In my last post, I attempted, once again, to fathom the extraordinary irrationality of so many people’s response to Covid. I drew attention to the wide and exciting range of natural, and globally-significant hazards whose effects rivalled, in probability and severity, that of a Covid-like viral epidemic, and which therefore, if the precautionary logic of Covid were to be followed, deserved the same level of spending as has been invested in ‘the fight against Covid’. It was, I hope, apparent that such a level of spending would bankrupt even the richest society in short order.

Here, however, is another way of looking at the consequences of following Covid mentality to its logical conclusion. Glenn Greenwald, a US journalist, points out that every time we drive a car, we expose ourselves and others to a risk of death or mutilation which, in the case of children, is far greater than the risk they run of dying from Covid. Unlike the natural disasters I covered in my post, car driving is something we could stop overnight, if we wished, saving a large and definable number of lives. We don’t, however, ban cars, because we have concluded that the benefits they bring outweigh the costs, including those of human life. In other words, as Greenwald says, we make a cost-benefit analysis; something lockdown enthusiasts resolutely refuse to do.

And I would add that it’s actually worse than that – anyone who asks for a cost-benefit analysis on Australia’s Covid policies is likely to find themselves pilloried, accused of heartless disregard for human life, by Covid pharisees who then climb into their Toyota Pious – the one with the ‘I heart my ABC’ bumper sticker, and drive away, wearing, if only their face mask would let us see it, the censorious frown that is the hallmark of those possessed of big hearts but little brains.