On October 31, 2022, The Atlantic published an opinion piece titled "Let's Declare a Pandemic Amnesty," with the subtitle, "Let's focus on the future, and fix the problems we still need to solve," penned by Brown University economist Emily Oster.

The article began by rehearsing a litany of social measures that were taken in response to the pandemic, highlighting the animosity that arose between opposing factions.

I have been reflecting on this lack of knowledge thanks to a class I'm co-teaching at Brown University on COVID. We've spent several lectures reliving the first year of the pandemic, discussing the many important choices we to make under conditions of tremendous uncertainty.

"Uncertainty" is the crux of the issue, according to the author.  Since this was all new territory we were treading together, all parties should let bygones be bygones because none of us actually knew what the truth was (with the exception of those who were deliberately disseminating disinformation, whoever they are).

The exciting conclusion of the piece is as follows:

The standard saying is that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. But dwelling on the mistakes of history can lead to a repetitive doom loop as well. Let's acknowledge that we made complicated choices in the face of deep uncertainty, and then try to work together to build back and move forward.

It's unclear what "dwelling on the mistakes of history" entails, or how that leads to "a repetitive doom loop."

I could have summarized this op-ed without reading it (though I did read it).  The title alone raised red flags for me.  Why?  Because left-leaning media sources never extend an olive branch to those on the opposing side.  It's a tendency I'd noticed but couldn't articulate until I heard Sean Hannity say on his program, "Conservatives think liberals are wrong and attempt to argue with them.  Liberals think conservatives are evil and attempt to destroy them."

This is obvious based on who has been canceled or silenced on social media, and who has pillaged and burned communities in the last two years.  The left assumes a false position of moral supremacy, which, in their mind, vindicates the ends justifying the means.  The right hamstrings itself continually by moral adherence to truth.

What brings about this uncharacteristic change of heart?  Why would the screeching Karens who accused anyone hesitant to accept an experimental vaccine of exacerbating the death toll suddenly decide to turn down the volume?

I have a hypothesis: it is becoming increasingly difficult for leftists to suppress evidence that they've been wrong all along, and they know it.  When you're right, you sound the trumpet.  When you're wrong, it's "nothing to see here, folks, move along."  If we begin to see more and more conciliatory gestures from the left, it means they're transitioning to damage control mode.

Why do I suspect this?

Steven Crowder released what I consider to be a groundbreaking video on Rumble titled "Undertaker Explains 'Mysterious' Clotting Phenomenon!"  The video is an interview with British funeral director John O'Looney (unfortunate moniker), wherein he details anomalies discovered with cadavers since the pandemic.

To wit, embalmers attempting to drain cadavers that come to the funeral homes find that gravity and pumps don't suffice.  There have been myriad headlines regarding speculation that the vaccines cause myocarditis or thrombosis due to blood clots, but, according to O'Looney, the blockages aren't blood clots.

When the embalmers make incisions in the arteries to remove the blockages, they extract a heretofore unknown white, rubbery mass that resembles something from a "Ridley Scott movie," that has the "texture of calamari" (squid).

When Crowder asked O'Looney if the anomalies were found exclusively in people who have been vaccinated, he deferred to material released by another funeral director, Richard Hirschman, published in the Epoch Times, stating that the only individual who hadn't been vaccinated had received a blood transfusion from someone who had.

Before interviewing O'Looney (who has been pilloried by the press for his revelations), Crowder attempted to interview numerous domestic funeral directors and embalmers.  Mum.  So he asked O'Looney why he was going public.  He replied that if someone didn't say something, there was going to be a "biblical death rate if they keep queuing-up for these poisons."

Maybe.  All I know is pattern recognition.  The left is not prone to acquiescence.  If we begin to see more olive branches extended by traditional media, it means that these types of revelations can't continue to be suppressed.  Perhaps amnesty for the culpable is inappropriate.  Kudos to the bold individuals who risk livelihoods and reputations to bring these revelations to the public sphere.

Mike VanOuse is a Factoryjack and Bible-thumper from Lafayette, Indiana.  More of his rambling can be found at www.vanouse.com.

Image: Tom Hilton via Flickr, CC BY 2.0.