Lots of prattle about “long Covid” which, if you can be bothered to listen, is a real or imagined aftermath of real Covid. But the real aftermath of the exaggerated ‘flu is the assumption by elites, elected and unelected, that they will be able to take away more of our rights - as we let them do during the pandemic. And most of us have put the Covid atrocities behind us; ‘got over it’ as the elites said we should, as they soften us for their next authoritarian whim and assault on our rights.

You've written a moral fable, Renno (Renord?), not a political analysis.

Your entire argument hinges on one claim: that Covid wasn't messy policy under pressure, it was coordinated bad faith by a corrupt elite. That's a big claim. If you're going to make it, you need more than phrases about "therapeutic priesthoods" and imperial bodies. You'd need evidence that people knowingly lied, not just that they were wrong, overconfident, or heavy-handed.

Cuckoo!

Policies varied dramatically across countries. Courts overturned mandates. Elections reshaped leadership. Scientists openly disagreed in public. That's not what coordinated authoritarian capture looks like. That's just messy pluralism under stress.

You convert trade-offs into sacrilege. Employment mandates become "bodily desecration." Public health restrictions become civilizational rupture. But public health has always involved coercive elements: quarantine, isolation, mandatory vaccination in specific contexts. The debate is proportionality, not metaphysics.

Invoking George Orwell doesn't solve this, either. Orwell opposed totalitarianism, not emergency governance during a pandemic. Equating flawed pandemic policy with totalitarian indecency dilutes the meaning of both.

You also romanticise MAHA as uniquely immune to the lust for power that infects other movements. History offers little support for that optimism. Every insurgent movement claims moral purity. The test is institutional restraint once power is obtained. What safeguards does MAHA support to constrain itself?

If the core grievance is lost trust, say that plainly. Institutional trust did erode. That's a legitimate topic. But moving from "trust was damaged" to "we were ruled by a clerisy engaged in coordinated violation" is a leap that demands proof.

Emotion is not evidence. Dignity is not data. And moral language, however lyrical, is not an argument.

Overall?

3/10: Needs more effort

Here’s the million dollar question:

1. Is “defeating the establishment” even coherent if ruling structures inevitably exist?
2. If a ruling structure is overthrown, what replaces it—and by what force?
3. Why not emulate groups that appear to gain power by leveraging existing institutions (e.g., “Muslim enclaves in the West, and their current combined strategy of imposing their rule by manipulation of existing democratic structures)?

Evidence points to number three, and the need is urgent!

Muslims have offered themselves to the existing elite as a shock force to control the streets, viz a vee, the love affair encouraged by the elite, of Palestinians and their terror groups such as Hamas; the acceptance of bribes paid to the elite by ME terror States such as Qatar through institutional capture, particularly obvious with the University Educational institutions.
The direct capture by bribe, of politicians eg Donald Trump, who is hopelessly mired in the trap.

Dreaming on like this article does, wastes time and effort!

If a ruling structure is overthrown, what replaces it—and by what force?
diver dan,
yes, exactly like pay rises !

All this 'them and us' is a bit over the top.
Remember, the 'them' are those we choose to guide our daily lives.
And I emphasise: we choose them!
I am sure they make mistakes, but overall they don't do such a bad job.
We need to accept their dicta, whilst all the time evaluating what they do.
So we can change them if they don't come up to scratch.

Its hard to exaggerate how much I like this article. I've read quite a few articles and essays recently with the general theme that covid (or more exactly the 'expert' response to covid) was the death of the cult of the expert. But this pulls together all sorts of stands to that observation in a highly erudite way.

Read it twice and saved it for future reference. I particularly liked the way Orwell was drawn in. As Orwell once wrote: "There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them”. Lockdowns was one of those.

The collateral rise of MAGA and MAHA represents a revolution in the administration of the state. It may well be nipped in the bud because the global elite and the US deep state don't take these attacks on their wealth and power laying down.

Bhattacharya, mentioned in the article, and now head of the NIH was one of the first to recognise that the lockdowns and the entire reaction to covid was wrong and to urge a different path. The medical authorities ruthlessly shut him down, but he has risen triumphant both in his career and in the way his original observations were shown to be correct.

The reaction to the death of expertise is enormous. There was a time when merely asserting that "experts say" was enough to end discussion. No more. But its not all good. The distrust that the lying about the covid vaccine has engendered will have negative impacts as people reject vaccines whose efficacy aren't in question - eg whooping cough and measles. The authorities including MAHA have a lot to do to rebuild trust in those type of vaccines.

But all in all, a very satisfying article

mhaze,

It's remarkable how quickly "experts were wrong about some things" has morphed into "the cult of expertise is dead."

Expertise didn't die. It was stress-tested in a once-in-a-century event. Governments made imperfect decisions under incomplete information. That's not a cult. That's crisis management.

Calling lockdowns "absurd ideas only intellectuals could believe" is theatre. Reducing contact reduces transmission. That isn't ideology; it's basic epidemiology. The dispute was always about proportionality, duration and trade-offs. Pretending the entire concept was nonsense rewrites history.

You also say authorities "lied" about the vaccine. That's no throwaway line. That's an accusation of intentional deception. Which statement was knowingly false? What evidence shows intent? Overstated early confidence about transmission reduction is not the same thing as a coordinated lie.

As for Bhattacharya, he participated in a policy debate. He wasn't disappeared. He signed open letters, gave interviews, testified publicly, and now heads the NIH. That's not how ruthless suppression usually works.

The more interesting point you raise is trust. Yes, trust eroded. But framing that as a revolution against a "deep state" or a triumphant overthrow of a clerisy is premature at best. If anything, the danger now is swinging from naive deference to reflexive distrust.

Replacing "experts say" with "experts always lie" is not progress. It's just a different kind of credulity.

If we're going to declare the death of expertise, we should at least be precise about what actually died.

Wouldn't you agree?

"It's remarkable how quickly "experts were wrong about some things" has morphed into "the cult of expertise is dead."

It only seems quick to those for whom it is a new revelation. For others its been a long drawn out process that took way too long to materialise.

"Expertise didn't die."

You utterly misunderstand. Expertise didn't die but the cult like deference to 'experts' did. I suspect the subtlety will be elusive.

"Pretending the entire concept was nonsense rewrites history."
Saying that some said the "the entire concept was nonsense" utterly misunderstands the story. It was always about sequestering the truly vulnerable (the aged and those with underlying problems) and building herd immunity in the rest. The lockdown hysteria obviated against that approach and has been shown to be wrong.

"Which statement was knowingly false?"

The authorities said the vaccine stopped transmission of the dreaded WuFlu. That was the main excuse for the vaccine mandates. Only later did the pharmacology industry admit that not only didn't it stop transmission but they were so certain of that that they didn't even run tests to check.

"Replacing "experts say" with "experts always lie" "

You're the only one to use the word 'always' here. You misunderstand and then critique others for your utter misunderstanding.

"we should at least be precise about what actually died."

What actually died was the blind faith in 'the expert'. The blind faith that led to lockdowns and the elderly dying while love-ones were locked out. The blind faith that the pharmacology industry were operating in the interests of the public. The blind faith that the medical authorities were all-knowing and operated in the interests of the public. The blind faith that political classes had the interests of the public at heart. The blind faith that the police forces wouldn't be turned on dissent.

And expanding further, the blind faith that the climate industry knows the future.

mhaze,

That approach assumes the vulnerable can be cleanly isolated from the rest of society while widespread transmission occurs.

//It was always about sequestering the truly vulnerable…//

In practice, care workers, families, and hospital systems link those populations. That operational problem was the core objection - not hysteria.

//The authorities said the vaccine stopped transmission…//

Which authority? Which statement?

Early data showed reduced infection and transmission. Later variants reduced that effect. That is evolving evidence. To call it lying requires proof of known falsity at the time.

//What actually died was blind faith…//

That phrasing assumes the Covid response was driven by blind deference rather than contested modelling, risk assessment, and political judgement under uncertainty. That's precisely what's in dispute.

Disagreeing with the outcome doesn't demonstrate blind faith. It demonstrates that governments made decisions using the precautionary principle in a fast-moving crisis. Calling that "blind faith" is mere rhetorical compression.

If your claim is that decision-makers ignored contrary evidence they knew to be valid, then show that evidence. Otherwise this is just relabelling complex policy trade-offs as epistemic servitude.

"Which authority? Which statement?"

So much of what you write is basically saying "I'm not aware of that therefore its untrue."

The vaccine mandates were only justifiable if the vaccine stopped or severely reduced the transmission.
Medical Journal of Australia...The mandate is "more justifiable when vaccinating one person helps protect others around them" and "vaccinating one person helps protect others around them". Then repeated by NSW health, Victoria Health, Brett Sutton, Daniel Andrews etc.

"You're not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations." Biden. Repeated by Berejiklian.

""Our data from the CDC today suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don't get sick, and that is not just in the clinical trials but it's also in real-world data." CDC. Used by Australian authorities.

Don't you remember the covid mandates? How were they justified other than by saying they protected others. Don't you remember being told by Chant and Sutton and Andrews that it would "protect grannie"? Don't you remember having to have a covid certificate to go almost anywhere? All shoved down the memory-hole along with all the other unwanted facts?

Now anticipating your next defence of the indefensible, it is true that most of these weren't experts and were only repeating what the experts had told them. So how about you go and find examples of experts or pharmacology companies speaking up to say that what was being said was wrong. And don't further embarrass yourself by quoting anti-lockdown experts who were in fact the only ones speaking the truth.

mhaze,

Asking for precision about which statement and what evidence existed at the time is not claiming something is untrue. It's asking whether it was knowingly false.

//So much of what you write is basically saying "I'm not aware of that therefore it's untrue."//

No, it's asking whether statements that later proved incorrect were knowingly false at the time they were made. That distinction matters.

//The vaccine mandates were only justifiable if the vaccine stopped transmission.//

That's not accurate. Mandates were justified on reducing transmission risk, reducing severity, and preventing hospital overload. Sterilising immunity was never a regulatory requirement for mandate arguments.

As for your Biden and CDC quotes, those statements were overly confident and, in hindsight, incorrect. But the key question remains: were they made with knowledge that they were false? In early 2021, data showed strong reductions in infection and transmission against the original strain. Delta and Omicron materially changed that picture.

Incorrect prediction is not identical to intentional deception.

//Don't you remember…//

Yes. I remember the period. I also remember evolving variants, changing efficacy data, and public scientific debate. Memory is not evidence of intent.

If the claim is that authorities knowingly misrepresented transmission data, then point to evidence showing they were aware their statements were false when made. Without that, this remains a case of overconfidence in evolving evidence, not coordinated lying.

That's a serious difference.

"If the claim is that authorities knowingly misrepresented transmission data, then point to evidence showing they were aware their statements were false when made"

I already did. They confirmed that they knew it didn't stop transmission and were so sure of that that they didn't even bother checking. Yet the claims were made and never refuted. I suggested you find examples of them refuting what was clearly incorrect claims, and obviously you couldn't because they didn't.

I've said before on these pages that I always think its sad that people lived through consequential events in their lives (end of the Cold War, fall of the USSR, 911, rise of MAGA, Covid) and utterly misunderstand it. People lived the vaccine mandates and yet don't understand the ramifications of forcing a population to take untested drugs that turned out to be unsafe.

No, you didn't, mhaze.

//I already did. They confirmed that they knew it didn't stop transmission and were so sure they didn't even bother checking.//

The original Phase III trials were designed to measure prevention of symptomatic disease and severe outcomes. They were not primarily designed as transmission studies. That is not the same as knowing the vaccine had no effect on transmission.

The early data showed strong reductions in infection rates against the original strain, which implied reduced transmission probability. Later variants weakened that effect. Where's the evidence that regulators or manufacturers knew, at the time those statements were made, that vaccines did not reduce transmission?

//Untested drugs that turned out to be unsafe.//

Compared to what? Infection risk? Hospitalisation risk? Age-stratified mortality?

"Unsafe" requires a comparative risk analysis.

They were tested in large Phase III trials before authorisation and then administered under extensive post-market surveillance. Were there side effects? Yes. Were there rare adverse events? Yes. That's true of many vaccines and medicines.

You are alleging prior knowledge of falsity and systemic deception. That requires documentation showing awareness of falsehood at the time, not retrospective reinterpretation of evolving evidence.

If such documentation exists, cite it.

Otherwise this is a case of overconfidence in early data during a rapidly changing viral landscape, not proof of coordinated lying.

JD,

now you're arguing it was understandable that they didn't test whether the claims that it stopped transmission were true.

Yes. that what I said from the outset. The vaccine could never stop transmission and therefore there was no point testing for it. But the only way to justify the mandate was to claim otherwise.

Since you now agree with my original point, I think I'll leave it at that.

mhaze,

No, I have not agreed that "the vaccine could never stop transmission." That's your formulation, not mine.

Vaccines do not require sterilising immunity to reduce transmission. Early data in 2021 showed significant reductions in infection against the original strain. Reduced infection probability reduces transmission probability. That was the basis of the mandate argument, whether one agreed with it or not.

Saying the Phase III trials were not designed as transmission studies is not the same as saying authorities knew transmission reduction was impossible. At the time, infection reduction data strongly suggested transmission reduction.

Your claim now is stronger than before: that it "could never" stop transmission. On what evidence was that impossibility known in early 2021?

You're using hindsight from later variants to retroactively declare inevitability. That's not proof of prior knowledge. It's retrospective certainty.

If you want to argue mandates were disproportionate, that's a defensible debate. But asserting impossibility and prior knowledge of falsity requires evidence from the time the statements were made.

That evidence still hasn't been shown. Back to you, I'm afraid.

I'm with mhaze on kudos for the great article. Orwell is usually instructive. I like the reference to noblesse oblige- others talk about those that have standards limiting their own power- others still don't believe in limits to their own power. What is the wiser policy? It is usually better to convince rather than to force, soft power, sometimes you have to say "I'm going for a walk to look at our enemy", you can join me. Trust.

Canem Malum,

The idea of power restrained by internal standards is appealing. "Noblesse oblige" has a long intellectual pedigree. But personal virtue is not the same thing as institutional constraint.

Every movement believes it will limit itself more wisely than its predecessor. The real test is what structural safeguards exist when persuasion fails and coercion becomes tempting.

Convincing rather than forcing is usually preferable. But all modern states exercise some degree of compulsion - tax law, quarantine law, criminal law, regulatory law. The question isn't whether power exists. It's how it's bounded and justified.

Trust also cuts both ways. Trust in institutions requires transparency and proportionality. But trust in counter-elites requires evidence they won't simply exercise power differently once they hold it.

The wiser policy is not simply "soft power," but clearly defined limits that survive changes in who is in charge.

And no, the article was objectively bad.