Itâs kind of a huge non-story when you think about it. The Energy Department has announced they have developed a theory there was a lab leak with low confidence! Slow news week.
So basically they played politics. The question hanging in the air is âwhy?â. Was it all just an exciting game for them? Did they actually have some unspoken purpose or agenda? What was so damn important that it justified ruining the nation?
The more of this stuff comes to light, the less it makes sense.
They deliberately attempted to manipulate the populace with psychological tricks, backed up with mandates that they didnât appear to believe in or follow themselves.
It seems quite clear at this point that they werenât overly bothered about any risk to themselves. And if there were a genuine risk to others, they wouldnât have needed to exaggerate anything.
So what was the end game? I find it hard to believe that it was nothing more than a plot to make money. You donât bring an entire country to its knees and ruin its economic prospects for decades just so you can buy a new house and a fancy car.
Or a knighthood. I dunno, Iâm just completely baffled. It really does bring home the meaning of âthe banality of evilâ. These people were apparently so disconnected from the consequences of their penpushing they seem not to have even cared how many people were hurt in the process.
I can recall reading something about Himmler making a rare visit to a concentration camp where he witnessed a mass execution. He was apparently visibly upset by the fact that people donât just quietly drop down dead when you shoot them - until that point, all the killings had just been numbers in reports passing across his desk. I wonder if the likes of Matt Wanksock were made to sit in a room with hundreds of people who had lost their livelihoods, their relationships, their family members, or their health as a result of their âmandatesâ and listen to their stories, they might be a little bit shocked, or even repentant. Or whether theyâd just sit there smirking and handing out insults about anti-vaxers and covidiots.
They live their lives deperately avoiding being put into any such situation. If it at all occurred, then I suspect smirking, unless the cameras were rolling, and then weâd get the well-rehearsed ârepentance.â
People have been arguing for three years that these decisions were made based on science. Teams of experts reaching a consensus. When all along, it was one fucking idiot. One guy doing what makes him look good.
Can almost guarantee it is the same in other countries.
If I think really hard, I could probably think of another country which has frightened the population and been slow to role back restrictions. Just so nobody will think that we shouldnât have had them to begin with.
Exactly what I was thinking when I read that. Almost precisely the same things occurring in a country weâre all familiar with, and most likely underpinned by the same sort of pissing contests between outsized egos more concerned with their own prospects than with the health of the nation.
Letâs not forget, though, that the media were responsible for parroting whatever Hancock said as fact. Apparently all he had to do was give the editors a nod and theyâd run whatever he wanted.
Wow. Aside from the email typo, the whole rant didnât make a lot of sense. Iâm not the expert that he is, but I would have thought if something looks like evidence of serious crimes, Iâm pretty sure that both contractual obligations and NDAâs go out the window.
He comes across as either not particularly clever, or playing with a few cards short of a full deck.