Mail in voting has gained attention, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic when concerns about in-person gatherings and the potential spread of the virus led many to explore alternative voting options.
Showing posts with label Lockdown. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lockdown. Show all posts
The Correct Way to Handle the Pandemic
Vaccines
Stop the vaccines now. The current COVID vaccines kill more people than they can possibly save from COVID, even if they were 100% effective so should be taken off the market immediately. For example, the vaccine may kill 117 kids for every kid that is saved from COVID.
The liability exemption is now lifted retroactively. Patients who have been harmed by the COVID vaccines can now sue the drug company for damages up to $100M per case of fatality or disability.
Every post-vaccination ailment, affliction and death appearing within 4 weeks of vaccination that appears at a rate of 10X or more vs. baseline should be attributed to the vaccine unless and until proven otherwise, by irrefutable evidence, with costs of all diagnostic procedures to be born by the pharmaceutical manufacturer.
For future approved vaccines, informed consent provide shall include any and all symptoms that are elevated in VAERS by 10X or more over “baseline” reporting rates.
For future approved vaccines, require autopsies for anyone who dies within 2 weeks of getting the vaccine. The autopsy reports should be posted in a public database with Names and other PHI related data redacted
Failure to file a VAERS report for anyone who dies within 30 days of COVID vaccination shall be liable to a fine of $100,000 per incident.
Is the Mexican or US Government More Corrupt From Drug Money?
Dr. Robert Malone explains how Big Pharma influences public health policies implemented by the CDC and FDA on Candace Owens show.
Stockholm Syndrome, Human Psychology, and COVID Lockdowns
Bill Gates has systematically monopolized the global response to infectious disease through non-profits.
Civil Liberties Attorney - Jenin Younes
SHE WAS A LEFT-LEANING LIBERAL & THINKS THE MEDIA IS THE PRIMARY PROBLEM!
People who are pushing the vaccine should understand the denial of natural immunity is a major contributing factor in vaccine hesitancy. The denial is so contrary to the science that it makes people suspicious there is a greater agenda at play.
People who are pushing the vaccine should understand the denial of natural immunity is a major contributing factor in vaccine hesitancy. The denial is so contrary to the science that it makes people suspicious there is a greater agenda at play.
— Jenin Younes (Leftylockdownskeptic) (@Leftylockdowns1) August 14, 2021
Talked to Jenin Younes, "Lefty Lockdown Skeptic," on the Tom Woods Show, and it will warm the hearts of all normal people https://t.co/DgqQvvyIYg @Leftylockdowns1
— Tom Woods (@ThomasEWoods) August 17, 2021
Just Say NO To Lockdowns, Screenings & Mask Mandates
Doctor and Senator Rand Paul video "We are at a moment of truth and a crossroads. I choose freedom".
Nancy Reagan would be proud!
Locked-Down States Are Where COVID Is Growing Most
The response from the corporate media and the Left was predictable. California Governor Gavin Newsom declared the move “absolutely reckless.” Beto O’Rourke called the GOP a “cult of death.” Joe Biden called the move “Neanderthal thinking.” Keith Olbermann insisted, “Texas has decided to join the side of the virus” and suggested Texans shouldn’t be allowed to take the covid vaccine. Vanity Fair ran an article with the title “Republican Governors Celebrate COVID Anniversary with Bold Plan to Kill Another 500,000 Americans.”
Other states have followed in Texas’s wake, and Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and Georgia are now all states where covid restrictions range from weak to nonexistent.
Georgia and Florida, of course, are both notable for ending lockdowns and restriction much earlier than many other states. And in those cases as well, the state governments were criticized for their policies, which were said to be reckless and sure to lead to unprecedented death. Georgia’s policy was denounced as an experiment in “human sacrifice.”
Yet in recent weeks, these predictions about Texas’s fate have proven to be spectacularly wrong. Moreover, many of the states with the worst growth in covid cases—and the worst track records in overall death counts—have been states that have had some of the harshest lockdowns. The failure of the lockdown narrative in this case has been so overwhelming that last week, when asked about the Texas situation, Anthony Fauci could only suggest a few unconvincing lines about how maybe Texans are voluntarily wearing masks and locking down more strenuously than people in other states. In Fauci's weak-sauce explanation we see a narrative that simply fails to explain the actual facts of the matter.
The Texas situation is just one piece of a state-by-state picture that is devastating for the lockdowns-save-lives narrative.
For example, let’s look at covid case numbers as of April 20.
Case numbers are a favorite metric for advocates of stay-at-home orders, business closures, mask mandates, and repressive measures in the name of disease control.
In Texas, the total new cases (seven-day moving average) on April 20 was 3,004. That comes out to approximately 103 per million.
Now, let’s look at Michigan, where a variety of strict mask mandates and partial lockdowns continue. Restaurant capacity remains at 50 percent, and the state continues to issue edicts about how many people one is allowed to have over for dinner.
In Michigan, the seven-day moving average for new infections as of April 20 was 790 per million - nearly eight times worse than Texas.
Last week, Anthony Fauci, head of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) struggled to come up with an explanation as he testified to Congress.
In previous weeks, Fauci tended to rely on the old tried-and-true claim that if we only wait two to four more weeks, cases will explode wherever covid restrictions are lessened or eliminated. Lockdown advocates tried this for months after Georgia ended its stay-at-home order, although Georgia consistently performed better than many states that continued their lockdowns.
But now that we’re six weeks out from the end of Texas’s mask mandate and partial lockdowns, Fauci could offer no plausible explanation. Rather, when pressed on the matter by Representative Jim Jordan, Fauci insisted that what really matters is compliance rather than the existence of mask mandates and lockdown mandates:
There’s a difference between lockdown and the people obeying the lockdown…. You know you could have a situation where they say, "We’re going to lock down," and yet you have people doing exactly what they want—
Jordan asked if this explains the situation in Michigan and New Jersey (and other states with quickly growing covid case rates). Fauci then claimed he couldn’t hear the question, and Jordan was cut off by the committee chairman.
No one who is familiar with the situation in states like Texas, Florida, and Georgia, however, would find it plausible that the spread of covid has been lessened in those areas by more militant use of masks and social distancing. Fauci's testimony was clearly just a case of a government “expert” grasping about for an explanation.
But don’t expect Fauci and his supporters to give up on insisting that New York and Michigan are doing "the right thing" while Texas and Florida are embracing "human sacrifice" as a part of a "death cult."
The actual numbers paint a very different picture, and even casual observers can now see that the old narrative was very, very wrong.
The Balancing Act of Herd Immunity - Wealth vs Health
Harvard Suggest Intermittent Social Distancing Could Be More Effective
Harvard University researchers say an on-again, off-again approach to social distancing could be a more effective strategy to avoid overwhelming hospitals and to build herd immunity against the novel coronavirus — but other experts aren’t so sure.
An April study, conducted at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, championed intermittent social distancing — measures that are periodically reimposed when cases reach certain levels.
According to the researchers’ modeling, as long as social distancing occurred between 25 percent and 75 percent of the time, the world could both build immunity and keep the healthcare system from overloading. Watch the video on this page.
Social distancing restrictions could be eased under various scenarios, according to the authors—if COVID-19 treatments become available, if hospitals can increase their intensive care bed capacity, if there’s aggressive contact tracing and quarantine, or if a vaccine is developed.
“I think social distancing interventions of some sort are going to have to continue, hopefully, lightened and in conjunction with other interventions,” said Marc Lipsitch, professor of epidemiology and director of the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics and co-senior author of the study, in an April 14 article in STAT.
Here is a video explaining how the no lockdown strategy and accelerated "herd immunity" might be working in Sweden but also explains the risks. Sweden prefers to use the term "transmission" for fear that they are perceived as giving up on fighting the disease. Sweden's strategy would mean their death toll will be higher earlier and lower later as herd immunity is achieved. Thus, Sweden would not likely experience a second wave of transmission in the fall and winter months.
It also raises the question of how many people are actually following the stay at home orders?
Here is a video explaining how the no lockdown strategy and accelerated "herd immunity" might be working in Sweden but also explains the risks. Sweden prefers to use the term "transmission" for fear that they are perceived as giving up on fighting the disease. Sweden's strategy would mean their death toll will be higher earlier and lower later as herd immunity is achieved. Thus, Sweden would not likely experience a second wave of transmission in the fall and winter months.
It also raises the question of how many people are actually following the stay at home orders?
Here is a Twitter poll asking if Intermittent social distancing would be effective?
According to researchers' modelling, if social distancing occurred between 25 and 75 per cent of the time, the world could keep health-care systems from overloading.Do you think that intermittent social distancing would be effective?Read more: https://t.co/kohGB8tayJ— Globalnews.ca (@globalnews) May 4, 2020
"Casedemic" Why COVID-19 Testing Is A Massive Waste of Resources
The mantra has been to test, test, and test some more since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, major concerns emerged right from the beginning about the tests being used to diagnose this infection, and questions have only multiplied since then.
As a rationale for keeping vast parts of the planet locked down for the better part of 2020, positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) experiments have been used.
This, despite the fact that PCR tests with high false result rates have proven surprisingly inaccurate and are not intended to be used as a diagnostic tool in the first place because they do not differentiate between inactive and "live" or reproductive viruses.
Dr. Mike Yeadon, Pfizer's former vice president, and scientific director, also went on record saying that false-positive results from faulty PCR tests are used to "produce a 'second wave' based on new cases,'" when a second wave is quite unlikely in fact.
A positive test does not actually mean that an active infection is present. As noted in a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and prevention publication on coronavirus and PCR testing dated July 13, 2020:
- Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of an infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.
- The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring the treatment of 2019-nCoV infection.
- This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.
So, what does the PCR test tell us, actually?
From your nasal cavity, the PCR swab extracts RNA. The reverse transcription of this RNA into DNA is then completed. The genetic snippets, however, are so tiny that they must be amplified to become discernible. Each round of amplification is called a loop.
Amplification over 35 cycles is known to be inaccurate and technically unjustified, but 45 cycles are set for Drosten tests and tests recommended by the World Health Organization.
"What this does is enhance some even negligible sequences of viral DNA that might be present to the extent that even if the viral load is extremely low or the virus is inactive, the test reads "positive. You end up with a much higher number of positive tests as a result of these excessive cycle thresholds than you would otherwise have.
We've had concerns with defective and tainted samples as well. German researchers rapidly developed a PCR test for the virus as soon as the genetic sequence for SARS-CoV-2 became available in January 2020.
The New York Times announced in March 2020 that the initial test kits produced by the CDC had been found to be faulty. The Verge also stated that in turn, this defective CDC test became the basis for the WHO test, which the CDC eventually declined to use.
PCR Tests Cannot Detect Infection
Maybe most notably, inactive viruses and "live" or reproductive viruses can not be separated by PCR tests.
What that means is that infection can not be identified by PCR tests. It can't tell you whether you're sick at the moment, whether you're going to show symptoms in the near future, or whether you're infectious.
The tests may accumulate dead debris or inactive viral particles that do not pose any danger to the patient and others at all. What’s more, the test can pick up the presence of other coronaviruses, so a positive result may simply indicate that you’ve recuperated from a common cold in the past.
An "infection" is when a virus penetrates and replicates in a cell. Symptoms set in as the virus multiplies. A person is only contagious if the virus actually replicates. As long as the virus is inactive and not replicating, both the host and others are totally harmless.
Chances are, if you do not have symptoms, a positive test simply indicates that your body has detected inactive viral DNA. This will also suggest that you are not infectious and pose no threat to anyone.
A number of highly respected scientists around the world now believe, for all these reasons, that what we have is not a COVID-19 pandemic, but a PCR test pandemic. In his article 5, "Lies, Damned Lies and Health Statistics, The Deadly Danger of False Positives," on September 20, 2020, Yeadon explains why it is so troublesome to base our pandemic response on positive PCR tests.
In short, it seems like millions of individuals are actually found to be carrying inactive viral DNA that poses no danger to anyone and the global technocracy is using these test results to introduce a brand new economic and social structure focused on draconian surveillance and totalitarian controls.
“The test’s threshold is so high that it detects people with the live virus as well as those with a few genetic fragments left over from a past infection that no longer poses a risk. It’s like finding a hair in a room after a person left it, says Michael Mina, MD, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York, and Nevada, up to 90% of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The New York Times found...'We’ve been using one type of data for everything, and that is just plus or minus — that’s all,’ Dr. Mina said. ‘We’re using that for clinical diagnostics, for public health, for policy decision-making.’But ‘yes’ or ‘no’ isn’t good enough, he added. It’s the amount of virus that should dictate the infected patient’s next steps. ‘It’s really irresponsible, I think, to forgo the recognition that this is a quantitative issue,’ Dr. Mina said.”
Again, medical experts agree that any cycle threshold over 35 cycles makes the test too responsive, as it begins to pick up harmless inactive fragments of DNA at that point. Mina suggests 30 or less will be a more fair cutoff.
The CDC's own estimates indicate that it is highly impossible to detect live viruses in samples that have gone through more than 33 cycles, according to The New York Times, and studies reported in April 2020 concluded that patients with positive PCR tests with a cycle threshold above 33 were not infectious and could be released from the hospital or home isolation safely.
Importantly, when officials at the New York State Laboratory, the Wadsworth Center, reanalyzed research data at the request of The Times, they found that about 43 percent of the positive outcomes were removed by changing the threshold from 40 cycles to 35 cycles. A whopping 63% was removed by restricting it to 30 cycles. The Response to Vaccine adds:
“In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90% of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. ‘I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,’ he said.‘I’m really shocked that it could be that high — the proportion of people with high CT value results,’ said Ashish Jha, MD, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute. ‘Boy, does it really change the way we need to be thinking about testing’...In late August, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first rapid coronavirus test that doesn’t need any special computer equipment. Made by Abbot Laboratories, the 15-minute test [BinaxNOW] will sell for U.S. $5 but still requires a nasal swab to be taken by a health worker.The Abbot test is the fourth rapid point-of-care test that looks for the presence of antigens rather than the virus’s genetic code as the PCR molecular tests do.“
Massive Waste of Resources
As Dr. Tom Jefferson and Professor Carl Henegan noted in an article in the Daily Mail on October 31, 2020, 16 mass PCR research was a huge waste of resource, as it does not provide us with the data we really need to know-who is contagious, how far is the virus spreading and how quickly does it spread?
Instead for weeks and months on end, it has contributed to economic damage from company shutdowns and isolating non-infectious individuals in their homes. Jefferson and Henegan say that about a month ago, they discussed their pandemic response plan with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and just introduced it again to him. They write, "We encourage him to pay attention and accept it," adding:
“There are only two things about which we can be certain: first, that lockdowns do not work in the long term... The idea that a month of economic hardship will permit some sort of ‘reset’, allowing us a brighter future, is a myth. What, when it ends, do we think will happen? Meanwhile, ever-increasing restrictions will destroy lives and livelihoods.
The second certainty is this: that we need to find a way out of the mess that does no more damage than the virus itself... Our strategy would be to tackle the four key failings.”
Four areas where we are failing as a society area are:
- Addressing the concerns in the mass testing program of the government
- Addressing' the calamity of confused and unreliable figures'
- Secure and isolate the weak, especially the elderly, but also general and staff hospitalized patients, while allowing the rest to retain "some semblance of normal life"
- Inform the public of the real and quantifiable lockdown costs that "destroy individuals just as surely as COVID-19"
There is real hope if we do these things that we will learn to live with the virus. That, after all, was supposed to be the plan,” Jefferson and Henegan note. "As far as testing is concerned, the pair calls for a national quality management testing program to ensure that reports are reliable, precise, and consistent.
Importantly, on positive/negative readings alone, we must not rely on. To assess who potentially presents an infectious risk, the findings must be analyzed in relation to other variables, such as the subject's age and whether they are symptomatic. At the end of their Daily Mail post, you can check the full details of their proposed proposal.
Lockdown hazards have been kept out of the public debate
Jefferson and Henegan are not the only ones who illustrate the fact that more damage and devastation than the virus itself is caused by the global lockdown strategy. In an article in The Federalist on June 16, 2020, James Lucas, a New York City attorney, wrote:
“If we’re going to allow models and modelers to dictate the entire nature of our society, one would hope that the models are as complete as possible. Yet the epidemiological models that have so transformed our world are seriously incomplete, and therefore fundamentally inadequate.Any medical therapy is supposed to be tested for both efficacy and safety. There have been several studies examining the effectiveness of the lockdowns in combating the spread of the COVID-19 virus, with mixed conclusions.So far, however, none of these studies or models have analyzed the safety side of the lockdown therapy. In response to questions from physician Sens. Rand Paul and Bill Cassidy, Dr. Anthony Fauci admits this side of the equation has not been accounted for in the models now driving our world.As noted in an open letter recently signed by more than 600 health-care professionals, the public health costs from the lockdowns — described as a ‘mass casualty incident’ are real and growing.These models are estimations based on existing research. The constantly changing projections of coronavirus deaths are extrapolations from research on previous epidemics. Yet modelers have no excuse for leaving evaluations of the lockdowns’ massive costs to public health out of their models.”
The Hidden Costs of Lockdowns
How does public safety impact "lockdown therapy"? Lucas highlights the following in his article:
Research23 by the Veterans Department has shown that delaying cancer treatment by only one month has contributed to a 20 percent rise in mortality due to elevated chronic disease rates due to unemployment, poverty, and placing non-COVID medical care on hold. Research23 Another study showed that each one-month delay in the diagnosis of breast cancer increased mortality by 10%.
Rising rates of problems with mental health due to unemployment and isolation
Increased suicide death rates were correlated with a two-fold to three-fold greater relative suicide risk in one study. "A more recent report reports that "deaths of misery" are related to maybe around 75,000 lockdowns in the U.S.
Reduced collective life span is often associated with shorter, unhealthier lives with extended unemployment. A prolonged economic shutdown could shorten the lifetime of 6.4 million Americans entering the labor market by an average of around two years, Hannes Schwandt, a health economics researcher at Northwestern University, reports. Lucas notes:
“If epidemiologists don’t care to take account of this toll, another profession must. A study28 just released by a group of South African actuaries estimates that the net reduction in lifespan from increased unemployment and poverty due to a national lockdown will exceed the increased lifespan due to lives saved from COVID-19 by the lockdown by a factor of 30 to 1.
In other words, each year of additional life attributable to isolating potential coronavirus victims in the lockdown comes at a cost of 30 years lost due to the negative public health effects of a lockdown...”
Education shortages are also linked to significantly shorter life spans and poorer health. High school drop-outs die on average nine years earlier than college graduates, and poorer students are disproportionately impacted by school closings.
Who Pays the Most?
As Lucas pointed out, modelers must therefore decide "on whom those costs fall," in addition to estimating the total cost to society, since the costs are not met equally by everyone. Those who are also the most disadvantaged, both financially and health-wise, such as those living near the poverty line, the chronically poor, individuals with mental illness, and minorities in general, are disproportionately affected by the effects of the lockdowns.
“Contrary to the PR slogan, we are NOT all in this together,” Lucas writes. “We need less insipid pro-lockdown propaganda extolling the virtues of the ‘essential’ workers, and more serious analysis of the enormous public health toll the lockdowns are imposing on them. Otherwise, we may come to see the era of coronavirus as simply the time where pro-lockdown elites sacrificed the working class31 to protect themselves.”
A Pandemic of Fearmongering
An October 28, 2020, article featured by the Ron Paul Institute points out that:
“Ever since the alleged pandemic erupted this past March the mainstream media has spewed a non-stop stream of misinformation that appears to be laser focused on generating maximum fear among the citizenry.
But the facts and the science simply don’t support the grave picture painted of a deadly virus sweeping the land. Yes, we do have a pandemic, but it’ a pandemic of ginned up pseudo-science masquerading as unbiased fact.”
The article notes that nine facts that can be backed up with evidence paint a very different image of the fear and dread being continuously drummed into the minds of naive people. In addition to the fact that PCR testing is practically useless, for all the reasons already mentioned, these data-backed facts include:
1. "As Dr. Lee Merritt explained in her August 2020 Disaster Preparedness Doctors 33 lecture, featured in How Medical Technocracy Made the Plandemic Inevitable," media and public health authorities tend to have deliberately combined "cases" or positive tests with the actual disease. A positive test is NOT a "case.
Medically speaking, a' case' refers to a person who is ill. It never referred to anybody who had no signs of illness. This well-established medical phrase, "case," has now been totally and arbitrarily redefined, all of a sudden, to mean anyone who tested positive for viral RNA involvement. That is not epidemiology, as Merritt noted. It is a scam.
2. According to the CDC34 and other research data,35 the COVID-19 survival rate is over 99%, and the vast majority of deaths occur in those over 70, which is close to normal life expectancy.
3. Analysis by the CDC indicates that 85 percent of patients testing positive for COVID-19 "sometimes or "still" wore face masks in the two weeks preceding their positive test. As noted in the Ron Paul article,36 "The only reasonable conclusion from this research is that cloth face masks provide little to no defense against infection with Covid-19."
4. Examples involve numerous regimens involving hydroxychloroquine with zinc and antibiotics, quercetin-based protocols, the MATH+ protocol, and nebulized hydrogen peroxide, and there are affordable, proven effective therapies for COVID-19.
5. The death rate has not risen despite pandemic deaths — Data37,38 show the overall all-cause mortality has remained steady during 2020 and doesn’t veer from the norm. In other words, COVID-19 has not killed off more of the population than would have died in any given year anyway.
As noted in the Ron Paul article, “According to the CDC as of early May 2020 the total number of deaths in the US was 944,251 from January 1 — April 30th. This is actually slightly lower than the number of deaths during the same period in 2017 when 946,067 total deaths were reported.”
15,000 Doctors and Scientists Call for End to Lockdowns
All in all, there are many reasons to believe that continuing lockdowns, social distancing, and mask mandates are entirely needless and that the trajectory of this pandemic epidemic, or the final death count, will not change drastically.
And with regard to universal PCR testing where people, whether they have symptoms or not, are checked every two weeks or even more often, this is simply a futile endeavor that generates useless results. It’s just a tool to spread fear, which in turn allows for the rapid implementation of the totalitarian control mechanisms required to pull off The Great Reset. Fortunately, more and more individuals are beginning to see through this plot now.
The Great Barrington Declaration, which calls for the end of all lockdowns and the introduction of a herd immunity approach to the pandemic, has now been signed by around 45,000 scientists and doctors worldwide, meaning that governments should encourage individuals who are not at substantial risk of severe COVID-19 disease to return to normal life, as the lockdown strategy has a devastating impact on the population. The declaration states:
“Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health...
The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to coronavirus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this focused protection.”
The declaration points out that current lockdown policies will result in excess mortality in the future, primarily among younger people and the working class. As of November 5, 2020, The Great Barrington Declaration had been signed by 11,791 medical and public health scientists, 33,903 medical practitioners, and 617,685 “concerned citizens.”
Related Articles:
Elon Musk is a Great Example of Why Everyone Should Stop Testing
Lockdowns May Have Had Little Effect on COVID-19 Spread
Data show that compulsory lockdowns have had a high cost, with a questionable impact on transmission.
In 1932, Justice Louis Brandeis of the Supreme Court famously referred to the states as "democracy laboratories." Different states can test different policies and can learn from each other. In 2020, that proved valid. Governors in various states react to the COVID-19 pandemic at different times and in different ways. Sweeping shutdowns were ordered by some states, such as California. A more targeted approach was taken by others, such as Florida. Others, such as South Dakota, transmitted data but had no lockdowns at all.
As a consequence, to test the question no one wants to ask, we can now compare findings in various states: Did the lockdowns make a difference?
If the course of this pandemic was really altered by lockdowns, then the coronavirus case counts should have fallen clearly whenever and wherever lockdowns took place. The effect, albeit with a time lag, should have been apparent. It takes time to formally count new coronavirus infections, so we'd expect the numbers to fall as soon as the waiting time is over.
For how long? New infections should drop on day one and be noticed about ten or eleven days from the beginning of the lockdown. The number of patients with the first signs of infection should decrease by day six (the average time for symptoms to show is six days). By day nine or ten, far fewer people will be going to hospitals with deteriorating symptoms. If COVID-19 tests were conducted immediately, we would expect the positives to drop dramatically on day 10 or 11 (assuming rapid test turnarounds).
To judge from the evidence, the answer is clear: Mandated lockdowns had little effect on the spread of the coronavirus. The charts below show the daily case curves for the United States as a whole and for thirteen U.S. states. As in almost every country, we consistently see a steep climb as the virus spreads, followed by a transition (marked by the gray circles) to a flatter curve. At some point, the curves always slope downward, though this wasn’t obvious for all states until the summer.
Senator Rand Paul Hammers Dr. Anthony Fauci
During a Wednesday Senate hearing on the ongoing U.S. response to the coronavirus pandemic, things got reasonably heated between Dr. Anthony Fauci and Senator Rand Paul.
The senator from Kentucky, who is himself a medical doctor, opened his question by stating that, originally, "government officials were frank enough to admit that the goal of mitigation measures, aka," lockdown, "was to flatten the curve." He then argued that "flattening the curve" has since "morphed into an illusion that with a pandemic we could alter the trajectory of the pandemic."
Compared to Sweden, which prevented a lockdown, Rand Paul cited New York and New Jersey as the nation's highest infection spikes. "Before noting to Dr. Fauci," today you said you are not for economic lockdown, but your mitigation recommendations from dating to baseball to restaurants to movie theaters have led to this financial lockdown, "he rhetorically asked if" man is really able to control the path of a virus through crowd control.
"Our death rate is basically higher than Sweden, equal to the less developed world that is unable to do any of the stuff you have been encouraging," he pointedly noted, asking, "Do you have any second thoughts?" before finally arriving at the issue. Are you able to look at the evidence that there is a lower mortality rate for countries that did very little than the United States?
Senator Paul hit back, "You have been a huge fan of Cuomo and the shutdown in New York." "You have praised New York for its strategy. In New York, the world's highest death rate has been reported. How do you jump up and down and say that Cuomo has done a fine job?
Map of Covid-19 Infections by % of Population in Each County
Here is another great map of Realtime Corona Virus Maps of Confirmed Cases
What we will learn from these crises is to lock down the vulnerable with pre-existing conditions. Not healthy people.
Dr Bryan Ardis - Hospital Protocol Is What Is Murdering "Covid" Flu Patients
Free Speech Rights Are Being Tested
Free speech advocates are furious that YouTube removed a viral video of two California doctors questioning the threat level of the coronavirus.
The doctors, Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi, have made the argument that the mortality rate of the coronavirus is similar to the flu and, therefore, shelter-in-place orders are overblown. The doctors also called for businesses to reopen but were hit with criticism and attempts to debunk their claims.
Many people including myself have experienced censorship posting articles and in discussion within local Facebook groups. Radical liberals are often asking for opposing views and discussion to be removed. Their justification is you are killing people by posting misinformation. Misinformation is usually just an opposing view that is not popular.
The most chilling suggestion, however, comes from the politicians and academics who have called for the censorship of social media and the internet. The only thing spreading faster than the coronavirus has been censorship and the loud calls for more restrictions on free speech. The Atlantic recently published an article by Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith and University of Arizona law professor Andrew Keane Woods calling for Chinese style censorship of the internet.
The justification for that is the danger of “fake news” about coronavirus risks and cures. Yet this is only the latest rationalization for rolling back free speech rights. For years, Democratic leaders in Congress called for censorship of “fake news” on social media sites. Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have all engaged in increasing levels of censorship and have a well known reputation for targeting conservative speech.
Hillary Clinton has demanded that political speech be regulated to avoid the “manipulation of information” and stated that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg “should pay a price for what he is doing to our democracy” by refusing to remove any opposition postings. In Europe, free speech rights are in a free fall, and countries such as France and Germany are imposing legal penalties designed to censor speech across the world.
Many of us in the free speech community have warned about the growing insatiable appetite for censorship in the West. Yet we have been losing the fight, and free speech opponents are now capitalizing on the opportunity presented by the pandemic. Representative Adam Schiff sent a message to the executives of Google, Twitter, and YouTube demanding censorship of anything deemed “misinformation” and “false information.”
Yet YouTube did exactly that a few days earlier by removing two videos of California doctors who called for the easing of state lockdown orders. The doctors argued that the coronavirus is not as dangerous as suggested and that some deaths associated with the pandemic are not accurate. There is ample reason to contest their views but, instead, YouTube banned the two videos to keep others from reaching their own conclusions.
Facebook will not only remove posts it considers misinformation about the coronavirus but will issue warnings to those who “like” such postings. Facebook said that it wants to protect people from dangerous remedies and false data. Ironically, the World Health Organization praised Sweden for its rejection of the very restrictions criticized by the two doctors. The group declared that Sweden is a “model” country despite its rejection of lockdown measures being protested in the United States.
China has been particularly eager not to “waste” the opportunity of this crisis. Chinese professor Xu Zhangrun is one of many citizens arrested after publishing criticism of Xi Jinping on his handling of the crisis. The government deemed such criticism to be fake news causing panic. It has censored accounts of its concealing the source of the original outbreak, including censorship on popular Chinese apps such as WeChat.
Coronavirus Survivors Want Answers, and China Is Silencing (NY Times)
How Many People Followed Stay at Home Orders?
Percent of People Following Stay at Home Orders
Cell phone tracking data suggest that there is zero correlation to shelter in place orders and fewer people spreading the virus. A huge thank you to SafeGraph.com for sharing this data on this report: U.S. Geographic Responses to Shelter in Place Orders.
Here is a study which showed Home outbreaks were the dominant category (254 of 318 outbreaks; 79.9%), followed by transport (108; 34.0%; note that many outbreaks involved more than one venue category).
The graph below the map showing a slope shows how people began ignoring the stay at home orders gradually in some states and we really din't see an increase in cases in any of these States.
Here is another map that shows density of infections as a percentage of people by County.
One perfect example is Florida would should have been off the charts with their Spring Break fiasco. Florida virus data is very similar to California that is locked down.
Notice how the purple and red states are all interesting in opening up and getting back to business. Yes the blue states have more dense populations in some cities.
Study Suggests Outdoor Virus Transmission Data Near 0%
Doctors Censored For An Opposing View on Shelter In Place
Why were these two doctors were censored for telling the truth?
- First 6 minutes is worth watching on full video!
- 19 min mark - best explanation of herd immunity on full video.
- 30 min - how they are being forced to make every death COVID
Doctors Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi, co-owners of Bakersfield, California-based Accelerated Urgent Care, held a press conference last week to share their experiences in their clinics and opinions on the COVID-19 pandemic.
A video of the briefing went viral on YouTube, racking up over 5 million views in a couple of days. However YouTube abruptly pulled down the video, citing a breach of it’s “Terms of Service.”
The virality was most likely due to the controversial position the doctors took, questioning whether continuing the lockdown was in everyone’s best interests.
They detailed their interpretation of the publicly-available COVID-19 statistics and expressed concerns that the secondary effects of forced lockdowns and economic uncertainty were leading to increases in domestic violence, child molestation, depression, suicide, drug & alcohol abuse, and other social problems.
Why Coronavirus News Media "Fear-Mongering" Is Like Living in a Communist Society
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Popular Posts (All Time)
-
Table of Contents Introduction: Stress, Smoking, and Health The Normotim Effect: A New Hope in Stress Management Lithium Ascorbate:... -
The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has been linked to mental health issues related to disease-induced morbidity and mortality and ... -
Former Hunter Biden business partner Tony Bobulinski has confirmed that an email published in the New York Post's bombshell exposé is ... -
A group of virologists in February 2020 published a letter in The Lancet stating they “overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus origina...
-
SAMPLE LETTER BELOW 🚨🚨🚨 The secret is NOT to refuse the Jabb.... From a lawyer: If you are being forced to Vax in order to keep your job,...
-
The time is now. As most readers of this substack are now well aware, this is not just about COVID. The Constitution hangs in the balance. P... -
Klaus Schwab's World Economic Forum Government & WHO Lies Tucker & Malone Discuss The World Economic Forum & It's Young ...
-
Comment to ACIP meeting of August 30, 2021 submitted by Steve Kirsch - Executive Director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund stk@treatea... -
2 Sources for this story below . . . Justin Bieber reveals he has Ramsay Hunt syndrome Twitter suspended the VaccineTruth2 account Want to ... -
Crimes Against Humanity - The PCR Test Fraud and COVID-19 will be the Case of the Century Reiner Fuellmich - Update on Court Case & P...
