MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Pandemics’

Pandemic Monkeyshines

Posted by M. C. on May 25, 2022

The Fauch’s organization NIAID has given millions of dollars to crazed scientists to bioengineer new and deadly GMO viruses and retroviruses that previously apparently did no harm in bats or other creatures, and couldn’t infect humans, but now can cause worldwide pandemics.

This begs the question: Why perform “Gain of Function” research at all, since the function you gain creates a bioweapon?

Pandemic Monkeyshines

By Cherie Zaslawsky
News With Views

While Bill Gates trumpeted his so-called “Decade of Vaccines” in 2010—apparently given a new lease on life with Covid—he’s been understandably quieter about his planned Decade of Pandemics. Of course the two go hand in hand, or perhaps hand in glove, as both are merely tools to further the Davos elites’ two-pronged attack on We the People: genocide and subsequent enslavement of those who survive.

Plandemics and their subsequent mRNA vaccines can maim and kill millions of people, while providing the psychopathic elites with plausible deniability. Here’s Gates’ disingenuous warning: “Also, related to pandemics is something people don’t like to talk about much, which is bioterrorism, that somebody who wants to cause damage could engineer a virus. “ [Italics mine.] Hmmm…now why would anyone want to do that, Bill?

In case you were wondering, Stephen Luby, professor of medicine and senior fellow at Stanford’s Wood Institute for the Environment, informs us that: There will be a Sars-CoV-3.

Not one to be outdone by pundits across the Pond,  Sustainable Prince Charles offers this gem: There will be more and more pandemics, if we don’t do ‘the great reset’ now.

It seems the WHO is planning for ten solid years of pandemics, from 2020 to 2030. How does WHO know what, why and when? Unless, of course, Gates’ minions—the WHO included—are feverishly planning and executing these pandemics. What better way to accurately predict the future than by controlling it?

LESSONS FROM FRANKENSTEIN

Among the dwindling numbers of literary classics students are assigned today, one often finds Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein. Written when Shelley was only eighteen, it is quite an achievement and brilliant in concept; although, in my view, far from a literary masterpiece and actually a bit of a slog to read. Nevertheless, students love it.

Unfortunately, they miss the point.

Instead of grasping what I consider to be the genius of the novel—its exposition of the truism that when man plays God, disaster inevitably follows—the kids derive the message that you should be kind to monsters. Many of them write essays to the effect that if only people had not rejected the poor monster—if only they had not hurt his feelings—he wouldn’t have gone on a killing rampage, which many students think was justifiable. I kid you not. This is how your children are being trained to think in public schools.

Perhaps their teachers also fail to point out the moral of this story. In fact, if it was clearly recognized and taught as a cautionary tale about hubris in schools today, I’d wager that the Common Core progressives who put together today’s pathetically weakened and subversive curriculum, would quickly remove it from the syllabi. After all, from man made viruses to gene-altering “vaccines” to transhumanism, we’re being besieged by legions of unleashed Dr. Frankensteins.

FAUCI’S STEALTH WEAPON: GAIN-OF-FUNCTION “RESEARCH”

Of special note among the legions of domestic Frankensteins must be our own Dr. FauxChi, whom one might describe as a modern-day amalgamation of Josef Mengele, the Nazi’s mad scientist who conducted cruel experiments on prisoners, and Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi’s Minister of Propaganda.

The Fauch’s organization NIAID has given millions of dollars to crazed scientists to bioengineer new and deadly GMO viruses and retroviruses that previously apparently did no harm in bats or other creatures, and couldn’t infect humans, but now can cause worldwide pandemics.

This begs the question: Why perform “Gain of Function” research at all, since the function you gain creates a bioweapon?

Here’s the logic: in case those viruses were ever to naturally jump from bats to people, say in a Wuhan wet market, and make people sick, scientists would be able to recognize the pathogens and presumably make vaccines against them for the huge benefit of… patent holders, like Fauci’s NIAID, and Big Pharma.  And if thousands or millions were to die in the process? That’s just collateral damage.

Of course there’s an even more nefarious possibility—dare I say likelihood: that these Frankensteinian viruses and the genetically modified “vaccines” we’re told we must have to combat them, are both designed for genocidal “depopulation” purposes. Pick your poison.

Read the Whole Article

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Pandemics Are Over When the Public Decides They’re Over | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on November 23, 2020

We’ll ignore the creepy framing of the issue around how citizens have lamentably “grown accustomed to certain freedoms” like being able to leave one’s home. But Fenberg is right to think the public is unlikely to be nearly as compliant this time around.

Whether or not the presence of a disease presents an acceptable risk to “the public” depends on countless individual risk assessments.

https://mises.org/wire/pandemics-are-over-when-public-decides-theyre-over

Ryan McMaken

In Colorado, reported cases and hospitalizations of covid-19 patients are at higher levels than ever before. And yet politicians are worried that if they issue new stay-at-home orders, the public won’t obey them. For instance the Denver Post last week reported Colorado Democrats admitted the public isn’t listening very closely anymore:

[State senator Steve] Fenberg and many other state leaders are worried…about whether a stay-at-home order would even work this time around. People have grown accustomed to certain freedoms since the spring, and already there are some in the population resistant even to the least oppressive rules, such as wearing masks.

“They don’t want to have restrictive orders that people just entirely ignore,” Fenberg said. “Once you cross that line, that seriously, then it really starts to unravel, when people completely check out from following the orders.”

We’ll ignore the creepy framing of the issue around how citizens have lamentably “grown accustomed to certain freedoms” like being able to leave one’s home. But Fenberg is right to think the public is unlikely to be nearly as compliant this time around.

And what happens if Americans start acting as if there were no pandemic? Then, the pandemic is at a de facto end, even if “experts” insist that it is still a de jure reality.

Medical Pandemics vs. Social Pandemics

In other words, government agencies may issue declarations of when pandemics end, but as noted in the New York Times last May,

pandemics typically have two types of endings: the medical, which occurs when the incidence and death rates plummet, and the social, when the epidemic of fear about the disease wanes.

“When people ask, ‘When will this end?,’ they are asking about the social ending,” said Dr[.] Jeremy Greene, a historian of medicine at Johns Hopkins. In other words, an end can occur not because a disease has been vanquished but because people grow tired of panic mode and learn to live with a disease

This has happened before. During the 1957–58 Asian flu pandemic, for example, the public took little notice of the fact that the flu was especially virulent that year. It is now estimated that more than a hundred thousand died of the flu in the period, which would be the equivalent of 220,000 Americans today. Indeed, Americans continued to die from the Asian flu into the 1960 flu season and beyond. But as far as the public was concerned, there had been no pandemic that required staying home or closing schools.

[Read More: “Why Didn’t the 1958 and 1918 Pandemics Destroy the Economy?” by Ryan McMaken]

Many Americans are apparently already moving in that direction now. According to a new report this month from Gallup, the percentage of Americans saying they are “very likely” to shelter in place has fallen from 67 percent in late March to 49 percent as of November 1. The percentage of respondents saying they are “very unlikely” or “somewhat unlikely” to adhere to stay-at-home orders has doubled from 15 percent to 33 percent. Notably, this trend has occurred in spite of more Americans in the survey also saying they think the virus situation is “getting worse.” In other words, Americans don’t think the disease is about to go away, but less than half say it’s very likely they’ll be sitting at home.

At this point, it’s a fairly safe bet that even as more and more Americans conclude they can’t put their lives on hold indefinitely, government bureaucrats will continue to insist that the pandemic puts everyone at grave risk.

But the public and technocrats often function on different schedules. After all, sitting at home for months or even years may work for childless, white-collar intellectuals and bureaucrats who can easily work from home and need not worry about the social and emotional development of children and others in their care. But many others are likely to view that model of daily life as thoroughly untenable.

Moreover, many currently unemployed Americans—who number in the millions—may conclude that collecting unemployment checks indefinitely is not a satisfactory substitute for making a living the ordinary way.

Making Risk Assessments

All of this will go into calculating risk, and this is why the public’s recognized end to pandemics is often different from the “official” end. The public is made up of countless individuals who make their own risk assessments based on the available facts.

This also is why it’s impossible to declare with finality when “herd immunity” has been reached. As Michel Accad explained last month at mises.org:

while herd immunity may indeed be a real phenomenon that can take place under certain circumstances when populations are subjected to a contagious disease, it is important to recognize that herd immunity is not a concept that has any practical value for setting public health policy.

For one thing, there is no objective way to establish that herd immunity has been achieved, since a “stable” rate of new infection is a subjective notion. What is a stable or tolerable rate of infection for me may not be so for you.

Whether or not the presence of a disease presents an acceptable risk to “the public” depends on countless individual risk assessments.

With stay-at-home orders, on the other hand, government officials have taken it upon themselves to apply an arbitrary bureaucrat-enforced definition of acceptable risk. These officials insist they must have the power to force the public to retreat to their home until some central political authority has determined that the risk level has dropped to an acceptable level.

How Much Risk Are We Willing to Accept When Driving?

Governments have tried this in other contexts as well.

When it comes to highway safety, for instance, federal and state government agencies spent years trying to convince Americans that “55 saves lives” and that driving at slower speeds would save thousands of American lives per year.

This in itself was not an unreasonable goal, of course. Nowadays, more than thirty-eight thousand people die every year in crashes on US roadways. An additional 4.4 million are injured seriously enough to require medical attention, and auto accidents are the leading cause of death in the US for people aged 1–54.

[Read More: “What the Failed 55-MPH Speed Limit Law Tells Us about COVID Lockdowns” by Ryan McMaken]

A concerted effort to bring down highway deaths could save hundreds of thousands of lives over a single decade. Moreover, the act of driving on the highway—especially at high speeds—heightens the risk not only for one’s self but for other motorists as well. This means if Americans would consent to drive at slow speeds, wear helmets when driving, and refrain from driving for “nonessential” reasons, countless lives could be saved.

Yet, clearly, most Americans have long since concluded that maximizing safety on the highway isn’t worth the trouble, either to increase their own safety or the safety of others. Countless American drivers routinely drive at high speed. Some don’t even wear seat belts. Many people drive to the store or the movies when they could “be safe” by just staying at home. Yet these nonessential motorists continue to put others at risk in this manner.

Few Americans seem to regard this as a serious problem. Most everyone just accepts the risk of highway accidents as another part of life. 

The same thing, of course, has always occurred in the context of disease, and it is likely to occur in the context of covid-19. As time goes on, more and more Americans will simply accept that the risk of catching various diseases as a part of life. This long ago occurred with the flu which still kills tens of thousands of Americans per year.

When this does finally happen with most of the public in regards to covid-19, the pandemic will be de facto over, although many politicians and bureaucrats will no doubt disagree.  Author:

Contact Ryan McMaken

Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is a senior editor at the Mises Institute. Send him your article submissions for the Mises Wire and The Austrian, but read article guidelines first. Ryan has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado and was a housing economist for the State of Colorado. He is the author of Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Coronavirus crisis management — what really happened and why it failed

Posted by M. C. on May 18, 2020

https://medium.com/@antonymueller/coronavirus-crisis-management-what-really-happened-and-why-it-failed-844b4c927942

Antony Mueller

Shutting down the economy and bringing social life to a standstill did not contain the epidemic. The virus spread and in addition to the harm done by the epidemic itself, additional immense damage has come upon many people because of the lockdown.

Problematic predictions

As an economist, I am trained in making forecasts and am thus familiar with the pitfalls of making predictions. Many processes in economics have similar patterns as epidemics. From the spread of new products to recessions and the contagions that happen in currency crises, processes similar to “pandemics” take place. Widely ignored at its inception, and at first, only slowly growing, crises often remain undetected until it is too late. When the problem finally gets attention, the authorities tend to overreact. Countermeasures are taken that do not contain the problem but acerbate the problems.

Often it would have been better to do nothing and let the things run its course. Yet governments are asked to do something. The population gets hyped-up as the media urges uncritically that something must get done. The same type of error as it often happens in economic policy has also been the case with the lockdown in 2020.

Epidemiological prediction models are not better than those of the economists. Not much different from dynamic developments in economics, it is also almost impossible to foresee in time and with clarity the future shape and dimension of an epidemic. Epidemic processes happen in the form of a “growth curve” which is a well-known quantitative development in economics, finance, and biology.

When a process grows at a constant rate, the overall increase starts out small but gets bigger and bigger over time until its unavoidable collapse. A bacteria culture, for example, will grow slowly at first and gain speed over time until it finishes off in a total collapse when no longer any host is left.

As can be seen in the graph below (figure 1), the coronavirus epidemic follows the typical pattern of a so-called logistic growth curve with the characteristics of almost flat growth at the beginning to be followed by an increasingly steep rise until a peak from where the curve bends down.

Figure 1: World-wide daily reported COVID-19 deaths from January 22 to May 15, 2020

Source: Our World in Data. Report May 15, 2020

One can see that the curve is almost flat from January until early March but took a sharp upward turn in the second half of March 2020, first moderately and at the end of March at an increasing speed. From the middle of March until early May 2020, the number of daily confirmed deaths surged until it peaked at the beginning of May and has been falling since the middle of April 2020.

To better explain such a growth process in more detail and to highlight its features, it helps to stylize the curve and concentrate on its beginning and the exponential part of the growth process (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Exponential growth process

The curves in this graph (Figure 2) point out that at the beginning of the process with its move from a to b along the time axis (t), the existence of an exponential process is still unrecognizable. In the real world, under data uncertainty, an early prognosis could easily have been linear as shown by line P1. During the first half of the process from almost flat at the beginning (a-b) to the stretch at which the curve becomes visibly exponential (b-c), half of the time has already gone by (from a to b) until its endpoint (d) has been reached. Nevertheless, around point b, the projection would still suggest a relatively moderate development (P2) as the movement of the curve is still only slightly bent upwards after reaching stage b and the effects of the process (Q1) are still mild compared to what they will be in the end. At the time between b and c, it may seem as if the process is still manageable. After all, the quantitative effect (vertical axis) has only moved up to Q2 on the vertical axis.

The part from c to d represents the dramatic part of the exponential growth curve. In about one-seventh of the total time span from almost flat to almost vertical (at d), the largest part of the effects takes place within the time span from c to d. In this phase, the speed of change is so fast that in the case of a harmful policy issue the authorities get overburdened by the events and fall into panic mood, which promotes taking wrong decisions.

At their beginning, exponential growth processes typically remain undetected. Yet when they are recognized, they often motivate their discoverers to exaggerate their dimension. When it is a policy matter, and the media take up the issue, public decision-making tends to discard sound judgement.

Disastrous decision making has also taken place in the confrontation with the pandemic of the coronavirus. In an attack of panic, governments around the world implemented harsh measures to block the spread of the coronavirus. The lockdown of the economy included the closing of schools, the suspension of sports and cultural events, the closing of restaurants, and the shutdown of nonessential businesses. Many governments implanted a policy of social distancing.

Failed policy of “flattening the curve”

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Stepping outside the medical fortress « Jon Rappoport’s Blog

Posted by M. C. on April 18, 2020

Pandemics with mass lockdowns are the next frontier, and we’re there. The lockdowns, plus television, FOCUS people on the inner game of Medical: THINK SICK.

It’s a major winner.

It would be on the order of the Cadillac Company having the ability to induce people to contemplate their cars day and night. Sitting alone, in rooms.

This is what the alliance between modern medicine and government has achieved.

The obsessive caddy whispers to his boss, “Sir, just want to make sure you know, when people take enough drugs and vaccines, they’re debilitated. They follow orders more dutifully. They’re easier to…rule.”

The CEO gives the caddy a look that says it all: Of course I know. I’m the boss. I’m in the greatest business in the world. It’s self-perpetuating. Now hand me my six-iron.

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/04/16/stepping-outside-the-medical-fortress/

by Jon Rappoport

Part 1

Once upon a time, men built a medical fortress to protect humans from dangers.

Eventually, some of the protected began to realize the new problem: they were inside the fortress. That’s where a great deal of the trouble was.

The casual observer knows bits and pieces of modern medicine’s history: the famous Flexner Report of 1910, sponsored by the Carnegie Foundation; the switch from a patchwork quilt of snake oils, nostrums, simple natural practices, and sophisticated therapies to Rockefeller pharmaceutical medicine; the advancing technology of surgery…

At first, Rocky Med was a new entry on the scene; muscling in, striving to become the leading competitor in a crowded field.

But soon enough, what was lurking in the shadows emerged: the ambition for monopoly. The rigging of an exclusive Pharma Standard, against which “lesser” healing approaches would have to be measured.

Resulting from an alliance between pharmaceutical medicine and government, those older approaches would go down to defeat, or at best, suffer classification as second-class citizens.

What an idea—government sanctioned and protected medicine. Where in the Constitution was a provision made for such an audacious and tyrannical concept?

Flash forward to these times. There are so many illustrations of the power of Pharma and medical care, you can close your eyes and point in any direction and they’ll be there.

On television, the veteran viewer is pounded by drug commercials around the clock. These ads conspire to claim hundreds and hundreds of conditions and diseases are loose in the world and require immediate diagnosis and treatment. The world IS medical.

The breaks between commercials brim with fact and fiction story telling about doctors, hospitals, and prominent people who suddenly faced medical crises and achieved rescue through treatment. (Absurdly, networks employ “reporters” who actually specialize in digging up these human interest tragedy-to triumph mini biographies.)

Step by step, leap by bound, the whole culture has become saturated with The Medical. For many people now, the thought of a time when humans managed to survive beyond adolescence, without doctors issuing edicts and writing prescriptions every few months… “I mean, I guess I can imagine it, the way I can imagine the old days when people didn’t have refrigerators.” Mothers watching their children for early signs of a sniffle resemble momma cheetahs crouched on promontories scanning the horizon for predators with a yen for their cubs.

THE NATURAL AND INEVITABLE OUTGROWTH OF ALL THIS “CULTURE” IS EPIDEMICS.

If they didn’t exist, they would have to be invented. Let me qualify that. Recent history reveals they don’t exist and the fake IMPRESSION of them HAS been invented.

And why stop with advertising an epidemic? Call it a pandemic.

Inventing the idea of a pandemic is now as easy as selling a new Honda.

The benefits to the monopolists are obvious. Profits from the sale of drugs and vaccines. De facto if not legal mandates to take the drugs and vaccines. Long-term cashing in on conditioning populations to accept medical orders of any kind—thus enrolling humans in utero-to-grave care as they trudge along bleak highways of diagnoses and treatments.

“So, people, tell me what we’re shooting for now. Is it forty, sixty, a hundred diagnoses per life per human? Our marketing departments are restructuring and they want to know.”

Pandemics with mass lockdowns are the next frontier, and we’re there. The lockdowns, plus television, FOCUS people on the inner game of Medical: THINK SICK.

It’s a major winner.

It would be on the order of the Cadillac Company having the ability to induce people to contemplate their cars day and night. Sitting alone, in rooms.

This is what the alliance between modern medicine and government has achieved.

And as I say, the invention of fake pandemics is entirely expected.

Part 2 Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Why We Need Free Markets To Fight Pandemics | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on March 24, 2020

But what if I told you that none of that was true? What if I told you that all you need in this situation is what you need every day in a free society: prices that can rapidly and easily adjust to changes in supply and demand?

Allowing prices to work in healthcare is of the most vital necessity. Rather than the crude strategy of canceling care not considered “urgent” while stockpiling resources in preparation for the worst, it is better to allow resources to be directed to where they are most needed via the price mechanism.

https://mises.org/wire/why-we-need-free-markets-fight-pandemics?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=934aaa93c0-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-934aaa93c0-228343965

The natural response in the face of a pandemic like the one we are experiencing today with COVID-19 is to take immediate and direct action to curb the crisis. We are told we need to have extensive quarantines, citywide lockdowns, and shelter-in-place orders. We supposedly need to limit the number of goods people can buy so they don’t hoard them up, and definitely keep prices where they are at so people can afford to get what they need. Hospitals and clinics must cancel surgeries and new treatment plans to ensure that they are prepared for the waves of patients catching the illness. Restaurants need to switch to takeout models! Stores need to switch to online-only, close their retail establishments, and prioritize important shipments! Government needs to make sure everyone does what they should to ensure we all make it out alive!

But what if I told you that none of that was true? What if I told you that all you need in this situation is what you need every day in a free society: prices that can rapidly and easily adjust to changes in supply and demand?

I can almost hear teeth grinding and fists shaking in response, with exclamations that I must not care about my fellow man. But hear me out as I walk through the effects that such prices would have.

Let’s start with what has occurred so far. People have flooded grocery stores to stock up on everything from canned goods to toilet paper, emptying the shelves in the process. Hospitals and clinics have, “in line with CDC guidance” (this phrase is ubiquitous), canceled various appointments and planned treatments or surgeries. Amazon has limited third-party shipments to its warehouses to “high-demand” items. Increased remote work has crashed remote coordination services.  Governments everywhere have engaged in various levels of forced quarantining and shut down numerous businesses or ordinary ways of doing business.

None of these effects or approaches of mitigation and avoidance are a problem per se. Much of this would naturally be done in response to a pandemic and the effects on demand would be similar. But what can be said is that such measures are taken crudely and mostly blindly in the absence of free prices.

The empty shelves would not be so prevalent were prices allowed to rise in contradiction of governmental laws against “price gouging.” Such a result would lead to natural rationing by consumers and would incentivize the ramp-up of production of goods in high demand. At current prices, it is true that some companies could potentially bear a short-term loss to increase production as a charitable endeavor. However, marginal producers (and even nonmarginal ones as the crisis continues) will only be able to ramp up production, even temporarily, if the prices rise.

A rise in prices informs producers of shifts in relative demand. That hypothetically the price of milk does not rise as much as the price of eggs or canned beans is a vitally important piece of information that cannot be conveyed through empty shelves alone. Rising prices would induce makers of the latter goods to expand production much more than producers of the former, and they would also encourage new entrants to prioritize accordingly.

We can observe the same mechanism at work in price drops, which are normally allowed to happen. The decreased demand for certain goods, such as tickets to events, flights, or crowded dine-in restaurants, signals these industries to find alternatives. These may include restaurants shifting to a takeout model, closing their main dining areas for the duration of the crisis, as has occurred in some places, or turning those dining areas into temporary warehouses for needed items (though this option seems foreclosed due to frozen prices disincentivizing the additional production that would make this helpful). Firms may also temporarily shutter their doors and send their workers into the labor force as potential temporary employees in areas that need them to produce vital necessities. (Instead, the government approach has been to propose bailouts and universal income checks while in some cases mandating the clear waste of resources.)

Price changes also differ by location, which naturally encourages the market to focus on the hardest-hit areas. A pandemic will not hit the entire country all at once, and although it may seem obvious (particularly at first) which areas are the worst off, the information that prices convey is vital to determining what the actual needs are. It may be that Seattle and New York City are the worst hit right now, but that alone does not tell you that Seattle is really needing ventilators while New York is short on nurses.

Allowing prices to work in healthcare is of the most vital necessity. Rather than the crude strategy of canceling care not considered “urgent” while stockpiling resources in preparation for the worst, it is better to allow resources to be directed to where they are most needed via the price mechanism. Regulations restricting the supply of care, including the construction of new facilities, the licensing of existing ones, and the number of people allowed to be licensed should be suspended (or, better, repealed). High prices for care, particularly for specialized laborers such as doctors and nurses, would invite the sector to expand its capacity by accepting med school trainees or professionals with lapsed licenses as temporary employees. High prices for emergency coronavirus care, particularly if permitted to be higher in the worst-off regions, would induce medical professionals to temporarily switch specialization and move to areas where they can do the most good. People taken in from shuttered businesses might be able to provide basic care and monitoring with minimal training, allowing those with more specialized training to prioritize the care that needs it most.

Insurance companies facing these high emergency costs would be heavily incentivized to come up with additional ways to mitigate the risk of spreading the illness. Tests that people could take at home and drop off at collection points, for instance, might allow for testing to be done without queues of potentially sick people that will almost certainly be sick when they get done. Even payments (and possibly delivery of necessities) to at-risk patients to incentivize a self-quarantine would be possible. And, most importantly, there are likely very many other possibilities that I, as a single person, have not and might not even be able to come up with. This kind of innovation and adaptation can only be optimally handled by entrepreneurs responding to changing prices, not central planners, no matter how intelligent, knowledgeable, or well intentioned.

The free market price system allows for the rapid and intensive reallocation of resources that is necessary in a crisis scenario like a pandemic. What needs to be done in such a crisis is not to attempt to steer the market to ensure that it provides what is needed (this approach is almost guaranteed to make the situation worse than it has to be), but to let it free to do what it always does: match the goals of entrepreneurial producers with the needs of the populace.

Originally published at disinthrallment.com.

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »