The alignment between public hysteria and public policy is an example of what Sarah Schulman in her book Conflict is Not Abuse calls “the state’s protective machine an additional tool of harassment”. At best, they’re delusional, at worst – as this essay will argue – they’re hysterical and harmful. These justifications don’t hold water for various reasons. The other remaining justification for restrictions is the view that the mitigation of Covid is essentially a social responsibility, and that measures should be in place that impact everyone so that the most vulnerable won’t contract the virus – namely, the elderly and people with pre-existing conditions. The reasoning for this – which seems to be one of two justifications left for people who are in favour of restrictions – is the idea that we need to resort to restrictions whenever there is a ‘rise in cases’ in order to ‘free up hospital capacity’. People are not allowed to leave their homes after 10pm – not even to walk their dogs. They are the only area in North America to enforce a literal government ‘curfew’ to try and (once again) slow the spread of the virus. For instance, in Quebec, which has one of the highest vaccination rates in the entire world, they are going into a second curfew with restrictions that are more stringent than the first lockdowns. By overreaction, I mean things like ongoing restrictions, lockdowns, curfews, mask mandates, etc. The subject of this essay is the question of whether people and governments are overreacting to the threat of Covid – yes, obviously – and what the psychological motivations are for that overreaction.īefore discussing that, it’s important to define some terms and deal with some possible objections. Mortality is the sign of life … Experiencing anxiety does not mean that anyone is doing anything to us that is unjust. The fact that something could go wrong does not mean that we are in danger.

Confusing being mortal with being threatened can occur in any realm.

Deja vu theory dead reliving