A few oddballs, like Laura Dodsworth, were not scared. A UK journalist, photographer and filmmaker, Dodsworth had previously distinguished herself through her books about men, women, and body parts. One of her books inspired a documentary, 100 Vaginas, which a reviewer described as “an extraordinary and empowering spread of the legs.”
When Covid-19 came along, Dodsworth grew alarmed—not at the virus, but at the fear swirling around it. She watched the fear grow legs and wings and wrap itself around her country. What troubled her most was that her government, historically charged with keeping people calm during times of crisis, seemed to be amplifying the fear. The media, which she had expected to push back against government edicts, gave the fear train an extra shove. Whatever had happened to “keep calm and carry on?”
Dodsworth understood why a government might want to keep people afraid at this time: a scared populace would happily comply with the Covid restrictions, which presumably would keep everyone safer. It was for the public’s own good. But was it ethical to use fear in this way?
[Answer: No, but even if the answer is Maybe, only for enough time to get a handle on the disease. After a few weeks, we had enough data to know that the disease produced acute cases mainly in the elderly, those with significant co-morbidities, and not at all in children. And yet for three solid years, the medical establishment and Western governments continue to insist on “emergency” status, use correlative rather than causative data to vastly overstate current risk, and push “boosters” without any knowledge of how useful they may be or whether the value outweighs the potential risks. — Ed]
Join the Conversation
VIP members get the ability to comment on articles.