web analytics
≡ Menu

 ‘If it saves one life’ is a dumb argument

14.09.21.  It’s so much easier winning an argument with emotional rationalisation than by providing facts. Emotional rationalisation inevitably carries with it a pious declaration of virtue on the side using it, and aspersions of callousness on the other party.
For example, the Government is slagging off against those who won’t get vaccinated, calling them selfish anti-vaxers (a real insult) or worse. Yet these people are just normal citizens standing up for their right to protect their own bodies the way they see fit.
You may not agree with them, you may even think they are stupid, but they are not putting you or anyone else at any greater risk from the Chinese flu than if they were vaccinated according to all the reports. Scott Morefield  discusses the same sort of arguments that are being used across the pandemic debate:

A favored tactic of the left is using emotion-laden arguments to further their narrative. Fortunately for them, in the debate over masks in schools, few things are more emotional than the idea of a child dying, whether it’s of or with COVID-19 or anything else. And true to form, they constantly beat the fact that, yes, some children do die of or with COVID, over the heads of those who cite the potentially harmful long-term effects of masking children.
“If it saves the life of just one child, then it’s worth it.” they say. To a non-critical thinker, that plea sounds logical, noble even. If you could do something simple to save the life of one child, wouldn’t you do it? Of course! If I saw a child drowning in a lake or running into the middle of traffic, I would gladly jump or run right in, as would anyone reading this.
But it’s much more complicated than that, isn’t it? We could stop driving immediately and ‘save’ the life of any future child or adult who would otherwise die in a car accident. We could wear HAZMAT suits anytime we’re in public and thereby conceivably ‘save’ every human we come in contact with – from ‘catching’ any virus we could potentially have. But those things would be insane, wouldn’t they? (Please, I need you to agree that those things would be insane.)
Indeed, every action we take as humans comes with some sort of risk. There are risks we take every day, risks we consider ‘acceptable,’ like driving, riding roller coasters, and even walking out our front door in the morning.
In our interactions with each other, the risk of virus transmission has always existed. Until the COVID era, society had accepted that it cannot properly function without humans having normal interactions with one another. That view, of course, has largely been jettisoned in favor of widespread public masking, an intervention that has never been proven to work to any significant or relevant degree.
Yet somehow, our overlords have managed to convince the majority of the gullible public that placing a moist, bacteria-laden piece of cloth over a child’s mouth and nose will somehow keep that child from getting COVID-19, a virus they pretend is dangerous to children by citing anecdotes instead of data. Assuming their intentions are good (I know, that’s a BIG assumption), they do it because they think “one life” saved is worth any intervention employed, proof of effectiveness be damned.
But at what point does the masking, the social distancing, the plastic barriers, the haranguing by teachers and even fellow students that forever implies that children, with zero proof, are virus-laden death vectors – at what point does acting like COVID is the ONLY risk in life, and a far greater risk than it actually is, become a detriment to learning, to mental health, and even to physical health (Big Tech and the other powers-that-be can continue to censor articles presenting reasonable data and evidence on this topic, but nobody is going to convince me there is zero harm to children by forcing them to mask for hours on end.)
And what is this risk, exactly, that justifies this forever insanity? Consider: According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), as of September 1, 2021, 470 kids under 18 had died of or with COVID-19. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), “As of August 26, nearly 4.8 million children have tested positive for COVID-19 since the onset of the pandemic.” According to my math (which you or any social media censor reading this can duplicate on your own calculator), 470 / 4,800,000 = .0001, or 1/100 of 1%. This equates to around 1 in 10,000 children who become a COVID case actually dying from that case.
Keep in mind, however, that official ‘case’ numbers are always far below actual infection numbers. For that, we again go to the CDC, where the agency estimated that as of May 2021 upwards of 27 million kids 17 and under had contracted COVID-19. Obviously, that number is far higher now since the rise of the Delta variant, so let’s bring it to an even 30 million, still probably significantly lower than the actual number. That number would be .000016, or 1 in 62,500 children.
Going even further, of that 470, there is compelling evidence that a significant percentage of those deaths were not caused primarily by SARS-CoV-2, but rather those who happened to test positive for the virus at some point before they succumbed to something else. This study, conducted at a northern California hospital, found that 45% of pediatric hospitalizations were unlikely to have been caused by COVID-19. Another study was close to 40%. The discrepancy stands to reason, especially since, as Johns Hopkins surgeon Dr. Marty Makary points out in this Wall Street Journal op-ed, existing CDC data does not report whether a patient is there BECAUSE OF the virus or because of another co-morbidity and they simply tested positive at some point before or during hospitalization. Shaving off another 40% from the already super-low death count brings those already low percentages even lower.
In other words, as this chart from The New York Times makes abundantly clear, children have a much higher chance of dying from things like car accidents, homicide, drowning, cancer, heart disease, and even flu/pneumonia than they do from COVID-19, a super-mild illness for the vast, vast majority of children and young people. And yet, so many of the powers-that-be, particularly those who run school districts, will enact and enforce insane policies that clearly do not work because they think it could possibly “save one life.”
And even IF forever masking could potentially “save one life” (a completely unprovable statement on its face, especially since there is ZERO data or evidence that forcibly masking children makes any difference whatsoever in case counts), that’s not how we’ve ever done policy. Even more disturbingly, since the precedent is here, when does it ever end? If we think we’re “saving one life” from COVID, why not mask and continue all the other nonsense forever because of colds, the flu, and RSV?
No, their argument is silly, illogical, and emotion & anecdote based. Don’t let them get away with it. And if they are in any elected position that affects whether or not your child is forced to wear a face muzzle for hours on end, do what you can to ensure they don’t stay in office beyond their current term.

{ 5 comments… add one }
  • Muphin 14/09/2021, 4:50 am

    “Get vaccinated” “if you don’t get vaccinated you will end up in hostital and could die” “If you are unvaccinated you could spread the infection” “vaccination will give us ‘herd’ immuntity”.

    Those are the catch cries of the propagandists, words that have been contorted to suit their narrative. Frightening words that have been drummed into the minds of the gullible with daily pressers.

    How can a UN-INFECT and UN-VACCINATED person infect a person who is fully or partially vaccinated? According to Gladys they can.

  • God58 14/09/2021, 5:15 am

    ” If I saw a child … running into the middle of traffic, I would gladly … run right in, as would anyone reading this” Sorry not me. No way. As a normal white male I couldn’t risk the accusations from touching a child. Facts, truth and care don’t matter anymore so just let the unsupervised sprog take its chances. “Its” used so as not to assume a his or her as might be trans. Yep, think us white dudes need to stay well away from helping others full stop because you know, we’re all pond scum.

    • Ian 14/09/2021, 7:07 am

      Good point. Helping a child and then getting accused of molestation by the parents who probably threw the kid’s ball out into the traffic.

      Parenting is not what it used to be.

      Sleepy Joe, (and similar), over the big pond has a better solution. He has offered to text the kid running into the traffic to warn them. Well that’s what he would tell the police when they searched his phone and found all the names and numbers.

      Sniff. Sniff.

      • Aadje 14/09/2021, 1:12 pm

        There was a man who innocently turned, smiled and sniffed the hair of a woman standing behind him. Outraged she slapped him across the face! Why did she reacted so over the top? He was a midget.

  • Penguinite 14/09/2021, 9:33 am

    I have a distinct feeling that the “truth is about to surface” that will disprove the official line of ‘covidity’ hence the determination by Government to vaccinate the population by fair means or foul. Only a second term of DJT as POTUS could have derailed the plot.

Leave a Comment