What is happening in our society to get seemingly completely sensible people to rebel against a preventative measure that is almost the only one that can stop the circulation of a virus that has already killed more than 5 million people in the world? That a democratic government should be treated like a dictatorship, that freedom should be perceived as an absolute right, without any counterpart in relation to responsibility and respect for others? In order for us to happily accept the risk of ending up in intensive care, the impact of health expenses of more than DKK 10,000 per day are the weeks spent with rehabilitation while the vaccine is offered for free? So that we deny that vaccinated people who get sick anyway are much less seriously ill than unvaccinated people?
The anti-wax movement never ceases to amaze with its irreconcilability, its sacrifice, its rejection of discussion, and its propensity for amalgamations and half-truths. There is a strange mixture of anger, navel-gazing, conspiracy, resentment. All decorated with the famous: “You will not convince me”. Will we tomorrow ask to drive at 200 per hour on the highway, to pay taxes only voluntarily, to ask for the free choice between the doctrine of creationism and the doctrine of the theory of evolution, to deny identity control?
Dives into the depths of a movement
I clarify that in a democracy it is quite normal, even necessary, for divergent opinions to be confronted with each other. But what creates unrest here are the motives and the way. A journalist friend challenges me thus: what is the left waiting for to condemn the governments’ fraud, pharma, WHO, when there are so many ways to cure and prevent Covid in a natural and good way? Marlet? That we all vote for SVP?
A person active in a scientific institution compares the discrimination and criticism to which anti-waxers are subjected to carrying the Jewish star imposed by the Nazis, and the premise of the Holocaust, or, more modestly, with the former apartheid in South Africa. A third, who has barely recovered from a serious attack on his health, says of the vaccine: “they do not get me”. Another person feels the presence of magnetic particles at the site of the bite. The proof: metal objects would remain attached to it. Finally, another who convinces himself that the vaccine works by genetic engineering.
And still this speech: “the” , “them”, the system, those who pull the strings, those who want to bend us to their will, the pharmacies, the government. All alike, all in union with the people and their liberty, all corrupt, wicked, malicious.
A huge distrust
An enormous mistrust has accumulated here, leading to a more than biased story that gives a semblance of coherence and plausibility to the most hallucinatory assumptions, built by retaining only the elements that would confirm it.
But one that reflects the growing insecurities and worries of our time. It is certain that this wave of rejection is driven by the indecision of public authorities in the face of: financial scandals (cf. the paradise newspapers); climate change; rising inequality; unjustified profits and income in the economy; the irresponsible, headlong rush into technologies that are less and less tangible; depletion of the model of “30 Glorious”or industrial junk food.
And also a great social drive. An individualism that ignores the demands of social life. A refusal to accept how collective immunity works, that the risk of infecting others is that natural immunity is, of course, precious, but never a guarantee. Unless you are refusing all medications “chemical” under the pretext that it would intervene in organic processes which have been shown to be defective.
And once the anti-wax argument has been rejected, we move on to the talk of covid, which would be only one “little flu”. We will quote numbers and individual fates where only statistics count, we will believe more such a huckster without real scientific credibility, simply because he or she “dare to oppose the individual thought”.
A society in danger of rupture
In fact, the anti-wax movement also expresses a rejection of the discipline of thought imposed by the scientific approach. Always this occupied claim to freedom without any responsibility, without any intellectual effort … which we had already encountered with climate skepticism or creationism (or even more absurdly, in the movement of the flat Earth, which according to some studies complies with 10% of the French, convinced that “contrary to what we are told”, the ground is flat).
This really undermines social cohesion twice: once by ignoring public and societal health conditions; second time ignoring the laws of the construction of scientific knowledge. If a person’s opinion is worth having a confirmed expert, nothing more is possible and 2 + 2 will at your choice also give 3, 5 or 6.
Confirm or debate?
An honest debate starts with knowing all the relevant facts, continues to question the conclusions from them and results in an improved understanding of the phenomena. But beware: doubt is scientific doubt, based on an accurate observation of situations, knowing that their interpretation can and must be constantly checked with the same care as it was constructed. The separation of fact and meaning, reasoning and emotion is the only way to avoid the division of a society into small chapels of believers. No one ever makes a mistake, it’s all in the way!
This harmful atmosphere of aggravated navel-gazing and mistrust could mark the end of a certain way of living together, the end of a social consensus on what is true or false, fair or unfair. In this light, the law of covid will most likely suffer the same fate as the law of CO2. And it would not be surprising if it was the far right that took the head of this aggravation of contradictions and rejection of dialogue – which goes so far as to reject the method that makes it possible. Seen from this angle, voices of this type go far beyond their technical subject matter. Answer November 29 …