People were not allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to accept an alleged health risk ('contagion'). The argument for paternalism was that every additional case of illness would overburden the system. We now know that this was a lie from start to finish.
So people were 'protected' even against their will. Grandmas could have voluntarily locked themselves in if they were really scared to death of 'infection'. Anyone could have done that. Grannies did not benefit in any way from knowing that their grandchildren were also locked up, not voluntarily but by force. It would have made no difference to the grannies, it would have brought no advantage, but only disadvantages for the grandchildren.
Back to the idea of consensus. If it had really always been about protecting the health system, all other avoidable hazards would have been banned, such as smoking and alcohol. After all, hundreds of thousands die every year from the consequences of consumption, and millions fall ill as a result. That means hundreds of thousands of beds overburdening the system without need, yet no one intervenes.
Based on the logic of protecting people against their express wishes and thus overriding their right to autonomy, children, also people with the right to bodily autonomy, were subjected to the most severe abuse.
Where was the resistance of the elderly?
A society that sets fire to its children to keep the old ones warm is doomed.
Reminder:
People were not allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to accept an alleged health risk ('contagion'). The argument for paternalism was that every additional case of illness would overburden the system. We now know that this was a lie from start to finish.
So people were 'protected' even against their will. Grandmas could have voluntarily locked themselves in if they were really scared to death of 'infection'. Anyone could have done that. Grannies did not benefit in any way from knowing that their grandchildren were also locked up, not voluntarily but by force. It would have made no difference to the grannies, it would have brought no advantage, but only disadvantages for the grandchildren.
Back to the idea of consensus. If it had really always been about protecting the health system, all other avoidable hazards would have been banned, such as smoking and alcohol. After all, hundreds of thousands die every year from the consequences of consumption, and millions fall ill as a result. That means hundreds of thousands of beds overburdening the system without need, yet no one intervenes.
Based on the logic of protecting people against their express wishes and thus overriding their right to autonomy, children, also people with the right to bodily autonomy, were subjected to the most severe abuse.
Where was the resistance of the elderly?
A society that sets fire to its children to keep the old ones warm is doomed.
Every single public ''health'' measure damaged the population.
This is the reason why no one should ever follow or look to the WHO as experts in anything but cruelty, ever again!