemics, martial law, invasions, etc. Likewise, it was out there in popular publications as a possible reaction to even epidemics/pandemics long before COVID was conceived. Don't confuse mainstream Science with mainstream thinking and debate. Just like...

The closest to lockdowns as I recall, didn't exist until the decade of 2010 to 2020, and then only rarely, and it wasn't mainstream epidemiology. One book published circa 2017 suggested "social distancing", a term which it had to define because it was so new, and even then only as an optional general idea, not anything like a severe lockdown. Any "machinations" were only brought up by control-freak professional disaster planners, not epidemiologists, and the plans were kept effectively locked away in their files. I do recall an article in Time circa 2010 during swine flu alarmism pondering if people would put up with a few weeks or maybe a couple months of lockdowns, but it was presented as not much more than idle speculation. That is all I recall seeing. Locking down for 1 - 2 years until a vaccine came out was never discussed as realistic. So the mainstream medical profession did a total 180 when it came to the various restrictions until individuals were vaccinated. If the people of California had been wise, they would have realized the flip-flopping, and been skeptical of lockdowns and vaccine mandates.

You're talking about the scale of things, not whether the thought process was out there and who was doing the discussing. As I've said before, COVID involved far more than 'actual Science.' What you need to be looking to are 'national emergencies' rather than specific epidemiology recommendations. Remember what I had said earlier...

...The population was a third (approximately) of what it is today. So, while the statistics will shake out differently, there are also 'similarities.' It depends on where you live and what was emphasized. Remember, there were many instances of 'bad' reactions in past pandemics/epidemics. While we, in theory, 'know more' today, we also 'know less' than we think...

This is where looking at "over 50%" being problematic. Different generations, differing levels of education, differing population densities, differing... A whole lot of differences. As you indicated...

For me, over 50% support for lockdowns or vaccine mandates is where a society becomes immoral enough to take the blame. I recall California was polling 70% plus in favor of our severe lockdowns. Later, nationwide, it was 50% - 60% in favor of vaccine mandates at work. I'm sure California would have been well above the national average...

...like I said, over 50% is my limit. So maybe South Dakota is the only state I approve of.

Anyway, I can't blame Gavin Newsom. I blame the people of California.

'For you.' 'Your limit.' 'You blame.'

Go back and look at what I said in regard to living somewhere that the population more closely aligns with your perceptions...

...I wholeheartedly agree that Government controls and mandates persisted far too long and not always as a result of 'good intentions.' Further, I agree that far too many in power allowed 'personal issues' to overcome their sensibilities when it came to their job duties and public responsibilities. But, that doesn't make all the players 'nefarious' or 'criminals' simply because they followed orders or acted out of concern; i.e., I suspect there were far more who did that than there were the likes of Fauci or Newsom or similar. In fact, Trump could very well be placed in the former category, despite his actually implementing some of the things we now castigate as motivated by things other than 'good intentions.'

It's why, when conducting a retrospective evaluation, one needs to be cautious painting with a broad brush; e.g., "the people of California are not good people." When you claim "They are not the Americans I grew up with," does that apply universally or is it more appropriately applied to certain actors or groups? Is it based on a pragmatic perspective or a more abstract sensibility; neither of which can be said to 'universally' apply appropriately when push comes to shove? Remember, many who were objecting, even from the beginning, fall under the definition of 'the people of California.' Many more were 'hesitant,' but went along, for awhile, until the 'evidence' and, thus, the perspective, was clearer. Many of those too fall within the definition 'the people of California.' Recognize it or not, some of those were actually the people you grew up with who didn't have the power or authority to alter what was happening 'in the moment.'

[Creeping Incrementalism]

There was not anything like state or region-wide lockdowns in the courts and in the political realm for 100+ years, for disease. I don't see how any general national emergency laws would apply. Disease has always been around, and is not a war or hurricane.

For "mainstream" ideas of area/state-wide populations -- ideas of trying to persuade (not mandate) people to stay home voluntarily for a few weeks were the most severe proposals, and that was only in the decade immediately before Covid. I never heard of theories of using generic national emergency laws to lock down places like the Bay Area, or a whole state. Even all the ridiculous lockdowns of fiction I saw, were about one city being cordoned off, or people being scared and voluntarily staying home.

Historically in the U.S., local actions like closing stadiums/pools/schools/factories in one city, mandating masks in one city, quarantining one house, specific types of ships, or sending one diagnosed person to the leper colony, was the greatest extent of restrictions for disease.

The only exception is that Bush administration plan written by a man with no medical training (Robert J. Glass) in 2006, and it was so bizarre it was effectively locked away and unknown to medical science. I have never seen that Bush plan mentioned in anything mainstream published through 2019, although supposedly there is at least one obscure academic paper about it. In early 2020, China invented huge lockdowns, which gave the West the idea. Only long after the China lockdowns was the Bush plan mentioned in the press, and I kind of wonder if someone dug it out to pretend they had planned the response all along.

As for the people of California (and the U.S. too), my feeling in a general sense is: I blame the people (not Newsom) for the profoundly bad decision they made to support the lockdown, a novel idea from an authoritarian country (China). The momentum of the lockdown was hard to reverse. I'm not saying everyone in California is bad, or that people who soon changed their minds about the lockdown are not wiser than those who supported the lockdown for years. But I don't feel any more solidarity for the people of California, or most of the U.S., than I do with foreigners.

If you are interested and have time (the articles are kind of long), below are articles that are more in-depth about what I summarized above about lockdowns being a new idea. Most of what I say above about pre-2020 ideas, I read in books years ago, not from these articles, but I think these articles summarize it well.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/covid-lockdowns-big-fail-joe-nocera-bethany-mclean-book-excerpt.html

Also:
https://www.aier.org/article/the-2006-origins-of-the-lockdown-idea

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Your base assumption is what's at fault. You think it's a 'new' concept. The reality is that it's something which has been out there from virtually the beginning of such incidents. The only 'difference' is scale.

There are reasons why many here talked of the idea that it was an 'experiment' to see how far they could go and your own article is titled that way. As I've said, COVID was used for many things by many people. But, it wasn't something which just came into being.

The term 'lockdown' itself was something created in 1973...

But, notice the author alludes to even earlier conceptualizations. From your own article...

That's your secondary fault. You want a linear alignment for pandemic responses. It's not that simple. It has more to do with 'emergencies' than simply with 'medical emergencies.' Active shooter exercises became 'popular' post-Columbine; but, that doesn't mean they were invented because of Columbine. That was back in 1999. In terms of 'medical emergencies,' lockdowns are tied to quarantine (isolation) and that goes back to...

...The practice of quarantine, as we know it, began during the 14th century in an effort to protect coastal cities from plague epidemics. Ships arriving in Venice from infected ports were required to sit at anchor for 40 days before landing. This practice, called quarantine, was derived from the Italian words quaranta giorni which mean 40 days...

You'll note they tie it back to 1944 in terms of the Federal Government's quarantine authority here in the U.S. However, bear in mind that such is in reference to 'medical emergencies as we know them.' What they aren't referencing is...

In the new millennium, the centuries-old strategy of quarantine is becoming a powerful component of the public health response to emerging and reemerging infectious diseases. During the 2003 pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome, the use of quarantine, border controls, contact tracing, and surveillance proved effective in containing the global threat in just over 3 months. For centuries, these practices have been the cornerstone of organized responses to infectious disease outbreaks. However, the use of quarantine and other measures for controlling epidemic diseases has always been controversial because such strategies raise political, ethical, and socioeconomic issues and require a careful balance between public interest and individual rights. In a globalized world that is becoming ever more vulnerable to communicable diseases, a historical perspective can help clarify the use and implications of a still-valid public health strategy...

As I said before... What you, I, and many others are reacting to is the degree to which the public and government didn't take a 'measured' approach to the actual problem and, in some cases, used the opportunity for 'nefarious' ends. Today, with COVID, we're dealing with a different generation, different technologies, more diversity of cultures, etc. As a result, there will be greater differences in perception related to rationality/irrationality. Residing in Walnut Creek is different than being in Los Angeles which is different than being in New York City. Many times, all one has is 'instinct,' which is why the adage "practice like you play and play like you practice" is a catch phrase. The problem? The media centers and larger voting constituencies are located in places which, at the beginning, were getting hit 'hard,' no one knew (with certainty) what was happening, and, in many cases, those regions were governed by individuals and political parties predisposed toward the use of Government power. Not a good combination in terms of 'instinctive responses.' In that sense, it comes down to a maxim which is often expressed... A person can be smart, but people are often stupid.

Once again, as I have observed, the key and the difference is found in these two passages...

For me, over 50% support for lockdowns or vaccine mandates is where a society becomes immoral enough to take the blame.

What you left off was...

Actually, many were opposed to the lockdowns and for the same reasons you were. However, they didn't perceive themselves as holding the reins of power or weren't willing to deal with the repercussions of opposition. Others thought a lot of 'dumb ideas' were being floated and implemented; but, for lack of a better idea or the ability to implement one, their 'voices' weren't broadcast in the media and given the 'censorship' (some official, some unofficial) that was happening, they were likely to be listened to even if they were 'heard.' In fact, if you go through even just the threads on this site, you see exactly that.

If 50.01% means you're willing to pronounce 'the People' as immoral, I think you need to go back and analyze your motivation. Likewise, if you don't factor in what many of us talked about in terms of 'cultural conditioning,' it becomes a personal axe to grind.

Were a lot of 'mistakes' made? Absolutely.

Were they all 'mistakes' or were many of them 'machinations' by a 'few' for reasons yet to be established (though much speculation exists)? Again, absolutely.

Is there a linear progression which can be pointed to? Not necessarily. However... That doesn't mean the idea was 'new' or that it was something not in the 'playbook' as a potentiality. Note another paragraph from the article I linked above...

In short, just because it hadn't happened, at this scale, in the United States doesn't mean the concept hadn't been 'out there' for centuries. In some instances, for certain periods, it was 'supported' by a majority. In some instances, it led to push back, up to and including open rebellion. Put another way, it all depended on whose ox was being gored.? ?

[Creeping Incrementalism]

"Your base assumption is what's at fault. You think it's a 'new' concept. The reality is that it's something which has been out there from virtually the beginning of such incidents. The only 'difference' is scale."

The difference of scale is my point. I'm saying that difference of scale is a big deal. Shutting down entire states is so far from something like a quarantine at a port that there is no comparison as to what was regarded as okay in the past.

In short, just because it hadn't happened, at this scale, in the United States doesn't mean the concept hadn't been 'out there' for centuries

The totalitarian concepts may have been out there, but through February 2020, I had thought California/America wasn't a place where lockdowns would be accepted or could be legally implemented when no legitimate legal framework existed. The legal concept used, "Shelter in Place", was written post-9/11 for a chemical release for a few days (even if there was no statutory language saying that explicitly).

What you, I, and many others are reacting to is the degree to which the public and government didn't take a 'measured' approach to the actual problem and, in some cases, used the opportunity for 'nefarious' ends. Today, with COVID, we're dealing with a different generation, different technologies, more diversity of cultures, etc. As a result, there will be greater differences in perception related to rationality/irrationality.

if you don't factor in what many of us talked about in terms of 'cultural conditioning,' it becomes a personal axe to grind.

If you say it like that, then let me put it this way -- my opinion is that enough (>50%) Californians in 2020 had been culturally conditioned to have perceptions that were bad/immoral enough to cause significant harm to a free society. So I do have a personal axe to grind against the people, in general. I don't blame Newsom as he is a populist and a follower of the will of the people.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

The difference of scale is my point. I'm saying that difference of scale is a big deal. Shutting down entire states is so far from something like a quarantine at a port that there is no comparison as to what was regarded as okay in the past.

Really? Comparing sizes in different eras can get a little tricky. Bear in mind that the population of a 'state' at one time wouldn't equal a 'fair sized city' today. Likewise, transportation of the disease and disease carriers in terms of timing and numbers is a crucial differential. Thus, saying there is 'no comparison' misses the point, which is 'degree and immediacy of impact' vs. ability to respond.

Back in the day, it could take months for a virus to be 'moved' from one location to another; but, similarly, the ability to recognize and respond to it was also 'extended.' Today, it can take a matter of hours for a virus to spread widely, requiring quicker and more definitive actions. But, that's also why many have reacted in terms of the 'quickness' of the response in that it raises many questions regarding the effectiveness to a supposed 'unknown.'

The totalitarian concepts may have been out there, but through February 2020, I had thought California/America wasn't a place where lockdowns would be accepted or could be legally implemented when no legitimate legal framework existed. The legal concept used, "Shelter in Place", was written post-9/11 for a chemical release for a few days (even if there was no statutory language

saying that explicitly).

Exactly. "You would have thought." That's what I've been trying to tell you. The concepts have LONG been out there. They may not have been implemented or implemented to the degree they were with COVID, but neither have the other factors necessarily been out there 'in combination' the way they were 'selling it' and/or the way many were concerned was happening. Put another way, it's been part of the contingency planning for a very LONG time and 'somebody' or 'some outfit' had sufficient control to implement the contingency plans based on a combination of legitimate concern and nefarious machination.

If you say it like that, then let me put it this way -- my opinion is that enough (>50%) Californians in 2020 had been culturally conditioned to have perceptions that were bad/immoral enough to cause significant harm to a free society. So I do have a personal axe to grind against the people, in general. I don't blame Newsom as he is a populist and a follower of the will of the people.

As I've been saying, be careful. You are condemning an entire population based on a certain percentage of them where not even all of them were acting entirely, or at all, 'in bad faith.' It doesn't take greater than 50% of a population to 'harm a free society.' We have approximately 333 million people in this country. A decision by FIVE of the SCOTUS Justices, made in 'bad faith' or in 'mistake' can negatively impact the structure of our society. Would you condemn the entirety of the population of 333 million for the decision of 5 individuals?

That's what I have been saying to you. You are condemning a rather large population for the actions of a few in their midst. It's tantamount to condemning ALL gun owners for the actions of those who use them ill advisedly or claiming that because today's guns are, technologically, more sophisticated than they used to be, "it's different" and, therefore, the Founders had no clue what we're up against today.

Likewise, I think you're gonna find many who believe that Newsom is not necessarily a 'follower of the People' in the sense you are indicating.

[Creeping Incrementalism]

When I saw quarantining a port, I mean the docks only. Either way, whatever the raw population of a port town today versus the raw population of an entire U.S. state in 1850 or whatever, and despite how much faster a virus can spread, makes no difference to my assertion that locking down wide geographic areas was never contemplated outside of fiction and that one Bush-era do-something-itis study that no one took seriously and was filed away to obscurity and only brought out after all the states had already locked down.

We're mostly saying the same things back and forth here, so the only new support I have for my point is an article written by the Associated Press on May 24th (6 days ago), which I think we can presume to be a mainstream opinion, that "After COVID-19 triggered once-unthinkable lockdowns..." https://hosted.ap.org/theskanner/art...tries-disagree. (See the second paragraph)

As far as condemning a large population, I expected more respect for liberty and prudence out of Americans & Californians. It's my opinion that any excuses don't cut it, and thus hitting 50% for any reason makes that population "bad". Your excuses for the people are not unreasonable... just not what I agree with.

A topic for a another thread, but, -- if many think Newsom is not a populist/follower of the people -- I know that, and I disagree with them.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

When I saw quarantining a port, I mean the docks only. Either way, whatever the raw population of a port town today versus the raw population of an entire U.S. state in 1850 or whatever, and despite how much faster a virus can spread, makes no difference to my assertion that locking down wide geographic areas was never contemplated outside of fiction and that one Bush-era do-something-itis study that no one took seriously and was filed away to obscurity and only brought out after all the states had already locked down.

We're mostly saying the same things back and forth here, so the only new support I have for my point is an article written by the Associated Press on May 24th (6 days ago), which I think we can presume to be a mainstream opinion, that "After COVID-19 triggered once-unthinkable lockdowns..." https://hosted.ap.org/theskanner/art...tries-disagree. (See the second paragraph)

As far as condemning a large population, I expected more respect for liberty and prudence out of Americans & Californians. It's my opinion that any excuses don't cut it, and thus hitting 50% for any reason makes that population "bad". Your excuses for the people are not unreasonable... just not what I agree with.

A topic for a another thread, but, -- if many think Newsom is not a populist/follower of the people -- I know that, and I disagree with them.

As I have continuously shown, what I am reacting to is that you are condemning an entire population based on a plurality, not a majority, of support during a time frame when no one knew (in spite of the fact that many were 'suspicious') what the actual score was and even there, the methods used, as I have shown, were already in existence and not just mere speculation or nefarious machination. The only difference was in scale and even that was part of contingency plans, which, by definition, are based on speculative possibilities/potentialities and filed in a drawer under the auspices of "we hope it is unthinkable and never comes to fruition, but given that we thought of it, just in case..."

This has become an 'endless' debate with you still coming back to the same position I identified to begin with... YOU believe.

All I've been attempting to do is give readers actual facts and context for what is presented as the basis for what YOU believe. Put another way, you evidently have an 'agenda' and, similar to that professor from a quarter century ago, you're trying to present things in a manner supportive of whatever that 'agenda' is. What I'm demonstrating is that your interpretations of the supposed 'data' aren't necessarily consistent with what the 'data' actually indicated. A belief is based on acceptance of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon. In that sense, I've simply been providing a bit of 'tempering.' You know, kinda like when a piece of legislation is required to have 2/3 majority rather than 50+1 to pass.

Were there 'bad actors' who forced or persuaded bad decision-making? Absolutely. But, they weren't necessarily even that 50+1 'majority.' They simply had hold of the reins of power or access to them.

Is 'not knowing' an 'excuse' for action or inaction? No. But, it does provide a context for the action/inaction.

Is a proffered rationale reasonable? That is what is being debated now; e.g., much like we have been doing with your rationale for condemning Americans & Californians as a whole for the actions of some, not the whole.

Was there a reasonable way for 'everyone' to have known, with certainty, what should or shouldn't have been done? Yeah... right.

Is Newsom a populist/follower of the People or does he 'present' himself that way to achieve other ends? Uh... As you say, that's a discussion for a different place; but, I think most on this site already have their own opinion on that.

[Creeping Incrementalism]

As I have continuously shown, what I am reacting to is that you are condemning an entire population based on a plurality, not a majority,

No, there was a majority, not plurality. Polls were over 50% for lockdowns initially, they were like 70% as I recall for California. I just did a quick web search showing a Gallup poll at 67% support for lockdowns in late March/early April 2020.https://news.gallup.com/poll/324146/...-lockdown.aspx

This has become an 'endless' debate with you still coming back to the same position I identified to begin with... YOU believe.

Okay. And you keep coming back to what you believe. My belief is that there is no excuse for approving lockdowns over a large land area, none ever, no matter how much people are freaking out without having all the evidence yet, or the period of time support remains >50% being temporary -- the people supported the lockdown, the lockdown happened, and the terrible consequences echoed on for years. Maybe that is my point that you are missing. Your belief is it is sometimes okay for a society to freakout and impose something as severe as a lockdown. Fine.

Put another way, you evidently have an 'agenda' and, similar to that professor from a quarter century ago, you're trying to present things in a manner supportive of whatever that 'agenda' is.

Yeah, my "agenda" is I knew the actual conventional wisdom before Covid which I have clearly shown by providing only one exception ever, the exception proving the rule, and how epidemiologists thought that one exception was absurd. Your agenda is insisting there was widespread idea of locking everything down from some nebulous idea without providing any evidence.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

No, there was a majority, not plurality. Polls were over 50% for lockdowns initially, they were like 70% as I recall for California. I just did a quick web search showing a Gallup poll at 67% support for lockdowns in late March/early April 2020.https://news.gallup.com/poll/324146/...-lockdown.aspx

Initially. That's the key and it's what I have noted; i.e., that it tapered off. Initially, no one knew what was happening or likely to happen. Yet, even by your own numbers, it still wasn't everyone proffering approval or support.

It doesn't matter if it was a majority, at first, and a plurality latter. It still wasn't... everyone. Yet, you are content to condemn everyone.

Okay. And you keep coming back to what you believe. My belief is that there is no excuse for approving lockdowns over a large land area, none ever, no matter how much people are freaking out without having all the evidence yet, or the period of time support remains >50% being temporary -- the people supported the lockdown, the lockdown happened, and the terrible consequences echoed on for years. Maybe that is my point that you are missing. Your belief is it is sometimes okay for a society to freakout and impose something as severe as a lockdown. Fine.

I have supported my beliefs with numbers and articles stating the reality; i.e., that those IN POWER or who controlled the reins of power were those issuing the orders. Whether a minority, plurality, or a majority in a given area subscribed to the same or similar thinking, doesn't matter in that they DIDN'T get to issue the orders and DIDN'T control enforcement of those orders. Yet you condemn them anyway.

What about those who practiced 'Irish Democracy' and didn't obey the orders? Oh. You condemn them to, regardless of the numbers.

Yeah, my "agenda" is I knew the actual conventional wisdom before Covid which I have clearly shown by providing only one exception ever, the exception proving the rule, and how epidemiologists thought that one exception was absurd. Your agenda is insisting there was widespread idea of locking everything down from some nebulous idea without providing any evidence.

What you have shown is that there was one exception, not that the thought process wasn't already out there for wider spread application; the latter actually being the point of contention if you'll recall.

Without providing evidence??? Go back and read the posts. I've shown several pieces of evidence; but, you don't accept them. Your lack of acceptance is a far cry from 'not providing.'

BTW: The lockdowns, et al. that you condemn 'everyone' for, cost a lot of us, in many ways. It didn't matter what our willingness to obey was. Some of us didn't and it cost us. Yet... You are content to sit back and condemn us too.

I'm done with this discussion. You believe what you want. I've got reality on my side.