Freedom and motives for compulsory measures

Freedom and motives for compulsory measures


Mieke Mosmuller

14-12-2020 6 comments Print!
The text below is a literal transcription of the spoken video text.

If, as human beings, we know the motive for restricting our freedom, and also how this motive relates to the way in which our freedom is restricted by means of measures, then we can accept the measures and follow them, and do not feel this restriction of freedom as a compulsory measure. In the course of this crisis, we have always seen that the motives do not always correspond to the purposes for which the measure is said to be intended - for example, the obligation to wear scientifically proven ineffective masks. Now, at Christmas time, we are faced with a new and even tougher challenge. But what is the motive behind these far-reaching corona measures restricting freedom?Watch video on YouTube

Mieke Mosmuller

Yes, there is a lot of talk about freedom, and I believe that the simplest phase of freedom for us humans is to understand your actions. That you know why you do things, that you can understand your motives. And when you have to do something, it is a characteristic of modern people that they want to know ‘what for, why? That when that ‘what for' and 'why' has sounded, that you also understand that. And I think that that is the big problem with the crisis we are now in, that there is a tendency that you have to do what is said without being able to understand why. And that is what I tried to show last time with a few examples, that there are so many incongruities that one cannot actually follow or place them with one's thinking, and it is therefore quite understandable that there are people who, precisely because it is incomprehensible, have started looking for explanations which are not so obvious but which are conceivable. And that would make understandable what is demanded of you. That is what you want as a human being, you feel like a slave if you have to do what is said without understanding why. If I take the example of masks, I would be willing to wear a mask if I understand why. But not because it is simply proclaimed, after it has been first proclaimed, that the usefulness of wearing a mask in preventing or transmitting a viral infection has not really been proven at all. You then have to experience the fact that this duty is being introduced after all, as has been predicted for a long time, which makes you feel that it is gradually moving towards the duty, because the whole world is doing it, yes, of course, we cannot be left behind, that could be an argument, but there was also this argument - I have spoken about this - that in a radio interview, a behavioural scientist, It was a lady, said yes, the point of wearing a mask is not only that you can use it to fight the virus in transmitting it, but its function is also to facilitate citizens, to make them aware of it and to influence their behaviour in such a way that they realise that we are dealing with something very serious. Yes, then the ability to understand the motive stops. Because that is not what we as a human being see as a reasonable motive, that you have to put on a mask because then you think, when you see each other, 'oh yes there is something serious going on'. Well, we know that there is something serious going on, I don't have to see masked people all the time when I come out on the street or in the shop. Of course I wear a mouth mask, neatly, I do that anyway. But you feel the lack of freedom in it. You feel that you are forced into something you cannot understand. And so there is a whole series of demands made on us that are impossible to understand. Christmas is an incredibly important family celebration. I remember a film in which two armies, based on a real event, face each other and, at Christmas, they lay down their weapons of their own free will, of their own accord and mingle among each other. Now there is a viral infection and it is the case that the whole world population is being asked to celebrate Christmas more or less on their own. You can only ask people to do that if it is understandable. You cannot just say ‘well, there is something serious going on, and we must now all, together, make sure that this disappears - but it is not clear to people that it is a scientifically proven fact that if you do not celebrate Christmas together, you are keeping the virus under control. So we have to formulate these things directly and then realise what a nonsense this is, that you are forcing people to celebrate that family party on their own, or perhaps just the two of you, or just the four of you, the family, the family living together, that may be admitted just barely, luckily you do not have to eat in different room - but that the most popular family party that is celebrated on earth, is broken with a motivation that is unclear. And I know the answers, I know that they say yes, but that justification is not unclear at all, it is as clear as anything and so on. But I dispute that, and I have brought some figures with me. On 8 December, on the WHO website, the number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 is 66 729 375. I searched on that website for what a confirmed case is, I could not find it, it is certainly there, but I did not find it. If you calculate what that is on the world population, that is 0.8%. That is so incredibly little! 1,535,982 of those 66,729,375 have died. When you calculate this, you arrive at 2.3% on the number of confirmed cases as stated. 0.8% on the entire world population has a confirmed COVID-19. But, says the World Health Organization, that number is probably flattered, because of course there are a lot of people who do not get tested but they have it anyway, so let's just say that it is not 0.8% but that it is 10%. That would mean that there are 780 000 000 cases of COVID-19. But of course the number of deaths would still be 1,535,982 because you might miss the COVID-19 cases, but of course you do not miss the deaths. When you calculate that, you arrive at a death rate of about 0.1%. so 0.1% of people who have died on the number of people who have this disease. That, of course, is such a low percentage and it has been calculated on the basis of the fact that the WHO itself says there are probably 780,000,000 cases. But if you do not take those things together, all you hear is 780 000 000! and 1 500 000 people died! Who is going to calculate the mortality rate there? Because the mortality rate is not calculated on that basis, but is, of course, calculated on the number of confirmed cases. And so the figures are completely mixed up.

I do not want to make all kinds of fixed statements here about what exactly is going on, but what I do want to show is that we are in any case losing our freedom altogether. Because what we are obliged to do is incomprehensible.

Freedom and motives for compulsory measures by Mieke Mosmuller

Give your comment please

  • From Sebastien Bohner @
    Hello, there are some mistakes in the percentages:

    66’729’375 (confirmed cases of COVID-19)
    ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– x 100 = 0.8% (and not 0.008%)
    7’800’000’000 (~ world population)

    1’535’982 (number of deaths of COVID-19)
    ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– x 100 = 0.1% (and not 0.001%)
    780’000’000 (possible cases of COVID-19)
    • From @
      Is sprake van ongelukkige rekenfouten, Mieke? Zijn bovenstaande sommen die Sebastien hierboven weergeeft de sommen en data waarover je rept in je videoblog? De uitkomst van de tweede bovenstaande rekensom, weergegeven door Sebastien, is 0,19692077, nadert 0,2.
      • From @
        Na herlezen van je tekstblog begrijp ik wat je stelt in je videoblog nu beter, Mieke. Mede dankzij de nauwkeurig omschreven rekensommen zoals Sebastien Bohner hierboven weergeeft. Zijn uitkomsten komen overeen met die van jou in het tekstblog. Kon echter niet goed plaatsen waarop zijn kanttekeningen "(and not 0.008%); (and not 0.001%)" betrekking hebben ("...there are some mistakes in the percentages"). Na weer bekijken en beluisteren van je videoblog (vandaag) slaan die, als ik het goed begrijp, op twee foutieve rekenuitkomsten of versprekingen (daar heb je het over promille, duizendsten en niet over tienden). Heb je de tekst aangepast, maar het videoblog op die punten nog niet gerectificeerd?

        De tweede lockdown raakt overigens ook mij. Het museum waarvoor ik werk is tenminste dicht tot 19 januari. Het hotel waarvoor ik werk zal dicht zijn van 20 december tot en met 2 januari. Hopelijk neemt vanaf dat moment het gastenbezoek weer toe. Wat natuurlijk nog te bezien valt...

        Verder wil ik opmerken dat ik het fijn zou vinden als je in je komende videoblogs nader ingaat op de tweede lockdown en de vaccinatie die aanstaande is.
      • From Mieke Mosmuller @
        De getallen op het scherm hebben per abuis het procentteken gekregen, terwijl het een factor is. Het wordt wel goed gezegd in de tekst. Alleen heb ik al sprekende 1 promille geschat, dat is 0,1%. Uitgerekend is dat 0,19%, dat is 1,9 promille. Het is even wennen met dit medium. Ik spreek alles spontaan, zoals ik dat altijd doe.
        We hebben een correctie onder het filmpje geplaatst.
        • From @
          Oh juist, kan gebeuren, dank je voor deze toelichting. Kijk uit naar je volgende videoblogs.
  • From Kees @
    NRC 16 december, WHO geeft advies:
    WHO: draag een mondkapje als je de feestdagen met familie of vrienden viert
    De Wereldgezondheidsorganisatie (WHO) waarschuwt voor een extra opleving van het coronavirus in Europa na de feestdagen indien mensen onvoldoende beschermende maatregelen nemen. Iedereen die de kerstdagen en de jaarwisseling met anderen viert, of het nu gaat om kerkdiensten of om kleine samenkomsten met dierbaren, doet er daarom goed aan om de volgende basisregels in acht te nemen, aldus de WHO: vier het buiten in de open lucht, draag een mondkapje, was je handen en hou voldoende afstand van elkaar. Wie toch besluit om binnen samen te komen dient de groepsgrootte verder in te perken en de ruimte goed te ventileren: ‘Het voelt wellicht ongemakkelijk om een mondmasker te dragen in aanwezigheid van vrienden of familieleden, maar die voorzorgsmaatregel vergroot de kans dat de aanwezigen veilig en gezond blijven.’