Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Open Club  ·  46 members  ·  Free

OOB v2.0

Follow the Science? How COVID Authoritarians Get It Wrong


Muda69

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Hmm.  I find this hard to believe.  Do you live in your mom's basement and never leave?

 

Please, educate yourself on one of the primary goals behind government education.    And no, I have no desire to teach children to love the state.  Do you have such a desire?

 

No.

I haven't thought about it before.  Sounds like it might be a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Alduflux said:

No.

So you telling us here on the GID that you have never ever violated a federal, state, or local statute of any kind?

9 hours ago, Alduflux said:

I haven't thought about it before.  Sounds like it might be a good idea.

Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Alduflux said:

Yes.

Then again, you must live a very, very sheltered life.  Or you are lying.

57 minutes ago, Alduflux said:

Because I prefer successful states to failed states.

Hmm, I would think a successful democratic and capitalist state would have a degree of healthy skepticism, fear, etc.  between the governors and the governed.  Not blind adulation and boot licking like you appear to subscribe to.

 

  • Kill me now 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Absurdity of Lockdown 2.0

https://mises.org/wire/absurdity-lockdown-20

Quote

“A man walks through an eerily quiet, once-busy street lined with closed-down stores and burnt-out vehicles. Some of the storefronts display boarded-up windows, others with spattered red paint on the glass like blood on a wrecked car's windshield. Some of the stores have been victims of looting, the shards of glass on the ground a diamond-like reminder of the recent mayhem. Our protagonist takes a deep breath; the sound audible in the vast silence. He releases the breath slowly and continues to walk. His nostrils flare. He detects a familiar smell in the air: something’s burning. His ears twitch as he hears the distant roar of a mob, the volume rising with each step he takes. He sees in the distance a fiery orange glow growing larger; the fire that has been raging for months, continuing to spread.”

The above scene may sound like the prologue of an apocalyptic novel by, say, Stephen King. But it could easily be a blend of scenes from 2020: moments pulled from a nightmarish year—the end of which most of us will be happy to see.

And as countries throughout Europe and some states in the US move into a second wave of covid-inspired lockdowns, it’s worth reflecting on what we’ve encountered thus far in this surreal year, and ruminating on the absurdity of a second lockdown.

"Stay at Home. Wear a Mask. Science Is Real."

If I had a dollar for every time I heard or saw those three short statements bandied about on- and offline, I’d have quite a few, although admittedly I wouldn’t be rich. But I’d likely be in a better position than many small businesses that've been thrown into the unforgiving sea by their government only to be tossed a meager life vest by the same people who wrestled them overboard in the first place. It’s worth noting that the life vest hasn’t been enough to save some from sinking to the murky depths—with many more to follow suit.

Let us take a moment to consider those three regularly regurgitated phrases:

Stay at home. This was and still is the order given by many governments around the world, telling their citizens that they should venture outside only if it is “essential” or for a spell of light exercise. Limits on how far you can travel (in Ireland, for example, it’s within a five-kilometre radius of your home), and how many people from other households you can invite into your privately owned property (again, in Ireland this number is zero as of this writing, and that includes your front and backyard), have been declared by the powers that be. Fines, public shaming (do not dare question these measures or partake in antilockdown protests!) and a bad reputation await those who break these rules. 

Wear a mask. While this writer personally has no problem wearing a face mask if a business owner requests it, it is interesting to note that years of scientific analyses on the effectiveness of face masks when it comes to hampering the spread of infectious respiratory illnesses like the flu, have shown it to be negligible. Go to the CDC’s (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) website right now and you’ll read that “no recommendation can be made at this time for mask use in the community by asymptomatic persons, including those at high risk for complications, to prevent exposure to influenza viruses.” While Covid-19 and flu are similar illnesses, they come from different viruses, and the former is more infectious than the latter. It is also worth noting that the science around face masks is indeed still disputed by experts, and it’s even been argued that wearing masks can enhance the spread of the virus because people can be less mindful of social distancing, while touching their nose and mouth more than they would when not wearing one.

But even if we accept that masks are definitely effective in slowing the spread of the disease—as recent studies have indeed claimed—overconfidence and inconsistency from experts and public figures throughout the pandemic has left public trust in them wanting to say the least. For instance, the US surgeon general in February urged citizens (in all caps no less) to “STOP BUYING MASKS!,” adding that they weren’t effective in preventing the general public from catching coronavirus. Even as late as March, New York mayor Bill de Blasio told residents to “get on with your lives” and “go out on the town despite coronavirus,” while the UK chief medical officer told UK denizens to not wear face masks. Meanwhile the WHO and the CDC had both argued against the use of masks in the early months of the outbreak. While things may have changed in recent months due to the aforementioned new studies, we still have countries like Sweden not mandating mask wearing as we approach the end of this bizarre year (note: Sweden’s daily number of covid deaths hasn’t risen above ten since mid-July and has since generally been below five). Can you really blame people for being just a little skeptical of those in positions of power?

Science is real. To end so emphatically (and condescendingly), you would hope that the person speaking those patronising words has science on their side. But as one of the world’s most senior epidemiologists, Johan Giesecke, advisor to the Swedish government, said back in April: UK and European policies on lockdown are not evidence based. And then we can remind ourselves of the now infamous Neil Ferguson–led Imperial College London study which determined that up to five hundred thousand lives could be lost in the UK alone. It was later revealed that the modelling used for the study was outdated, and thus the calculations dramatically inflated. For what it’s worth, Ferguson also said back in 2005 that 150 to 200 million people could die from the bird flu. The number of worldwide fatalities from bird flu between 2003 and 2009 was…282. So, science is real. Stop being a bad person. Listen to the experts and do not question them. Ever.

Prolockdowners Are de Facto "Prorecession"

Another common line that has been doing the rounds over the last nine months is "placing the economy above society is wrong." This statement brings to mind F.A. Hayek’s famous words regarding socialists: people who don’t understand economics fail to understand how societies—and markets—function. Economies are essentially societies, and societies are essentially economies; a healthier economy is conducive to a healthier society. Of course, there will still be problems brought on by bad government policy (e.g., the war on drugs), individual behavior (e.g., poor choices), and misfortune (which can be alleviated by support networks and charities). Societies will always have issues: utopias are impossible.

By calling for lockdowns, people are essentially welcoming a recession. And with recession come countless societal ills—in case that hasn’t already been made evident by the depressions of the past. If government measures are about ensuring the well-being of the people, plunging a country into a recession and piling up debt sure is a strange way to go about it. At the national level, lockdowns and recessions cause sometimes irreparable damage to people’s livelihoods, their mental health, and their physical well-being. At the global level, widespread lockdowns are predicted to greatly exacerbate third-world famines, with “virus-linked hunger tied to 10,000 child deaths each month.” With tragedies like these, lockdowns are indeed a strange way to go about protecting the most vulnerable people.

The Immorality of Lockdowns

Pandemics like covid-19 are unusual for Europe and the United States. Being 100 percent prepared for them is impossible, because while tax-funded research is regularly conducted in the hope that countries can be as pandemic ready as possible, each new virus brings with it an air of mystery, and fears of the unknown aren’t completely irrational, after all.

But, putting such life-altering power—over matters such as forced lockdowns—in the hands of people who pay a negligible price for being wrong (some political damage, maybe) is not only asinine, it is plain wrong. Coercion is wrong. Taking the freedom of choice away from people by force is wrong. Tell the old woman living with a terminal illness that she must spend the final months of her life in isolation; that she can’t take a trip to the lake she’s visited since she was a child; that she can’t be surrounded by her loved ones during the remaining time she has left. Tell a business owner that their business isn’t essential. Tell the man who’s prone to depression and lives alone in a tiny studio apartment that this lockdown is for his own good. Tell the woman whose cancer diagnosis will be delayed—and thus her chances of survival reduced—that this lockdown is for her own good.

This is no different from telling an individual driver that "speed kills," so tough—you can’t drive a car anymore. Or that alcohol is one of the biggest yearly killers, so tough—you can’t enjoy a beer anymore. Or that more than two hundred thousand children alone are treated in hospital every year from accidents related to bike riding, so tough—you can’t enjoy cycling anymore. The role of government isn’t to keep people safe from themselves or the dangers that come with living freely; there’s no reason why this shouldn’t apply to covid-19.

The Absurdity of Lockdown 2.0

For months now, data and experts have raised major questions around the efficacy of lockdowns in stopping the spread of the coronavirus and highlighted the damage caused by them. In the words of the Great Barrington Declaration (led by infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists), “lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short- and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings, and deteriorating mental health—leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden.” Even the WHO has said that lockdowns should be a very, very last resort. Argentina recently entered its two hundredth day of nationwide lockdown, yet daily new cases have been hovering between ten thousand and twenty thousand since August. These and countless other examples and warnings have gone unheeded in many countries as they enter another lockdown—all the while not giving people a say in the matter.

The Future Is a Choice

For many of us, the latest covid calamity is just another disappointing chapter in the dreadful tome that is big government. When we consider that “one cannot violate moral and economic laws without having to pay a price, and that one violation will, according to the 'logic' of state action, lead to more violations until the price that must be paid becomes intolerable," more scenes of social unrest are likely. The scene we opened with today may be a collage of moments from 2020; if things keep going in the same direction, it may be a glimpse into the not-too-distant future.

But there’s still time for people to see the major failures of bloated, bureaucratic government made up of people who pay little to no price for being wrong and wreaking economic havoc—covid or not—on its citizens (far from being punished, those in charge regularly reward themselves with hefty taxpayer-funded pensions). Gross mismanagement by distended governments that leads to further social unrest and far worse doesn’t have to be the future. As Ludwig von Mises said, “whoever wants peace among nations must seek to limit the state and its influence most strictly.” Those wise words are applicable to peace within nations, too.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/notre-dame-president-disappointed-as-fans-rush-field-during-a-pandemic-after-upset-of-no-1-clemson/

NCAA Football: Clemson at Notre Dame

I found it amusing that the students calling for Father Jenkins' head after he attended the swearing in of Justice Barret in DC without a mask determined that rushing the field (in a non-socially distant manner don't you know) after the win over Clemson on Saturday was now OK, and since then I am assuming the demand that he resign is hereby rescinded......

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vaccine Music To Libertarian Ears: https://www.cato.org/blog/vaccine-music-libertarian-ears

Quote

Ronald Reagan once said, “There is no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don’t care who gets the credit.” In the U.S.’s fraught political climate, sadly it was predictable that even the welcome news of Pfizer’s promising COVID-19 trial results would produce a political dogfight about the timing of the announcement and who should be thanked for the prospect of the pandemic ending sooner.

Vice President Mike Pence, for example, tweeted this morning: “HUGE NEWS: Thanks to the public‐private partnership forged by President @realDonaldTrump, @pfizer announced its Coronavirus Vaccine trial is EFFECTIVE, preventing infection in 90% of its volunteers.” Certainly, the federal government helped grease the wheels of COVID-19 vaccine development with commitments to buy doses from certain companies (something which economists pushed hard for.) In Pfizer’s case, that was an agreement to pay $1.9 billion for 100 million doses (enough for 50 million people) with an option to purchase 500 million more—provided the vaccine prove at least 50 percent more effective than a placebo. Yet, is it really the “public‐private partnership” here that delivered this particular success?

Interestingly Pfizer was not part of the government’s Operation Warp Speed program to fund research and development, unlike six other companies. Asked in September why they had opted to shun this money and bear the R&D risks themselves, and what advantages that might grant them, Pfizer CEO Dr. Albert Bourla explained:

You’re right, if it fails, it goes to our pocket. And at the end of the day, it’s only money. That will not break the company, although it is going to be painful because we are investing one billion and a half at least in COVID right now. But the reason why I did it was because I wanted to liberate our scientists from any bureaucracy. When you get money from someone that always comes with strings. They want to see how we are going to progress, what type of moves you are going to do. They want reports. I didn’t want to have any of that. I wanted them basically I gave them an open checkbook so that they can worry only about scientific challenges, not anything else. And also, I wanted to keep Pfizer out of politics, by the way.

There’s a libertarian regulatory lesson here: as we saw with the Food and Drug Administration and COVID-19 diagnostic testing, bureaucracy can hold up important innovation, bringing enormous costs during a pandemic that right now is severely constraining commercial activity and our liberties. And with government funds come the threat of both political pressure and control that put further sand in the gears.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gov. Andrew Cuomo's New COVID-19 Restrictions on Private Home Gatherings Violate Personal Liberty

https://reason.com/2020/11/11/governor-andrew-cuomo-covid-restrictions-private-home/

Quote

With the COVID-19 positivity rate on the rise in New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) has announced a new wave of restrictions on bars, restaurants, gyms, and other places of public accommodation. But his new coronavirus countermeasures go much further than that: Cuomo has also declared that private gatherings in residences must be limited to no more than 10 people.

The new rule applies to apartments and houses, and goes into effect on Friday, according to the New York Post. Public establishments that serve alcohol will also have to abide by a new 10:00 p.m. curfew.

"If these measures aren't sufficient to reduce the spread—we'll turn the valve more and part of that would be reducing the number of people indoor dining," said Cuomo during a press conference. "If that doesn't work, if these numbers keep going crazy…you will go back to a closedown."

In theory, the bar curfews are intended to curb reckless behavior, because people are more likely to let their guard down and engage in disease-spreading activity after drinking late into the night. In practice, there are plenty of reasons to wonder whether curfews work. What could happen as a result? People could just start their drinking earlier; they may be more likely to crowd if the drinking window is shorter and the rules require them to depart the bar en masse at a relatively early hour; it could incentivize people to socially gather at an indoor home instead of an outdoor bar. Each outcome on its would likely be a net negative for public health.

The residence restrictions, on the other hand, really ought to be opposed on the grounds that they are an odious infringement on personal liberty. Reasonable people—even reasonable libertarians—will disagree on how much and to what extent the government should curtail our behavior in order to fight the pandemic. But telling people what they can and cannot do in their own homes is a bridge too far. If you want to have 25 people over to your apartment for a party, it may be inadvisable (depending on where you live and who you are inviting), but it is your right. A government that can legally prohibit everyone in an entire state from hosting a familial number of guests within their own private residences is essentially unconstrained in a major sphere of American domestic life.

Cuomo's orders have all sorts of problems in that they do not make practical distinctions between large and small residences: An 11-person event in a large, well-ventilated space (perhaps with masks), might not be particularly dangerous, but it is now banned. Some people already live with more than 10 people inside the home. If enforced, these rules very well could be wielded disproportionately against communities that are more likely to encounter the police.

Contrary to his sterling reputation in the mainstream media, Cuomo's approach to the pandemic has not been particularly praiseworthy or science-based: His early actions might have led to a surge of deaths in senior-living facilities, and he recently suggested that news of the vaccine was disappointing since Donald Trump is still president. Bafflingly, Cuomo also insisted that Americans "need someone other than this FDA and this CDC saying it's safe," and that he will work with other governors to delay any attempt by Trump to distribute a vaccine while he is still president. This is deeply irresponsible and puts countless American lives at risk of both infection and deeper economic misery.

It is a matter of basic American principle that there are limits to how far the government can go to promote public safety, and Cuomo has likely exceeded them.

The state of New York is now basically a Police State.  

Welcome to America.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe Biden's COVID-19 Death Forecast Looks Less Plausible Every Day

https://reason.com/2020/11/12/joe-bidens-covid-19-death-forecast-looks-less-plausible-every-day/

Quote

During a debate with Donald Trump last month, Joe Biden said "the expectation is we'll have another 200,000 Americans dead [from COVID-19] between now and the end of the year." That implied a total U.S. death toll of about 423,000 by January 1. The current total is around 242,000. Biden's projection therefore suggests that COVID-19 will kill more than 3,600 Americans a day between now and the end of the year, compared to the current seven-day average of fewer than 1,100.

That is not likely to happen. The "ensemble forecast" from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, based on projections from "45 modeling groups," puts the death toll at 250,000 to 266,000 by November 28. Assuming that estimate is in the right ballpark, Biden is projecting at least another 157,000 deaths from November 29 through December 31, or nearly 4,800 a day. That's more than four times the current seven-day average and more than twice the April 21 peak.

Biden's "expectation" suggests that the president-elect is not paying attention to the COVID-19 case fatality rate in the United States, which has fallen dramatically since mid-May and continues to drop. His hyperbolic warning also suggests that his election will replace a president who falsely assured us that COVID-19 was "going away" with a president who errs in the opposite direction.

That Biden was excessively pessimistic hardly means everything is just fine. Between mid-September and yesterday, according to Worldometer's numbers, the seven-day average of newly identified COVID-19 infections rose more than threefold, from about 36,000 to more than 129,000—a new record. The weekly average of daily deaths also has risen, but not by nearly as much: As of yesterday, it was up 53 percent from the recent low of about 700 on October 28 but still 52 percent lower than the peak of nearly 2,300 in April.

Since there is a median lag of about two weeks between laboratory confirmation and death, the fatal consequences of recently identified infections are not immediately apparent. But by two weeks ago, daily new cases in the United States already had risen by more than 100 percent since September 12. The increase in daily deaths has been less than half as large.

That gap is consistent with the downward trend in the case fatality rate (deaths as a share of confirmed infections), which fell from more than 6 percent on May 16 to 2.3 percent yesterday—a 62 percent drop. The trend probably has been driven by several factors, including ramped-up testing that identifies milder cases, a younger and healthier mix of patients, and improved treatment. But the upshot is that increases in deaths are not commensurate with increases in cases, even allowing for the lag between the two indicators.

Given the ongoing rise in daily new cases, we can expect the daily death toll to continue going up as well, although not by nearly as much as Biden anticipated. That much should have been apparent from the experience with this summer's infection spike, which did not lead to a proportional spike in deaths.

The fact that Biden predicted more than three times as many daily COVID-19 deaths as we are currently seeing does not bode well for his approach to the pandemic. All government interventions aimed at curtailing infections, ranging from mask mandates to lockdowns, have costs. Those costs need to be weighed against the likely benefits, which depend on what would have happened otherwise. Biden's scaremongering puts a big thumb on one side of the scale.

Of course Biden is going to scaremonger.  It helps keep the populace docile and under control.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://abc7chicago.com/7896126/?ex_cid=TA_WLS_FB&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A Trending Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR0LdCVMe6wIKzqJByFKjjHSZhNoF0ZFd5Borkq3orWMukhU8CYjp1aLCrg

Biden COVID adviser proposes US lockdown of 4 to 6 weeks
Thursday, November 12, 2020 1:57PM

As the United States surpasses a record for new COVID-19 infections and hospitalizations, one of President-elect Joe Biden's advisers has suggested a nationwide lockdown.

The U.S. has recorded over 240,000 deaths and more than 10.3 million confirmed infections, with new cases soaring to all-time highs of well over 120,000 per day over the past week.

Dr. Michael Osterholm, a coronavirus adviser to Biden, said the drastic move could help bring the pandemic under control in the United States and even revive the economy.

"We could lock down for four to six weeks, and if we did that, we could drive the numbers down," Osterholm said. "Then we could really watch ourselves cruising into the vaccine availability in the first and second quarter of next year, and bringing back the economy long before that."

Osterholm floated the idea during an on-camera interview with Yahoo Finance on Wednesday, adding people could be paid for lost wages while businesses are shut down.

"We could pay for a package right now to cover all of the wages, lost wages for individual workers, for losses to small companies, to medium-sized companies or city, state, county governments. We could do all of that," Osterholm said. "If we did that, then we could lock down for four to six weeks."

He said such a scenario could drive down infections and hospitalizations, "like they did in New Zealand and Australia."

Osterholm, director of the Center of Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, was named a member of Biden's transition COVID-19 advisory board on Monday. He previously served as a Science Envoy for Health Security on behalf of the U.S. Department of State from June 2018 to May 2019.

During an exclusive interview with ABC News' David Muir earlier this year, then-Democratic presidential nominee Biden said he "would listen to the scientists" if a nationwide lockdown was recommended.

"I will be prepared to do whatever it takes to save lives because we cannot get the country moving until we control the virus," Biden said.

However, Dr. Anthony Fauci says he doesn't believe the United States will need to go into lockdown to fight the coronavirus if people double down on wearing masks and social distancing.

The nation's top infectious disease expert says "the cavalry is coming" in the form of vaccines. He says, "Help is really on the way."

During a "Good Morning America" interview Thursday, Dr. Anthony Fauci urged Americans to "hang in there" and "double down" on COVID-19 preventative measures as progress is made toward a vaccine.

Fauci told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Thursday that vaccines being developed "are going to have a major positive impact" once they start being deployed in December and early into next year. He says he hopes by April, May and June "the ordinary citizen should be able to get" a vaccine.

In the meantime, Fauci says there are fundamental things Americans can do to stem the spread of the deadly virus. They include "universal and uniform" wearing of masks, avoiding crowds, keeping social distance and washing hands. He says that sounds simple against a very difficult challenge but "it really does make a difference."

Fauci's message echoes that of President-elect Joe Biden, who this week signaled strongly that fighting the raging pandemic will be the immediate priority of his new administration.

The U.S. leads the world with more than 241,000 deaths and 10 million coronavirus cases.

ABC News and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

So (both sides of the argument are right) Fauci versus (shut it all down for 6 months) Osterholm.  Who is JRB gonna trust?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, swordfish said:

https://abc7chicago.com/7896126/?ex_cid=TA_WLS_FB&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A Trending Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR0LdCVMe6wIKzqJByFKjjHSZhNoF0ZFd5Borkq3orWMukhU8CYjp1aLCrg

Biden COVID adviser proposes US lockdown of 4 to 6 weeks
Thursday, November 12, 2020 1:57PM

As the United States surpasses a record for new COVID-19 infections and hospitalizations, one of President-elect Joe Biden's advisers has suggested a nationwide lockdown.

The U.S. has recorded over 240,000 deaths and more than 10.3 million confirmed infections, with new cases soaring to all-time highs of well over 120,000 per day over the past week.

Dr. Michael Osterholm, a coronavirus adviser to Biden, said the drastic move could help bring the pandemic under control in the United States and even revive the economy.

"We could lock down for four to six weeks, and if we did that, we could drive the numbers down," Osterholm said. "Then we could really watch ourselves cruising into the vaccine availability in the first and second quarter of next year, and bringing back the economy long before that."

Osterholm floated the idea during an on-camera interview with Yahoo Finance on Wednesday, adding people could be paid for lost wages while businesses are shut down.

"We could pay for a package right now to cover all of the wages, lost wages for individual workers, for losses to small companies, to medium-sized companies or city, state, county governments. We could do all of that," Osterholm said. "If we did that, then we could lock down for four to six weeks."

He said such a scenario could drive down infections and hospitalizations, "like they did in New Zealand and Australia."

Osterholm, director of the Center of Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, was named a member of Biden's transition COVID-19 advisory board on Monday. He previously served as a Science Envoy for Health Security on behalf of the U.S. Department of State from June 2018 to May 2019.

During an exclusive interview with ABC News' David Muir earlier this year, then-Democratic presidential nominee Biden said he "would listen to the scientists" if a nationwide lockdown was recommended.

"I will be prepared to do whatever it takes to save lives because we cannot get the country moving until we control the virus," Biden said.

However, Dr. Anthony Fauci says he doesn't believe the United States will need to go into lockdown to fight the coronavirus if people double down on wearing masks and social distancing.

The nation's top infectious disease expert says "the cavalry is coming" in the form of vaccines. He says, "Help is really on the way."

During a "Good Morning America" interview Thursday, Dr. Anthony Fauci urged Americans to "hang in there" and "double down" on COVID-19 preventative measures as progress is made toward a vaccine.

Fauci told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Thursday that vaccines being developed "are going to have a major positive impact" once they start being deployed in December and early into next year. He says he hopes by April, May and June "the ordinary citizen should be able to get" a vaccine.

In the meantime, Fauci says there are fundamental things Americans can do to stem the spread of the deadly virus. They include "universal and uniform" wearing of masks, avoiding crowds, keeping social distance and washing hands. He says that sounds simple against a very difficult challenge but "it really does make a difference."

Fauci's message echoes that of President-elect Joe Biden, who this week signaled strongly that fighting the raging pandemic will be the immediate priority of his new administration.

The U.S. leads the world with more than 241,000 deaths and 10 million coronavirus cases.

ABC News and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

So (both sides of the argument are right) Fauci versus (shut it all down for 6 months) Osterholm.  Who is JRB gonna trust?

I'm assuming this shutdown comes with another 3-4 TRILLION dollar federal bailout bill.  Just what we need.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The proper response last year at this time when someone coughed - "Yeah, something's going around alright, Frank's wife at the office missed a day last week, and she's never sick, hope I don't catch it, I gotta bowl tonight"

This year's response to a cough - "Quarantine"  you and anyone within 6' of you in the past 5 days!!  Call off the bowling league until after Christmas, stay home - SHUT IT DOWN!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unreasonable Rules Fueled a Black Market in Negative COVID-19 Test Results

https://reason.com/2020/11/18/unreasonable-rules-fueled-a-black-market-in-negative-covid-19-test-results/

Quote

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, many governments have implemented policies intended to minimize the risk of infection, but which impose very real costs on people on the receiving end. In the case of COVID testing policies, requirements have frequently been implemented before the means to easily satisfy that they exist. So, it's no surprise that a black market in negative test results has developed for travelers concerned that they'll be stopped at a border or stranded in-transit if they can't produce sometimes difficult-to-source health documents on demand.

Once again, for those who haven't paid attention in the past: people will find ways to bypass the rules if governments impose mandates that seem excessive or difficult to obey.

The black market has emerged as many countries require recent negative COVID test-results before permitting entrysometimes more recent than is easily available.

"It is difficult to get one unless you are a key worker," one British man who wanted to visit Pakistan, which requires tests within 96 hours of the travel date, told the Lancashire Telegraph. As a result, he said, it has become common practice to alter somebody else's documents.

"It is quite simple. Everyone knows someone who has had a Covid test," he added. "You can simply get their negative test and change the name and birthdate to your own. You also put a test date on which is within the time limit required."

In other cases, travelers find that there are illegal vendors prepared to sell negative results to buyers who need documentation.

"Officials in France said Friday that seven people have been arrested for selling false certificates of negative coronavirus tests to travelers at Paris's largest airport, Charles de Gaulle," the Associated Press reported earlier this month. "The Bobigny prosecutor's office said the faked certificates were being sold to travelers for 150 to 300 euros ($180 to $360)."

Some travel agents allegedly offer fake COVID test results among the services they provide their customers now. That an industry struggling to survive lockdowns and border closures is willing to offer a bit of illegal added value to customers trying to evade such controls should surprise exactly nobody.

Dealers in bogus COVID test results are sometimes just building on already established markets serving people who need to cross borders more easily than health officials would allow.

"At the main bus terminus in Harare, Zimbabwe's capital, travellers heading to neighbouring Zambia can be tempted by offers of counterfeit travel vaccination certificates. A thriving black market there sells a fake proof of immunization for between US$ 15–20," the World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged in October.

Some buyers of bogus test results are obviously interested in purchasing counterfeit documents so they can conceal infections that would otherwise limit their mobility; that's unfortunate, but inevitable. But as many news reports make clear, the black market in negative COVID tests often results from demands by officialdom that travelers provide documentation they just can't procure on time or at a reasonable price. As the UK's Daily Telegraph notes, "a 'fit to travel' Covid certificate is the new holiday must-have, but obtaining a PCR test can be expensive, time consuming and complicated. Is it any wonder, then, that reports are emerging of illegal counterfeit certificates?"

Inevitably, governments have turned to tougher enforcement mechanisms and tighter controls in hopes of fighting the COVID test black market.

"The state of Hawaii, for example, requires visitors to preregister in their online testing program, use an approved testing partner, and upload results to a digital portal," reports The Washington Post. "Paper copies are not accepted."

For its part, WHO touts a "safe and approved digital verification system for travellers' immunization" as well as for COVID-19 test results. The idea is that high-tech systems will make it more difficult to pass through border controls with counterfeit health certifications.

Registration, digital verification, and arrests might help limit the reach of the black market. But it's not like enforcement efforts aimed at illegal businesses are new. Officials are likely just embarking on yet another contest with underground dealers who are at least as innovative as their government counterparts.

More productively, the company developing the digital verification system, Vaxiglobal, is also working on improving inventory controls for existing vaccinesand presumably for COVID-19 vaccines once they become availablewith the aim of reducing expensive waste. They hope more efficient distribution will make them available at prices competitive with counterfeit certifications.

Likewise, some airports now see a ready market in making available the tests required by the destinations they serve.

"Passengers flying from London Heathrow to Hong Kong will be able to have a rapid Covid-19 test at the airport before checking in," according to The Guardian. "The tests, which must be pre-booked, cost £80 and results will be available within an hour."

Airports and airlines elsewhere have moved to offer similar testing so that their passengers have access to the means for satisfying health requirements.

Offering easy and affordable COVID-19 testing is a sensible way of addressing rules that were implemented before compliance became widely feasible. It won't address the problem of travelers trying to conceal positive test results and potential infections. But it will make dealings with the black market less necessary for healthy travelers who previously had no reasonable means of obtaining the certifications that they need.

All of these shenanigans could have been avoided if, before putting COVID testing rules in place, government officials had considered whether the public would be willing and able to comply. Then again, considering the reasonableness of rules isn't really something that government officials do.

It sure isn't.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Left Politicizes COVID: Irony Abounds

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/11/the-left-politicizes-covid-irony-abounds/

Quote

Where has the coronavirus gone?

Nowhere. The pandemic has gained a second wind, even as it is mysteriously scarcer in post-election headlines. If anything, COVID-19 seems more contagious as cold temperatures arrive, people stay in indoors, and perhaps their vitamin D levels taper off.

Whatever one’s views on the virus — whether it remains an existential threat or, contrarily, prompts overreactive lockdowns that are more harmful and maybe even deadlier than the virus itself — nothing much has changed since Election Day.

Or did viral perceptions suddenly change? The pandemic certainly no longer serves as an election lever to demagogue President Trump as a veritable killer.

States such as California are under a nearly complete lockdown. Draconian measures will abbreviate Thanksgiving gatherings in a way unprecedented in U.S. history. Yet elites such as California’s Governor Gavin Newsom and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) have violated the quarantines they themselves have endorsed.

 

Following the media announcement that Joe Biden would likely become president, crowds swarmed into the streets of San Francisco and Los Angeles. They violated every state mandate requiring masks and social distancing. Authorities did nothing — just as they had done nothing during the summer-long protesting and rioting. Apparently, some outdoor gatherings were correct; others, not so much.

A similar warping of science accompanied news about the possible rollout of a COVID-19 vaccine.

Julie Kelly of the conservative website American Greatness has documented the changing narratives about the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. Pfizer is one of five companies in line to receive massive federal funding under the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed program to hasten mass vaccinations. Such an ambitious program is unmatched in the history of viral epidemiology. On November 16, another company in the program, Moderna, announced promising results from a clinical trial.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla predicted in early September that by the end of October, his company would offer a preliminary announcement concerning the safety and effectiveness of his company’s vaccine. His forecast was met with apprehension on the left. Any positive assessment was seen by the Left as political, validating, shortly before the election, the Trump administration’s rapid response to the virus.

Yet on October 27, a week before the election, Pfizer corrected Bourla’s earlier estimate. The company claimed any such declaration would follow rather than precede the election.

“For us, the election is an artificial milestone,” Bourla said. “This is going to be not a Republican vaccine or a Democrat vaccine. It will be a vaccine for the citizens of the world.”

Admirable rhetoric. But a few days after the election, Pfizer abruptly announced that in mass human trials, its vaccine had proven 90 percent effective and safe after all.

Still odder than the recalibrated timing was what the company did next.

First, a Pfizer official claimed that the company had never been part of Operation Warp Speed. In an earlier press release, Pfizer had bragged about being an integral player in the multibillion-dollar federal effort to rush the vaccine into use. The day after the Pfizer official denied that the company was part of the program, another company spokesman conceded that the company is, in fact, part of Operation Warp Speed.

Second, Pfizer gave notice of its purported vaccine breakthrough not in a press conference or a communiqué to the sitting president. Instead, according to Joe Biden, the company contacted his campaign’s “public-health advisers.”

Apparently, Pfizer had, in fact, been guided by the “artificial milestone” of the election, even if inadvertently.

Or was Pfizer trying to gain political support for its vaccine rollout from Biden, who was an overwhelming favorite in almost all the pre-election polls? Members of Biden’s campaign team told Bloomberg News that Biden advisers had met before the election with officials at companies that are working on vaccines.

Why would Pfizer act in such a way?

Perhaps because skeptics Biden and running mate Kamala Harris had downplayed the notion of a Trump push to get millions of Americans vaccinated.

Weeks before the election and the expected Pfizer announcement, Biden had scoffed: “I trust vaccines. I trust scientists. But I don’t trust Donald Trump.”

Harris demonized a potential Operation Warp Speed vaccine during a vice-presidential debate: “If Donald Trump tells us to take it, I’m not taking it.”

Before the election, New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo derided the notion of a pre-election vaccine announcement. After the Pfizer announcement, Cuomo blasted the Trump administration, claiming it should get no credit for the speed of the vaccine development but lots of blame for a predicted slow rollout.

Irony abounds. Those who accused Trump of playing politics with the virus made him look like an amateur when compared with their own machinations. Those who claimed they were guided by science proved unscientific in their partisanship.

No wonder Americans remain so skeptical of the experts in general and the Washington administrative state in particular.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nearly 50,000 doctors and scientists, 630,000 citizens have signed global anti-lockdown proclamation

https://justthenews.com/nearly-50000-doctors-and-scientists-630000-citizens-have-signed-global-anti-lockdown-proclamation

Quote

Six weeks after it was first published, the Great Barrington Declaration — an international pronouncement meant to shine light on what it calls the "damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies" — has garnered nearly 700,000 signatures from scientists, academics, doctors and citizens worldwide, with more signatories being added each day as a fresh spate of lockdowns continues across Europe and parts of the United States. 

Regional and nationwide lockdowns have been an international feature of the COVID-19 pandemic since almost the start of the year. At the outset of the pandemic, China instituted a severe lockdown of the Hubei province where the disease first originated. Global health officials were initially skeptical of the Chinese lockdown, which went against many major established pandemic guidelines.

As the virus spread west into Europe and the United States, however, many heads of state began instituting their own lockdowns, with major countries such as Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom instituting broad stay-at-home orders, business shutdowns, school closures and other unprecedented policies in order to prevent a modeled catastrophic death toll. 

 

In the United States, President Trump declined to impose a national lockdown, but throughout March and April governors and local leaders across the country issued their own shutdown orders, some of them lasting for months at a time. The ongoing fall spike of positive COVID-19 tests, meanwhile, has been followed by governors reimposing some of those measures after they were loosened over the summer. 

Lockdown policies 'yield more damage than the disease itself'

Many public health officials, scientists, epidemiologists and other experts have been broadly supportive of these measures, with many arguing that they are necessary to avoid huge death rates, overwhelmed medical systems and destabilized societies. 

Yet the Great Barrington Declaration has, in the relatively brief period since its Oct. 4 publication, managed to snag several dozen thousand signatures from experts in those fields and others who believe the lockdowns are causing, in the words of the declaration, "irreparable damage."

"Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health," the document states. "The results ... include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health — leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden."

 

The ideal policy, according to the signatories, is "to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk."

"Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal," the document continues, arguing that "schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching" and "extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed." Work should be in-person as well, it adds, while restaurants, storefronts, art exhibits and other cultural activities should be permitted to resume normal operations. 

In many areas throughout the world, that advice has gone largely ignored over the past month and a half. Yet multiple signatories to the document this week still stood by their endorsement of its aims. 

Boris Kotchoubey, a medical psychology professor at the Universiy of Tubingen who has affixed his signature to the proclamation, told Just the News: "I signed the Declaration ... because I share the views formulated in it."

"Anti-Corona measures in all countries that I know (mostly, West Europe) are non-directed, imprecise and, therefore, yield more damage than the disease itself," he said.

"Actually, we know more or less where the infection is spread," he continued. "(1) big events like high level sport events, rock concerts etc.; (2) loud parties; (3) activities in closed rooms, particularly with screams or songs (worship); (4) public transportation, particularly in big cities; (5) last but not least invasion of the infection in retirement homes.

 

"Efficient measures should be directed to the prevention of infection in THESE situations," he wrote. "Instead, for example, the German  government forbids theaters and restaurants, although there is not the slightest evidence that anybody has been infected in such places, because all of them had highly developed sanitary concepts (e.g., since May all seats in theaters are at least 2 meters from each other;  
etc.; the same in restaurants)."

Rodney Sturdivant, another signatory and the director of Baylor University's Statistical Consulting Center, echoed those criticisms of lockdown policies. 

Epidemiological research "does not reflect what has been reported and cited as justifying many policy decisions," he told Just the News. He described the Declaration as "a call to return to public health practice supported by data and science."

"An important public health principle is to not ignore the totality of public health with fixation on a single aspect," he said. "The consequences of doing so is catastrophic. We are already seeing the impacts: mental health issues, missed cancer treatments, missed immunizations, hunger, drug overdose, domestic abuse, incredible harm to children ... the list is tragically long and preventable."

"Continuing with current approaches will lead to far more harm than Covid will produce," he said. 

Apart from the Declaration itself, a variety of other health officials have warned of the effect that lockdowns are having on non-virus related aspects of public health. Parents in the U.S. over the course of the lockdowns here have reported "behavioral issues that previously their children had not exhibited," WebMD Chief Medical Officer John Whyte told Fox News this week. Whyte attributed those issues to the "loneliness, anxiety and anger" he said many children are experiencing during school closures and stay-at-home orders.

The New York Times last week, meanwhile, reported on the deleterious mental health effects that lockdowns can have on younger individuals. Recent research, for instance, suggests that adolescents in the Netherlands over the course of that country's shutdown experienced "a significant increase in severe anxiety and sleeping problems," the paper reported.  

Experts have also warned that delayed medical treatments could contribute to significant spikes in mortality following the eventual conclusion of the pandemic, at which point medical conditions normally detected by early screenings may have progressed too far to be adequately treated. 

Still, comparatively few health officials and scientists have spoken out publicly against lockdown measures. One motivation for staying silent might be fear of reprisal: Those who have been critical of the prevailing consensus of COVID shutdowns have often been publicly villified as being insufficiently concerned about the pandemic. American surgical oncologist David Gorski, for instance, last month called the signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration "COVID-19 deniers," comparing them to "creationists, HIV/AIDS denialists, and climate science deniers."

That sort of negative publicity can have adverse professional effects, as Sturdivant found out after he signed the Declaration. He shared with Just the News an email he received from some colleagues with whom he was participating in a "large multi-institution grant proposal." The colleagues said that the stances of both the foundation funding the project and the project's program officer could jeopardize the initiative's success due to Sturdivant's participation in the Declaration.

"At this time, given the quick deadline for this project, we think it would be best to pause collaboration in light of what we know about this funder and program officer," they wrote to Sturdivant. "We hope there will be opportunities to collaborate in the future."

Sturdivant said he eventually resumed working with those colleagues, but he said fear of opposing viewpoints is "too typical in academia."

"Fear/panic due to misreporting of data and science are resulting in actions that mislead people into a false notion about non-scientific 'solutions' that do not work," Sturdivant said. The Great Barrington Declaration, he added, "comes at a critical time in trying to rectify these issues."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gavin Newsom's French Laundry Outing Crystallizes the Arrogance of COVID-19 Dictators

https://reason.com/2020/11/19/gavin-newsoms-french-laundry-outing-crystallizes-the-arrogance-of-the-covid-19-dictators/

Quote

On November 6, when California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) sat down for a fancy dinner party at the tony Napa Valley restaurant The French Laundry, the state was in the midst of a COVID-19 surge. Newsom and other state officials were emphasizing the importance of following social distancing rules and wearing face masks in public places, as mandated by an order that the governor issued in June. They were urging Californians to forgo Thanksgiving dinners and other private social gatherings, which they had identified as an important source of virus transmission.

Yet there was the politician behind those policies, sitting shoulder to shoulder with people outside his household, celebrating the 50th birthday of his friend Jason Kinney, a prominent political strategist. To Newsom's right was Dustin Corcoran, CEO of the California Medical Association (CMA). To the governor's left was CMA lobbyist Janus Norman. There was not a mask in sight, although state rules required diners to wear face coverings except when they were "actively eating or drinking."

After the dinner party came to light last Friday, Newsom apologized while suggesting there were extenuating circumstances. "It was in Napa, which was in the orange status, relatively loose compared to some other counties," he told reporters on Monday, and "it was to be an outdoor restaurant." But photos obtained this week by KTTV, the Fox station in Los Angeles, show that Newsom and company were in fact dining indoors, at a table near sliding glass doors the led to a courtyard. According to a witness, the doors were initially open but were closed because the birthday celebrators were making a lot of noise.

"As soon as I sat down at the larger table, I realized it was a little larger group than I had anticipated," Newsom said, "and I made a bad mistake. Instead of sitting down, I should have stood up and walked back, got in my car, and drove back to my house. Instead I chose to sit there with my wife and a number of other couples that were outside the household. We can quibble about the guidelines, etc., but the spirit of what I'm preaching all the time was contradicted, and I gotta own that. So I want to apologize to you, because I need to preach and practice, not just preach and not practice. And I've done my best to do that. We're all human. We all fall short sometimes."

Please be patient as I "quibble about the guidelines" a little bit. The actions that Newsom presented as violating "the spirit of what I'm preaching" actually violated the letter of the rules he imposed. According to the California Department of Public Health, restaurant patrons "must wear face coverings" unless "they are eating or drinking." Even then, they are allowed to remove their masks only if "they are able to maintain a distance of at least six feet away from persons who are not members of the same household or residence." Newsom broke both of those rules.

It's true that "we're all human." But few of us have the power to restrict other people's behavior in this way or the sense of entitlement that allows someone to flout the edicts that everyone else is required to follow. Newsom's "big mistake" was not just hypocritical; it was a challenge to the rule of law, which does not allow exemptions for the famous, wealthy, or politically powerful.

As J.D. Tuccille notes, this sort of double standard is par for the course during the COVID-19 epidemic, when politicians such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.), Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D), Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney (D), and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.) have felt free to flout the disease control safeguards that mere mortals are told to observe. "We're expected to suffer discomfort, economic pain, and emotional distress or else pay fines and even serve jail time," Tuccille writes. "Government officials, meanwhile, take offense when called out for violating the standards they created."

While Newsom did not take offense, he did offer excuses, and he did not acknowledge that he was breaking the law he had laid down—not merely its "spirit," but its specific requirements. "We certainly hope Gov. Gavin Newsom and his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, enjoyed their dinner at the Michelin-starred restaurant," The Sacramento Bee editorialized. "Because it will end up costing a lot more than $700 in terms of damage to Newsom's credibility in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nothing will launder the stain of stupidity from his reputation after this ill-conceived outing."

The paper also noted that Newsom's children are attending private school while most public schools remain shuttered. "Newsom and the First Partner eschewed state public health guidelines to dine with friends at a time when the governor has asked families to scale back Thanksgiving plans," the Bee observed. "If the governor can eat out with friends—and if his children can attend their expensive school—why must everyone else sacrifice?"

Consumer Watchdog President Jamie Court said he was "shocked" that the dinner also included top CMA officials. "The message is to forget the pandemic, sit as close as you can, no face coverings, no masks, no social distancing," he told KTTV. "This is the state's medical association. They speak for the doctors in the state, and their chief lobbyist and the president are sitting shoulder to shoulder with the governor as though it's any time in American history."

Since Newsom's dinner at The French Laundry, he has imposed additional restrictions on Californians, including a nearly complete ban on the sort of restaurant dining that he enjoyed two weeks ago. During the very same press conference at which Newsom copped to breaking his own rules, he said he is also considering a curfew, despite the weak logical and empirical basis for that increasingly popular policy.

Arbitrary, ill-conceived COVID-19 restrictions are bound to provoke resistance and resentment, compounding the fatigue that undermines compliance with more sensible safeguards. That problem can only be magnified when the people telling us what to do follow a different set of rules.

Yep, hypocrites to the max, all of them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...