Reasons for healthy skepticism concerning the virus

One of the most troubling aspects as the Wuhan China virus continues to disrupt our way of life has been just how accepting the citizenry has been of government pronouncements and edicts.

Too many people are taking what elected, appointed, and career government personnel are saying at face value, without questioning the statements or orders.

Worse, those people show outright disdain and hostility for those who do object. Are you opposed to mandatory business shutdowns? Onerous capacity restrictions? Cancellations of events? Mask requirements? Then you're selfish. You want people to get sick and die. You favor profits over people. You're a science denier. You're vile and evil and since  you won't do the right thing on your own, you need to be forced to do it and punished if you don't.

Funny, isn't it? The same people who have challenged the government over so many things in the past are now demanding that the government be listened to and obeyed at all costs.

Never mind that the narrative on the virus is constantly changing. You can find conflicting information on just about every aspect of the matter, from the effectiveness of masks to the likelihood of asymptomatic transmission to the success of hydroxychloroquine in treating the virus or mitigating its symptoms.

But anyone with common sense and a penchant for observation should be casting a critical eye to what's being fed to the public. This isn't "Fauci-Gates-Soros New World Order" conspiracy stuff, either. It's what anyone who's capable of reason and independent thought should be doing. It's quite possible to scoff at the craziest of outlandish theories and still question what we're being told.

Two recent incidents centering on Kentucky, one with national implications and one local to me, show cause why a healthy skepticism over this ongoing public health situation is warranted.

On July 3, just prior to the running of the 2020 Brickyard 400 NASCAR race at Indianapolis Motor Speedway, it was announced that Jimmie Johnson had tested positive for the coronavirus and would not be participating in the race. Johnson, a seven-time Cup Series champion who's in his final season before retiring, had never missed a race due to injury or illness in nearly 20 years of full-time racing. His wife had experienced symptoms of the virus and had tested positive, and then Johnson tested positive.

A funny thing happened just a few short days later. The next race after Indianapolis was the July 12 event at Kentucky Speedway. On Tuesday of last week, Johnson tested negative. A followup test the next day was also negative, so Johnson was cleared to run at Kentucky. (He finished 18th Sunday after a late-race wreck when he was running in the top three.)

So what happened? Why did he test positive on a Friday, but negative four days later? Sounds like a false positive occurred. But how did that happen if his wife was symptomatic and tested positive, as highly contagious as we're told this disease is?

It makes you wonder.

Concerning the local incident: So far, we only have one confirmed case of the virus in the small, rural county where I live. The positive case was a juvenile who was tested prior to a medical procedure. The individual is now listed as having recovered. But again, if this disease is so contagious, how did the kid's parents and other family members avoid being infected? Why didn't they test positive? It's another reason for skepticism and cynicism.

And what of the deaths? How many are truly from COVID-19 and how many are merely those with other issues who died with the virus? There is a difference. In one Kentucky case, an older person from the central part of the state died while hospitalized with chronic kidney failure. The death was listed as a virus casualty, and the family publicly objected. The patient was already in the hospital with terminal kidney issues when they contracted the virus. And in another case, an infant in western Kentucky died of SIDS, yet tested positive positive post-mortem and was listed as dying of COVID.

There's other anecdotal evidence floating around out there that should cause those with discernment to be concerned. It's not hard to find stories of people who signed up for tests, yet didn't wait in line for them, only to be notified that they'd tested positive even though they were never tested; nor is it difficult to hear where medical professionals have on a whim sent unused swabs off for testing and they come back positive.

Yet so many just expect people to sit back and blindly swallow what the government's feeding them. Fully two-thirds of Kentucky's deaths have been from nursing home residents, where the patients already have significant health problems, but we're told how this virus that is only fatal to around four out of every 1,000 people who get it is a major threat. We were told that the reason for the forced business closures was to "flatten the curve," but no business is yet open at 100 percent capacity months later, and our hospitals and ICUs aren't anywhere near their capacity despite increasing positive case numbers. Two field hospitals were built in Kentucky to accept the overflow from medical facilities, but neither of those ever saw their first patient.

People should not be afraid to question or challenge the government, especially when real-life experiences give plenty of reasons to do so. And no one should try to shame those who do. You may want businesses kept closed, but don't object when the people who are suffering real, tangible losses because of those shutdowns want to reopen. You can choose not to go out to eat, or to attend an event, or otherwise expose yourself to any perceived dangers. You may want to wear a mask to protect yourself, but mind your own business if someone else chooses not to partake of the "fear porn." Take care of yourself and let other people make their own informed decisions.

The term "sheep" has been thrown around a lot in recent weeks. It's not a description I prefer to use when talking about someone who just accepts the government's edicts and statements. And I certainly reject the labels (selfish, science denier, etc.) used on those who aren't blindly accepting. "Reasonable skeptic" is a much more accurate description.

Use your own eyes and ears. Read, listen, and watch. But be tolerant of those who draw different conclusions than you do from readily accessible information. They just may end up being right about things.