Posted BY: Stella Morabito
A lot of outrage followed from The Atlantic’s recent proposal for a “Pandemic Amnesty.”
It’s more than justified, given the essay’s cavalier attitude towards everyone who suffered greatly under cruel shutdowns and brutal medical mandates. On top of that, if you questioned the COVID narrative, insults like “killer” were added to your injuries.
Perhaps most galling about the proposal is its premise of moral equivalence. Clearly, those with grievances about the mandates are not at fault for anything.
But author Emily Oster packaged a neat explanation: we were all “in the dark . . . we just didn’t know” how it would turn out.
That absurd presumption brings to mind an old skit (maybe from an early Saturday Night Live) in which the excuse for murder was: “Oh! I forgot it was against the law!”
If there were unknowns in the COVID era, it’s likely because we were kept in the dark.
The authorities had no interest in investigating the life-saving usefulness of Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID. Or investigating vaccine injuries and deaths. Or the origins of the virus. Reporting such things would have been routine in a sane society governed by sane people. And now that we do know more, why are so many mindless mandates—like injections for six-month-olds and sixth jabs for young men at risk for myocarditis from the jab–still being promoted?