This was never about a virus.
Exhibit A: the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies
The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) is a British government committee that advises policymakers during a crisis. Formed in 2009, SAGE initially responded to fears of a swine flu epidemic—fears it helped stoke with its “reasonable worst-case scenario” death estimates. Writes Alex Berenson in his book Pandemia, p. 48:
“It [SAGE] quickly faced criticism for lack of transparency and inaccurate projections. In July 2009, it estimated the swine flu might kill up to sixty-five thousand Britons—more than a hundred times the number who actually died” (see estimate here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61252/the2009influenzapandemic-review.pdf).
Having been so wildly off the mark, SAGE was identified by policymakers as a source of inexcusable government waste, misinformation, and fearmongering. SAGE was then permanently disbanded. Policymakers apologized to the public.
Of course, that would happen in a world where reason and sanity prevail. But we do not live in such a world.
Having been so wildly off the mark, SAGE was bound to thrive in the realm of government. SAGE would go on to reconvene eight times to advise government officials. It is not surprising, then, that SAGE would rear its ugly head during the COVID-19 pandemic, convening yet again to inform government decision-making.
Within SAGE there is a behavioral science subcommittee. On March 22, 2020, unnamed members of this subcommittee produced a paper called “Options for Increasing Adherence to Social Distancing Measures.” As Berenson notes, the paper was not released to the public until months after it had already influenced the government response to the pandemic. (See the paper here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/882722/25-options-for-increasing-adherence-to-social-distancing-measures-22032020.pdf).
The SAGE document makes for some interesting reading, as it explores a number of non-mutually exclusive options for getting people to accept government-imposed lockdowns. For instance, under the heading “Persuasion,” we read:
“Perceived threat: A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened; it could be that they are reassured by the low death rate in their demographic group…. The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging.” [emphasis in the original]
Right away we know we are not dealing with intellectually honest people. We are dealing with social engineers. These people may have been scientists in a former life, but now they are acting in a different capacity. The goal here is behavior change. If the facts are reassuring and therefore cannot be cited in efforts to convince people to embrace the “new normal,” then perhaps ignoring the facts in favor of “hard-hitting emotional messaging” will do the trick.
How is this science? This sounds more like propaganda.
Appendix B of this paper shows the options under consideration. Three of the ten options explicitly call for the use of media to socially engineer (or frighten) the public, including option number 3: “use media to increase sense of personal threat.”
Again, how is this science?
Appendix B reads like a perception management playbook for Team Hysteria, and it appears to have been copied by governments across the globe, as country after country swept the facts under the rug and adopted a coercive, one-size-fits-all approach to a virus that disproportionately affects people over 70 and those with multiple chronic diseases.
This is not about a virus. It never was. There’s an agenda here.
Why else would it be necessary to bombard the public with hard-hitting emotional messaging, that is, [cough cough] propaganda? Why not simply affirm the facts of the matter in open, honest discussion?
And why all the censorship of dissenting voices? Why censor doctors who are merely pointing to the data and asking obvious questions? Besides dictators and loyalists who know they cannot win a debate if one were actually allowed to happen, who on Earth favors censorship? By the way, when have people who demanded censorship ever been on the right side of history?
Things that make you go hmmm… something’s not right here. This is not about a virus. More exhibits to come.