COVID – Being Used as a Cover?

Covid – A Cover for “Progressive” Ambitions?

At the moment, Canadians seem powerless to sustain themselves against those who have taken root in the halls of power and seem to be either utterly ignorant of the potential consequences of their actions – or deliberately intent on breaking Canada’s present society.  In many parts of the western world, and Canada in particular, progressives now appear to control government, the education system, media, cultural institutions, and large portions of the financial sector.

Whatever the intent of frenzied assertions about eliminating Covid (while at the same time purging emissions, battling systemic racism, regulating speech, and redefining two biological sexes into a profusion of alternative genders), the outcome has been, as Rex Murphy phrased it in the National Post, “one long confusing frustrating and gravely imperfect improvisation.”

Breaking the existing system without specifying a replacement is a well-worn path taken by radicals like the managers of the Royal British Columbia Museum, who demolished a popular and effective display and admitted to having no plan for its replacement. As in a common movie plot, it warns us that the destruction of something we assumed was part of our reality is not just a political act. It is calling into question the entirety of our existence.

Over the centuries, citizens have emerged from the thrall of autocracy not to give power to governments but to lend it conditionally. This is probably the time in our history to remember the advice of Ronald Reagan that “Politicians, like babies should be changed often – and for the same reasons.”

Facts versus Hype

The Prime Minister of Canada called Covid-19 an “opportunity”, hence giving credence to L.H. Mencken’s quote:  “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”  (1)

With this in mind, consider the alarmist media coverage broadcasting to the masses, contrasted with the carefree movements and attitude of elites freely travelling around the country and across continents.   What double-standard allowed both scenarios to exist simultaneously?  The likelihood is that the elites had information that the media did not convey to the general public.  Take the following excerpts from Statistics Canada for 2020 into consideration:

  1. “Covid-19 deaths also disproportionately occurred in older populations during the March-to-early-June period”.   “Approximately 94% of the deaths caused by Covid-19 involved individuals aged 65 and older”  (2)

2,  “..about 95% of the deaths directly caused by Covid-19 during the Fall involved people aged 65 and older.”   “Dementia or Alzheimer’s are the most common comorbidities associated with Covid-19 deaths”  (2)    ie:  the patients were predominately geriatric.

  1. “There were fewer than fifty Covid-involved deaths among those under the age of 45.  Pneumonia, and symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, not elsewhere classified, were the most common comorbidities among this age group.” (2)
  1. “100% of the Covid-involved deaths of Canadians under the age of 45 as of July 31 had at least one other disease or condition certified on the medical certificate of death.”   (2)
  1. “In the [WHO] international guidelines for certifying Covid-19 as a cause of death, certifiers are instructed to record Covid-19 on the medical certificate of cause of death for all decedents where the disease caused, or assumed to have caused, or contributed to death.”   (2)
  1. “when a pre-existing condition is suspected of putting a person at higher risk of a severe course of Covid-19 resulting in death, the death is counted as a death due to Covid-19 rather than a death due to pre-existing condition.  It is also possible that the death may have been influenced by Covid-19 but caused by another disease or an unintentional injury event.”   (2)   In effect, inflating death-by-covid numbers.

Yes, Covid-19 is real, and a serious threat to health-compromised individuals (whom should have been identified and properly sequestered from the outset).  However, the overall facts do not support the level of media hype that transpired.  And calling the situation an “opportunity” by Canada’s own leader is inexcusable – if not downright disgusting.

Ultimately, it appears the double-standard of the elites arose because of their apparent privilege to the facts in real time, which suggested they were not personally at risk, while the average citizen relied solely on the prescribed message delivered through the media,  and an administration seemingly preoccupied with exploiting an “opportunity”.

(1)  H.L. Mencken, In Defense of Woman 
(2), Statistics Canada, O’Brien, St-Jean, Wood, Willbond, Phillips, Currie, and Turcotte.

What can we expect from Government?

What can we expect from Government, and what price do we really pay?

An essential difference between those guided by common sense and those who believe that government, (ever increasing in size) can provide the essentials of life, falls between the definitions of ‘wants’ versus ‘needs.’

In this pandemic governed society, government has allowed itself the opportunity to take on ‘emergency’ powers permitting it to dictate our movements and actions in ways that we would never have considered reasonable before.  It has set aside the normal administration of justice by permitting its agents, to direct activities and levy fines and which are, by statute, the responsibility of legislatures and the courts.

We have seen federal and provincial governments use the pandemic as justification to make huge financial disbursements with no effective plan or oversight, the consequences of which will leave our great-grandchildren with the obligation of repayment.

In a democracy, we accept these actions because we accept the judgements of those, we elect to manage our society, to take the necessary action to meet the ‘needs’ of all of us.  To be effective as a democracy, we need to regularly revisit the outcomes of their decisions to see whether they simply addressed loosely defined ‘wants’ that had little to do with reasons involved with a pandemic.

In an effective democracy citizens should hold all representatives, found to have overstated the requirement, personally responsible for their actions and assign them some very heavy penalties.