Examining The Political Economy Of Covid Hysteria

Leviathan sized government, over-reliance (and even idolizing) of experts, corporate and social media combined to ferment and stoke mass hysteria in the age of Covid.

I've been writing since April of 2020, when facts began to emerge and narratives being dictated, and experts sliding their addition to control, that a hysteria had been formed.

My assertion this is going down as they greatest health panics in history remains almost one year out.

More odd - and I guess this is all symbolic of being in a hysterical rut - is officials still talk as if it's March 2020. This only adds to the confusion, distrust and panic. 

The utter abandonment of calm, logic and wisdom has been disappointing to say the least.

Here's a study worth the read on the Political Economy of Covid Hysteria.

I find the argument asserting if we were governed by 'small-government' it would be harder for hysteria to gain traction to be interesting if not persuasive. 

There's no doubt in my mind locking down people without an out to blow off steam because the routine of life was cut off will have long-lasting negative impacts for millions of people. 

"In addition, while anyone in a hysteria related to public health may voluntarily close their own business, wear a mask, or stay at home, in a minimal state, no one can use coercion to force others who are healthy and do not succumb to the hysteria to close their businesses, wear masks, or quarantine. A minority can just ignore the collective panic and continue to live their normal lives, because they are free to do so. Such a minority can be an example and a wake-up call to those that do succumb to the collective hysteria or are close to doing so. This minority may be especially attractive to borderline cases. Suppose that a small group of people during a collective health hysteria continues to go shopping, to work, to socialize, and breathe freely and does not fall ill (massively and fatally). Having this example, the anxiety of observers may fall. Observers may follow the example, and the group of hysterics shrinks. It is one of the core characteristics of decentralized systems that they allow for competition, error detection, and correction [63,64,65]. If the people that ultimately become role models for others through their interaction become ill and die, the panic would be confirmed. However, if there is really a hysteria and the threat is imagined or exaggerated, the fortune of the role models will be on average much better than is expected by those that succumbed to the hysteria. A sufficient number and variety of role models allows observers to correct and adjust their expectations 

In fact, a well-organized group [68] that has been infected by collective hysteria may be in charge of the state or get to control the state apparatus. In such a position, this group can impose measures on the rest of the population, inflicting almost unrestricted harm. It must be taken into account here that a welfare state can also be a state which is bound by the rule of law [69,70] and in which repressive interventions by the executive can be lifted by the judiciary. However, there exists the danger that in a collective panic, the protection of basic liberties guaranteed in constitutions will be abrogated by emergency measures and the judiciary will succumb to the mass hysteria, failing to lift the repressive interventions. The empirical evidence during the COVID-19 crisis demonstrates that basic liberties were not defended in welfare states  In general, the greater the coercive power of the state, the more harm can be inflicted on society in a mass hysteria. It could be argued that infection with a virus would constitute a negative technological external effect [72]. 

In a minimal state, citizens are free to decide which risks they want to assume, be they driving a car, doing bungee jumping or engaging in social interaction. Indeed, the state´s attempt to reduce infection rates in the form of mandatory face masks, the shutdown of businesses or shelter in place orders does violate the private property rights that the minimal state is supposed to defend and may produce negative externalities in form of depressions, alcoholism or suicides.

".... the state has the power to diminish and prohibit those activities that do reduce fear and anxiety, such as sports, diversion, and socializing. During the COVID-19 crisis, states used their coercive power to impose social isolation, thereby contributing to anxiety [74] and psychological strain, both ingredients that spur mass hysteria. In order to shield against biopsychological infections, the population should exercise regularly, have quality sleep, exercise regularly, have a balanced nutrition, and maintain a strong connection with other people. Governments around the world mandated lockdowns and masks during the COVID-19 crisis, making it more difficult for citizens to do any of these things. More specifically, social distancing imposed by governments reduces strong social connections, and mandatory masks prevent expressing friendliness and compassion, thereby decreasing psychological resilience."

There's no doubt the cure is worse than the disease. And it became so because we let medical bureaucrats with no concept or regard for overall public health to divert all of our resources and energies into Covid at a spectacular price. How politicians have not yet realized this problem one year later is, quite frankly, shocking. Then they wonder why conspiracy theories fly high. They can't see though measures they're fuelling hysteria. Those not caught up in the hysteria, become isolated and cynical. They no longer wish to be part of the society promulgating the madness. I'm one of those people. 

As noted here and by many astute thinkers and observers alike, it's not 'just a mask'. Masks remind people there's a problem. It keeps them in fear.

And where there's fear, there's manipulation used to keep hysteria alive.

The power is in YOU to end it.