Reporting for CNN in an article headlined, “COVID-19 could eventually be seasonal, scientists say,” Jacqueline Howard wrote Friday:
“At some point, scientists believe the rise and fall of coronavirus infections will resemble a more typical seasonal pattern. Early next year, health officials plan to hold serious discussions about what the end of the pandemic might look like and how we’ll know when we’ve reached that point.”
Seriously, they’re talking about planning the end of the pandemic?
Yes, please. More of that. Talk early. Talk often. People have lives to live, money to make, dreams to follow.
As Ben Shapiro might call it, the Dempanic of 2020 has been disruptive to an acceptable degree. The journalistic hysteria over it and the policy usurpations have created an untenable situation in our republic.
Here’s how it looks to Irene Heron, who wrote this week at The American Thinker:
“Our country is still under the sway of a medical bureaucrat who has amassed so much power that it appears he struck a deal with Lucifer himself. Living in New York makes it appear as if the freedom and prosperity we enjoyed in 2019 were only a dream.”
Laboring under the shared nightmare vision of COVID-19 annihilation, America mobilized as suddenly and totally as if the United States were at war.
The singularly all-consuming black swan event that inaugurated the 20’s was the ultimately viral news story (of course, about a virus) that epitomized the coincident achievement of near-universal adoption of interactive multimedia devices with virtually unlimited free publishing.
The guy that wrote the book on Neo’s shelf in the first Matrix movie would call it a “televised event phenomenon.” Writing about the 1991 Gulf War in Iraq, French postmodern philosopher Jean Baudrillard could have been writing about the Coronavirus Panic of 2020:
“Through the power of the media, this war liberates an exponential mass of stupidity, not the specific stupidity of war, which is significant, but the professional and functional stupidity of those who pontificate in perpetual commentary on the event.”
How does such stupidity exist with such mass and persistence at the engineering level of analysis? Baudrillard noticed broadcast and cable television news and the way media consumers used it in the early 1990s had the same failsafe for stupidity in it that this decade’s social media has:
“Fortunately, no one will hold this expert or general, or that hired intellectual, accountable for the idiocies or absurdities proffered the day before because those of the next day will erase these. As a result of the ultra-rapid succession of phony events and phony discourses, everyone is amnestied.”
So the goalposts keep moving, the narrative keeps changing, the old claims and promises keep getting forgotten and lost in the new faked up escalation of the crisis, becomes, “The laundering of stupidity by the escalation of stupidity, which recreates a kind of total innocence, namely the innocence of washed and bleached brains, stupefied not by violence but by the sinister insignificance of the images.”
But social media has a check against stupidity that cable and broadcast news, even print news, didn’t to the degree social media does. It might be only a matter of time before we see how effective it ultimately is: Social media entices the intellectuals for hire to save all the idiocies and absurdities they’ve proffered to a public archive in an instantly accessible form at a freely shareable hyperlink. We may yet see the chickens come home to roost.