Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

[JackRiddler]

The best comparison for Sweden is not continental Europe, but its neighbors with similar demographics, economies, political systems and healthcare systems, and comparing them the one big difference is Sweden's lackadaisical response.

No. A comparison to many countries is far more robust than a comparison to only two. This artificially small sampling (to two countries that are smaller in population) is fanatically insisted upon by those who want to make Sweden look remarkably bad, rather than average for Europe -- and to avoid comparing Sweden to the many countries that had higher or similar death rates despite imposing extreme lockdown measures, fucking over all the children for a year (and continuing to do so), intentionally sacrificing the small-business class, etc. etc.

.

[Joe Hillshoist]

.

Your commentary misses the point entirely. 133 pages in we're repeating refrains.

In an attempt to put this in simplest terms possible:

- "Infection control" is a wholly overstated phrase for this. There is this continued conflation between "cases" and actual, measurable symptoms. Most who test positive are asymptomatic, largely due to faulty PCR tests and/or cycle thresholds that are set too high. This has been addressed here before numerous times.
- outside of the outliers (the risk groups), for all others -- the majority of the global population -- this "infection" is no more severe than a standard flu, on average;
- death tallies for COVID have been grossly manipulated;
- the principle point here is that LOCKDOWNS DO NOT DECREASE COVID-specific DEATH COUNTS. To the contrary, they have INCREASED DEATH and LOSS OF LIVELIHOOD unrelated to COVID, UNNECESSARILY.

In short, the actions taken are nowhere near commensurate with the actual risk.

At this phase of this virus, if you weren't for lockdowns during prior flu seasons -- and NO ONE HERE advocated for lockdowns prior to 2020 -- then anyone clamoring for lockdowns now is falling prey to propaganda. Is it so surprising that lies are being told?

Again: drawing from currently available information, the virus was markedly more serious than the average flu during the earlier months of 2020. But we've been relatively FLAT for months now (once the raw figures are analyzed cleanly, excluding the manipulation of figures.)

Re-read points 5 and 6 -- the source link cites many sources that you can further analyze.

5. Whilst lockdown measures may slow the spread of the virus or “cases”, multiple studies show no evidence that lockdown, or the severity of lockdown policy, reduces deaths. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence as to the huge negative consequences lockdown has on the population and in particular the working class and most vulnerable in society.

6. The pandemic is fundamentally over, with the virus now endemic in a less acute form compared with the pandemic in spring 2020. The so-called “second wave” of covid is driven by a combination of an endemic virus and bad science: treating asymptomatic people who test positive as “covid cases”, misdiagnosis via inaccurate PCR tests generating false positive results, misdiagnosis through treating all respiratory conditions and "covid-like" symptoms as covid, and mass manipulation of the statistics being presented to the public, for example where “covid deaths” are actually deaths for any underlying reason but where the deceased tested positive on a PCR test within the last 28 days.

I've no interest in re-hashing prior talking points on this (which is what I'm doing right now). You are entitled to disagree, but at least frame my argument correctly when you attempt to counter.

See the bold. That evidence exists. Look at the death rate in Australia then pull it apart and examine the minutia of what is going on.

I don't think you people understand how PCR tests work or what is being said in some of those papers.

Italic hings aren't happening here. Again go look up how these things are tested.

I have a simple question to ask twice.

Lockdown makes you more vulnberable to suicide because of underlying mental health conditions and you kill yourself then what causes that death?

The lockdown or the underlying mental health condition?

If COVID makes you more vulnerable to dying from an underlying health condition then what what causes that death? COVID or the underlying health condition?

[DrEvil]

The best comparison for Sweden is not continental Europe, but its neighbors with similar demographics, economies, political systems and healthcare systems, and comparing them the one big difference is Sweden's lackadaisical response.

No. A comparison to many countries is far more robust than a comparison to only two. This artificially small sampling (to two countries that are smaller in population) is fanatically insisted upon by those who want to make Sweden look remarkably bad, rather than average for Europe -- and to avoid comparing Sweden to the many countries that had higher or similar death rates despite imposing extreme lockdown measures, fucking over all the children for a year (and continuing to do so), intentionally sacrificing the small-business class, etc. etc.

.

I'm not saying Sweden is remarkably bad compared to everyone else, there are clearly places doing worse, but compared to all their neighbors who did the lockdown song and dance they stand out in the number of deaths by an order of magnitude, and their economy is still fucked.

Even the Swedes agree. They just passed a new law to make it easier to implement stricter measures, and they've started to up their restrictions, like sending older kids home, restricting the number of people who can gather, no alcohol after eight, closing all non-essential government facilities, recommending masks, etc.

They've basically come around to the conclusion that lockdowns work, probably because their healthcare system right now is at breaking point, and past it in some regions. They're still not as strict as many other places, but they're tightening things all the time as the numbers keep climbing.

[conniption]

Catherine Austin Fitts | Full Interview | Planet Lockdown


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1-0XKY ... =emb_title

•Dec 22, 2020
Truth Matters

This sit down interview with Catherine covers the spectrum of the current situation we find ourselves in.

It was conducted as apart of the full length documentary. We are releasing the full interview for the betterment of public understanding of the situation.

Catherine's analysis can be found at:
https://home.solari.com

The full film, when released, will be available at https://www.PlanetLockdownFilm.com

Sign up to receive notification of the release of the feature length documentary film and full interviews by clicking here:

https://aw6dcc5.aweb.page/p/28c34ce9-...

We are not monetizing these video but do request anyone to make a donation to fund more videos like this:
gf.me/u/zdqxz7

On Bitchute as well:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/2hnQXD...

Someone created a French version that can be found here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqqYc...

Hmmm. Youtube censored the video.

There are a number of bitchute channels who have added it to their collections of videos. It's an interesting study...and down the rabbit hole I go...

https://www.bitchute.com/search/?query= ... kind=video

[Joe Hillshoist]

.

6. The pandemic is fundamentally over, with the virus now endemic in a less acute form compared with the pandemic in spring 2020. The so-called “second wave” of covid is driven by a combination of an endemic virus and bad science: treating asymptomatic people who test positive as “covid cases”, misdiagnosis via inaccurate PCR tests generating false positive results, misdiagnosis through treating all respiratory conditions and "covid-like" symptoms as covid, and mass manipulation of the statistics being presented to the public, for example where “covid deaths” are actually deaths for any underlying reason but where the deceased tested positive on a PCR test within the last 28 days.

[/i][/quote]

The pandemic is fundamentally over, with the virus now endemic in a less acute form compared with the pandemic in spring 2020.

What is the basis for this statement? What is "a less acute form"? What the fuck does that mean in medical or virological terms? How is the "pandemic" over. Nothing has stabilised. Whole populations haven't been exposed. Do you even know what "endemic" means?

treating asymptomatic people who test positive as “covid cases”,

What is wrong with doing this? What is an asymptomatic person? "Asymptomatic" is a self diagnosed description of a person. It basically means they didn't notice any symptoms, not that they didn't have any. You know the virus and COVID are not the same thing right?

So with COVID a symptom is something a person notices in response to infection with the virus SARS-CoV-2.T

he virus SARS-CoV-2 causes a disease - COVID 19. (Coronavirus disease 2019.) This happens because SARS-COV-2 virons enter cells (because the spike protein on the viron coating binds to an enzyme called ACE2 and thru a biochemical process is able to breach the cell wall) and hijack the processes inside those cells to create more virons - to replicate. This destroys the cells. It can cause scarring and permanent damage and sometimes the immune response can cause further damage to the bodies systems either in an autoimmune process or by overwhelming vital functions with immune cells ie drowning in pus from a cytokine storm - these things are called COVID 19.

This happens to anyone infected with the virus. The lower the infection dose ie the less virus that enters your system, the lower the odds of symptoms or disease progression. If you are asymptomatic you still have an infection, ie you still ahve SARS-CoV-2 in your system but you may not have COVID because the amount of virus in your body isn't enough to damage anything beyond repair. So testing with a PCR test on an asymptomatic person is not any sort of false reading. It still shows the presence of the virus in that biological system (or person.) The PCR test would not be able show any sign of the virus if it wasn't there to begin with because it grows the virus thru subsequent generations. If there is no virus presence the process doesn't start.

A PCR test doesn't mean the person is infectious tho.

Which maybe where this misunderstanding is coming from.

But because there are still enough unknowns about infectivity public policy decisions about isolation and lockdowns may be made about positive PCR tests that mean nothing in the context of actual infectivity. But positive PCR tests show the virus has been in the community and infected the person making the test. there are all these claims about contamination but where is the actual evidence of contamination, especially in Australia.

So this:

misdiagnosis via inaccurate PCR tests generating false positive results

doesn't mean what you think it means. They aren't false positives. They are just not necessarily accurate reflections of the potential for infection or reinfection.

misdiagnosis through treating all respiratory conditions and "covid-like" symptoms as covid

AS far as I can tell this isn't happening where I live (because other respiratory conditions are being diagnosed consitently and used in cause of death stats) so I can't really comment on it.

and mass manipulation of the statistics being presented to the public, for example where “covid deaths” are actually deaths for any underlying reason but where the deceased tested positive on a PCR test within the last 28 days.

Like the person in Melbourne who died months after being free from the SARS-Cov-2 virus?

They still died from COVID19. The process I mentioned earlier in the comment - the binding to ACE2 entering and then destroying the cell to replicate virons - if this happens to cells in the Kidneys and they are unable to function at the appropriate rate then you die of blood poisoning at some point. For example. COVID19 includes long term organ damage that can result in death months after the Virus is gone from your system. Because the Disease and the Virus that causes it are two different things. The disease is the damage the virus does to your body, if you don't recover from that damage then it kills you.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Joe - i will disclose I didn't read most of your comments as I just wrapped up some work-related reports and need to shut down my screen time.

Suffice to say I don't accept many of the figures/data points at face value, for reasons articulated in many of the prior pages of this thread. PCR tests are flawed/unreliable, due in no small part to how cycle thresholds (Ct) are mis-applied, leading to many false positives. The term "cases" have been wrongly applied from the onset -- technically, a "case" only refers to those with actual, measurable symptoms, not scenarios where one is asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic. The false/misleading broad-brush use of 'cases' as a metric continues to mislead many, and justify horrific/devastating measures. Etc, etc, etc.

I did catch this comment of yours, though:

Joe Hillshoist:
If COVID makes you more vulnerable to dying from an underlying health condition then what what causes that death? COVID or the underlying health condition?

Same can be said of any flu, any virus, any ailment. If you're terminal with cancer and catch pneumonia or the flu, what happens? Your chance of survival reduces, dramatically in many instances.

This was an unfortunate, yet common occurence among the ill for all years prior to 2020, but somehow this circumstance -- among other misleading metrics -- are now used as justification for egregious, repressive govt controls/overreach.

It's madness.

Overwhelmingly, those dying from COVID were already dying from other causes, or have surpassed average life expectancy. Or had other serious ailments.

There will always be outliers, however. In prior years, otherwise healthy, relatively young humans died of the flu, of pneumonia, of other fluke ailments or illnesses, in the THOUSANDS.

I will repeat again that the official covid death count tallies can NOT be used as a reliable metric, as the criteria for counting covid deaths have been misleading, inconsistent per jurisdiction/region, and/or dishonestly inflated. It veers towards criminally fraudulent measurement tactics, since the figures have been used as justification for mandates and policies that have caused (and will continue to cause) unnecessary Deaths and Loss of Livelihoods.

Once again, a targeted approach with a focus on those at risk -- not on the healthy -- would have been the sensible, humane way to deal with this. Sensible precautions. Added 'safety valve' measures to help the less fortunate get through this. Emphasis on better health measures/decisions.

But I repeat myself. Again.

Stickdog, excerpted from another thread:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=42194&start=15#p692560

...the fact that so many millions of us now sincerely believe that such extreme interventions are self-evidently justified in the complete absence of any compelling hard scientific evidence of their benefits stands as a testament to the effectiveness of lockstep mass media fear porn propaganda, as well as to the reigning blue vs. red paradigm that (at least for members of team blue) equates strict adherence to authoritarian decrees about COVID-19 with moral and political virtue.

On the prior page of this thread, Jack Riddler typed:

I'm also more optimistic than most and believe some version of the idea that lockdown was exaggerated and counter-productive will come to be the prevailing view.

Oh, how I'd love for this to be true within a year's time.

I will pray for this outcome. And I'm not a praying man.

[Joe Hillshoist]

.

Joe - i will disclose I didn't read most of your comments as I just wrapped up some work-related reports and need to shut down my screen time.

Suffice to say I don't accept many of the figures/data points at face value, for reasons articulated in many of the prior pages of this thread. PCR tests are flawed/unreliable, due in no small part to how cycle thresholds (Ct) are mis-applied, leading to many false positives. The term "cases" have been wrongly applied from the onset -- technically, a "case" only refers to those with actual, measurable symptoms, not scenarios where one is asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic. The false/misleading broad-brush use of 'cases' as a metric continues to mislead many, and justify horrific/devastating measures. Etc, etc, etc.

I did catch this comment of yours, though:

Joe Hillshoist:
If COVID makes you more vulnerable to dying from an underlying health condition then what what causes that death? COVID or the underlying health condition?

Same can be said of any flu, any virus, any ailment. If you're terminal with cancer and catch pneumonia or the flu, what happens? Your chance of survival reduces, dramatically in many instances.

This was an unfortunate, yet common occurence among the ill for all years prior to 2020, but somehow this circumstance -- among other misleading metrics -- are now used as justification for egregious, repressive govt controls/overreach.

It's madness.

Overwhelmingly, those dying from COVID were already dying from other causes, or have surpassed average life expectancy. Or had other serious ailments.

There will always be outliers, however. In prior years, otherwise healthy, relatively young humans died of the flu, of pneumonia, of other fluke ailments or illnesses, in the THOUSANDS.

I will repeat again that the official covid death count tallies can NOT be used as a reliable metric, as the criteria for counting covid deaths have been misleading, inconsistent per jurisdiction/region, and/or dishonestly inflated. It veers towards criminally fraudulent measurement tactics, since the figures have been used as justification for mandates and policies that have caused (and will continue to cause) unnecessary Deaths and Loss of Livelihoods.

Once again, a targeted approach with a focus on those at risk -- not on the healthy -- would have been the sensible, humane way to deal with this. Sensible precautions. Added 'safety valve' measures to help the less fortunate get through this. Emphasis on better health measures/decisions.

But I repeat myself. Again.

Stickdog, excerpted from another thread:
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/view ... 15#p692560

...the fact that so many millions of us now sincerely believe that such extreme interventions are self-evidently justified in the complete absence of any compelling hard scientific evidence of their benefits stands as a testament to the effectiveness of lockstep mass media fear porn propaganda, as well as to the reigning blue vs. red paradigm that (at least for members of team blue) equates strict adherence to authoritarian decrees about COVID-19 with moral and political virtue.

On the prior page of this thread, Jack Riddler typed:

I'm also more optimistic than most and believe some version of the idea that lockdown was exaggerated and counter-productive will come to be the prevailing view.

Oh, how I'd love for this to be true within a year's time.

I will pray for this outcome. And I'm not a praying man.

You should have read the whole of that comment because then that little bit would have had a different context.

I disagree that asymptomatic cases aren't cases. Symptoms are self reported not found by medical practitioners. For example the ground glass lung condition associated with COVID 19 isn't a symptom. Its a sign (medically conditions have signs and symptoms and they are different,) because it is external evidence that proves something and can be verified. Same with a test, PCR or not. So not counting asymptomatic cases is flawed. If they are asymptomatic and virus can be grown from samples they provide then they are infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Some people in exactly the same situation may report symptoms while others won't. Its not a reliable measure because it relies on someones subjective description of their experience.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Joe,

Wikipedia previously defined CFR as:

‘In epidemiology, a case fatality rate (CFR) — sometimes called case fatality risk or disease lethality — is the proportion of deaths from a certain disease compared to the total number of symptomatic people diagnosed with the disease.’

I know because I saved the above quote months ago.

They've since altered the entry, of course: sent to the memory hole, unsurprisingly.

I shared this link a few months back:

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/09/0 ... y-matters/

Dr. Malcolm Kendrick
Scottish GP Doctor
...

Previously, in the world of infectious diseases, it has been accepted that a ‘case’ represents someone with symptoms, usually severe symptoms, usually severe enough to be admitted to hospital. Here, from Wikipedia…. yes, I know, but on this sort of stuff they are a good resource.

‘In epidemiology, a case fatality rate (CFR) — sometimes called case fatality risk or disease lethality — is the proportion of deaths from a certain disease compared to the total number of symptomatic people diagnosed with the disease.’ 1

Note the word symptomatic i.e. someone with symptoms.

A symptomless, or even mildly symptomatic positive swab is not a case. Never, in recorded history, has this been true. However, now we have an almost unquestioned acceptance that a positive swab represents a case of COVID.

...

On the 28th February, yes that far back, the New England Journal of Medicine published a report by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (A.S.F., H.C.L.); and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta. 4

In this paper ‘Covid-19 — Navigating the Uncharted’ they stated the following:

‘On the basis of a case definition requiring a diagnosis of pneumonia, the currently reported case fatality rate is approximately 2%. In another article in the Journal, Guan et al. report mortality of 1.4% among 1099 patients with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19; these patients had a wide spectrum of disease severity. If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza.’

Another link, also from several months ago:


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... BB28DCC6E9

Public Health Lessons Learned From Biases in Coronavirus Mortality Overestimation
Published online by Cambridge University Press:

12 August 2020

Abstract
In testimony before US Congress on March 11, 2020, members of the House Oversight and Reform Committee were informed that estimated mortality for the novel coronavirus was 10-times higher than for seasonal influenza. Additional evidence, however, suggests the validity of this estimation could benefit from vetting for biases and miscalculations. The main objective of this article is to critically appraise the coronavirus mortality estimation presented to Congress. Informational texts from the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are compared with coronavirus mortality calculations in Congressional testimony. Results of this critical appraisal reveal information bias and selection bias in coronavirus mortality overestimation, most likely caused by misclassifying an influenza infection fatality rate as a case fatality rate. Public health lessons learned for future infectious disease pandemics include: safeguarding against research biases that may underestimate or overestimate an associated risk of disease and mortality; reassessing the ethics of fear-based public health campaigns; and providing full public disclosure of adverse effects from severe mitigation measures to contain viral transmission.

NYTimes:

[PufPuf93]

Sweden has recently changed strategy in dealing with cv19 and made new laws allowing lockdowns. The initial and unique no lockdown approach has ben concluded a failure.

Sweden has passed a new law allowing coronavirus lockdown restrictions after its death toll reached a new high

tcolson@businessinsider.com (Thomas Colson) 4 days ago


* Sweden has introduced a law that would allow the government to close restaurants, shops, and public transport to combat the spread of COVID-19.

* The new legislation signals a major shift away from the country's initial no-lockdown approach to the pandemic.

* A severe second wave of COVID-19 infections has prompted Sweden gradually to abandon the unique approach it first adopted towards the pandemic, when it relied on voluntary social distancing measures.

* Anders Tegnell, the architect of Sweden's initial no-lockdown response, said last week that the COVID-19 situation showed no signs of improvement in Sweden.

Sweden has rushed through legislation that will allow the government to introduce national lockdown measures, signaling a major shift away from the country's initial light-touch approach to the pandemic.


The law, which had initially been scheduled for later in the year but was approved by Sweden's parliament on Friday, allows officials to close restaurants, shops, and public transport, Euronews reported. It also introduces fines for people who break social distancing rules.

It was passed the day after Sweden suffered its highest ever daily death toll from the pandemic, with 277 deaths on Thursday.

Stevan Lovfen, the prime minister, said the government had not yet decided to close down businesses but was prepared to do so.

"Today, the government has not decided on the closure of businesses, but the government is ready to make that kind of decision as well," he told a news conference, in comments reported by Reuters.

"This is not something that we take lightly, but people's lives and health are at stake."

A severe second wave of COVID-19 infections has prompted Sweden gradually to abandon the unique approach it first adopted towards the pandemic when it relied on voluntary social distancing measures and declined to recommend the use of face masks.


A severe second wave of COVID-19 infections has prompted Sweden gradually to abandon the unique approach it first adopted towards the pandemic, when it relied on voluntary social distancing measures.

Anders Tegnell, the architect of Sweden's initial no-lockdown response, said last week that the COVID-19 situation showed no signs of improvement in Sweden.
Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Sweden has rushed through legislation that will allow the government to introduce national lockdown measures, signaling a major shift away from the country's initial light-touch approach to the pandemic.

The law, which had initially been scheduled for later in the year but was approved by Sweden's parliament on Friday, allows officials to close restaurants, shops, and public transport, Euronews reported. It also introduces fines for people who break social distancing rules.

It was passed the day after Sweden suffered its highest ever daily death toll from the pandemic, with 277 deaths on Thursday.

Stevan Lovfen, the prime minister, said the government had not yet decided to close down businesses but was prepared to do so.

"Today, the government has not decided on the closure of businesses, but the government is ready to make that kind of decision as well," he told a news conference, in comments reported by Reuters.

"This is not something that we take lightly, but people's lives and health are at stake."

A severe second wave of COVID-19 infections has prompted Sweden gradually to abandon the unique approach it first adopted towards the pandemic when it relied on voluntary social distancing measures and declined to recommend the use of face masks.




The strategy, which drew huge international attention and controversy, coincided with a death rate in Sweden which was several times higher than neighboring Norway and Finland, although lower than other European countries that introduced lockdowns.

Sweden had recorded a total of 9,433 COVID-19 deaths by Friday, compared to less than 600 in Finland and less than 500 in Norway, both of which have populations around half the size of Sweden's. More than 2,000 of the deaths reported in Sweden have come in the last month alone.

Sweden's king made a rare public intervention in December to declare that the country had "failed" in its pandemic response, specifically referring to the high number of elderly people who had died in care homes.

In December, the government made it mandatory for people to wear masks on public transport and reduced the maximum number of people who were allowed to dine together in restaurants. Upper secondary schools will also be closed until at least January 24, the Financial Times reported.

The government has come under increasing pressure over its COVID-19 response after a number of senior officials including the prime minister himself admitted they had breached their own social distancing guidance.

Lovfen was spotted on a shopping tour at Christmas while his finance minister was photographed renting skis at a resort the government had advised people to avoid, Bloomberg reported.

Anders Tegnell, the chief epidemiologist who is credited with designing Sweden's initial no-lockdown response, said last week that the COVID-19 situation showed no signs of improvement.

"We have a lot of patients being admitted to intensive care units, and there is no sign of that decreasing," he said at a briefing, in comments reported by Bloomberg. "Unfortunately, the same goes for fatalities."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/sw ... uxbndlbing

[Belligerent Savant]

.

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/12/3 ... ft-to-say/

...

Here is the graph of overall mortality for all ages, in all countries. The graph starts at the beginning of 2017 and carries on to almost the end of 2020.



As you can see, in each winter there is an increase in deaths. In 2020, nothing much happened at the start of the year, then we had – what must have been – the COVID19 spike. The tall pointy bit around week 15.

It started in late March and was pretty much finished by mid-May. Now, we are in winter, and the usual winter spike appears. It seems to be around the same size as winter 2017/18. It also seems to have passed the peak and is now falling. But it could jump up again. [The figures in the most recent weeks can always be a bit inaccurate, as it can take some time for all the data to arrive]

Two things stand out. First, there was an obvious ‘COVID19 spike’. Second, what we are seeing at present does not differ greatly from previous years. The normal winter spike in deaths.

If we split this down into individual countries, this reasonably clear pattern falls apart.

Here are the figures from England



Unlike the first graph, the scale on the left is not absolute numbers. It is a thing called the Z-score. Which means standard deviation from the mean. Sorry, maths. If the Z-score goes above five, this means something significant is happening. The red, upper, dotted line is Z > 5. As you can see, despite the howls of anguish from England about COVID19 overwhelming the country, we are really not seeing much at all.

What of Sweden, that pariah country? They did not fully lock-down, the irresponsible fools (all they did was follow WHO guidance – by the way), and we are now told they are suffering terribly, they should have enforced far more rigid lockdown, their ‘experiment’ failed etc. etc.



As you can see, nothing much happening in Sweden either.

Then, if you look further, there are anomalies all over the place. Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK, and did exactly the same things as the rest of the UK with regard to lockdown, masks etc. At least it did in the earlier part of the year. However, it shows a completely different pattern to England. Or, to be fully accurate, it shows no pattern at all.



...

Of course, much of the most heated debate surrounded what happened during the so-called first wave. Who dealt with it well, or badly. Now, everyone in Europe is doing much the same things. Lockdown, restrictions on travel, restrictions on meeting other people, everyone wearing masks, etc. etc. Yet some countries are having a new wave, and others are not.

There is a special prize for anyone who can match up the severity of restrictions in various countries, to the Z-score. I say this, because no correlation exists.

So, again, what have I learned about COVID19? I learned that all Governments are floundering about, all claiming to have exerted some sort of control over this disease and ignoring all evidence to the contrary. In truth, they have achieved nothing. As restrictions and lockdowns have become more severe, in many cases the number of infections has simply risen and risen, completely unaffected by anything that has been done.

The official solution is, of course, more restrictions. ‘We just haven’t restricted people enough!’ Sigh. When something doesn’t work, the answer is not to keep doing it with even greater fervour. The real answer is to stop doing it and try something else instead.

I have also learned that, in most countries, COVID19 appears to be seasonal. It went away – everywhere – in the summer. It came back in the autumn/winter, as various viruses do.

On its return is has been, generally, far less deadly. Much you would expect. The most vulnerable died on first exposure, and far fewer people had any resistance to it, at all. Now, a number of people do have some immunity, and may of the vulnerable are already dead.

Which means that, in this so-called second wave COVID19 is of no greater an issue than a moderately bad flu season.

If I were to recommend actions. I would recommend that we stop testing – unless someone is admitted to hospital and is seriously ill. Mass testing is simply causing mass panic and achieves absolutely nothing. At great cost. We should also just get on with our lives as before. We should just vaccinate those at greatest risk of dying, the elderly and vulnerable, and put this rather embarrassing episode of mad banner waving behind us.

Hopefully, in time, we will learn something. Which is that we should not, ever, run about panicking, following the madly waved banners… ever again. However, I suspect that we will. This pandemic is going to be a model for all mass panicking stupidity in the future. Because to do otherwise, would be to admit that we made a pig’s ear of it this time. Far too many powerful reputations at stake to allow that.

[Grizzly]

Hello RI's,
I had to step away from my keyboard take a break and deal with my mental health, PTSD, etc...

So, needless to say I haven't kept up and asking this may be redundant or already covered, but I just don't have the time nor energy to back read pages and pages.... But I was wondering your thoughts (now that the vaccine is rolling out) any thoughts comments ideas or opinions on VIRAL SHEDDING, post vaccination. Has that topic come up?

I personally respect and trust Vernon Coleman (old man in a chair) as he calls himself, and was really hoping to get his thoughts on it. But I also very much value the collective here, too. I might not agree with everyone here, but I do make an effeort to hear youse guys/gals out.

mRNA and Viral shedding freak me out more than the Covid19,
anyroads, if it's been covered please point to it.

thanks, primates

`Griz

[Belligerent Savant]

.
Hey Grizz, unfamiliar with 'viral shedding' but will look into it.

In the meantime:

https://www.thebellows.org/the-great-covid-class-war/

The Great Covid Class War

The pandemic has created the perfect pretext for enacting economically destructive policies.


On January 19, 2020, Washington state reported the first US case of coronavirus. By the end of March, 245 million Americans were under stay-at-home restrictions to “flatten the curve.” Mainstream news terrorized the public with exponential graphs, threats of a medical supply shortage, and displays of hygiene theater. Appeals to science were weaponized to enforce conformity, and the media portrayed anti-lockdown protesters as backwards, astroturfed white nationalists bent on endangering the public.

Today millions of Americans have fallen into poverty or are on the verge of destitution. Stimulus money has largely been used as a handout to corporations, and over 160,000 small businesses have closed. In March and April 30 million Americans filed for unemployment. Now temporary job losses are becoming permanent. 12 million unemployed people may see their benefits lapse even if Congress passes a new aid deal. Homelessness is spiking, 11.4 million households owe $70 billion in back rent and fees, and 40 million people are at risk of eviction. In some states, food bank lines stretch for miles, and 1 in 4 children are expected to experience food insecurity.

Meanwhile, Walmart and Target reported record sales. Amazon tripled its profits and Jeff Bezos made $70 billion. Billionaires have collectively made over $1 trillion since March. Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft now make up 20% of the stock market’s total worth. The tech industry has achieved an unparalleled level of wealth and dominance. Data, which has been more valuable than oil since 2017, is expected to expand its economic footprint.

...

The New Caste System

California Governor Gavin Newsom sends his children to in-person private school while mandating virtual education for California public schools. He announced a second statewide lockdown just a few weeks after attending an indoor, unmasked dinner with lobbyists at a Michelin three star restaurant where meals can cost up to $850 per person. Newsom is just one of many politicians, elites, and bureaucrats who break the rules. A static social order is being solidified. In our new caste system the wealthy have political and social privileges because they are considered clean and disease-free, while the more low-income someone is, the more they are treated as contaminated.

The goal of lockdown enthusiasts in the “work from home” caste is to shift risk away from themselves and onto essential workers and the poor. Only 40% of the workforce can afford to stay home. 43% of US adults do not have adequate health insurance, and only 31% of low-paid workers have paid sick leave compared to 92% of high-paid workers. “Stay home” is the self-congratulatory mantra of professionals who believe that their virtuous behavior prevents them from contracting covid. In fact, income is the main determinant of covid mortality.

Lockdown fanatics have helped manufacture consent for a brutal reorganization of labor that will plunge millions of people into serfdom. The work-from-home lifestyle is only possible through the labor of logistics workers who transport, sort, and deliver goods. Currently about 10 million jobs that existed in February have not been replaced. Many workers have been forced to take on part-time, no-contract work, a labor model that is rolling back decades of hard-fought protections.

Under the Obama/Biden administration, 94% of new jobs created were gig work, and in 2017 34% of the workforce was employed through the gig economy. Shutdowns are accelerating this trend, with food delivery apps growing their profits as workers struggle to get by. Subscription platforms like OnlyFans saw a surge in accounts at the beginning of lockdown. In March the company saw a 75% increase in users and 60,000 new creators. Lockdown has made OnlyFans a billion dollar business, but the majority of creators make less than $145 a month.

...

Entering the Dark Ages


We are facing something much darker than a respiratory virus. A great theft is occurring under the pretext of safety.It is not just the theft of working people’s jobs, savings, and property—it is also the theft of a meaningful life. In Japan, October suicides alone exceeded the country’s 2020 covid deaths. Lockdown was mentioned by 80% of callers to a suicide hotline in the UK. In the US over half of young adults are showing signs of depression, with 1 in 4 of them expressing suicidal ideation. Overdoses have increased 20% compared to 2019.

The beneficiaries of this neo-feudal dystopia are the ownership class, tech CEOs, investors, NGOs, and private foundations. Their ongoing immiseration of workers is intentional. 80% of covid loans offered by the IMF to developing countries were contingent on governments implementing austerity programs such as cuts to healthcare and elimination of public sector jobs. In the US, seventeen of the top 25 corporations will make $85 billion more this year than in previous years, and shareholders will reap the rewards. Over the same period, American workers have lost $1.3 trillion.

Remnants of the covid class war will touch every domain of life for decades. Officials have suggested that social distancing will need to continue even after mandatory vaccinations. Masks have become a potent symbol of both physical purity and mutual mistrust. Our fantasy of a sanitized and deathless society has created a world where the home is a prison and friends and family are a health hazard. In this world children are told they are killing their grandparents simply by existing. Right now we are still at the beginning of sweeping changes that may include social credit, immunity passports, a rent-only economy, AI and robotics expansion, financialization of natural resources, increased mass surveillance, the Uberization of everything, and rolling lockdowns for climate change or the flu. We have a limited window of time to reclaim the things that make life worth living: family, community, cultural heritage, the social sphere, public institutions, common spaces, and free movement. That window may be closing quickly, but it is not fully closed yet.

Full article at link.

[stickdog99]

.

Joe - i will disclose I didn't read most of your comments as I just wrapped up some work-related reports and need to shut down my screen time.

Suffice to say I don't accept many of the figures/data points at face value, for reasons articulated in many of the prior pages of this thread. PCR tests are flawed/unreliable, due in no small part to how cycle thresholds (Ct) are mis-applied, leading to many false positives. The term "cases" have been wrongly applied from the onset -- technically, a "case" only refers to those with actual, measurable symptoms, not scenarios where one is asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic. The false/misleading broad-brush use of 'cases' as a metric continues to mislead many, and justify horrific/devastating measures. Etc, etc, etc.

I did catch this comment of yours, though:

Joe Hillshoist:
If COVID makes you more vulnerable to dying from an underlying health condition then what what causes that death? COVID or the underlying health condition?

Same can be said of any flu, any virus, any ailment. If you're terminal with cancer and catch pneumonia or the flu, what happens? Your chance of survival reduces, dramatically in many instances.

This was an unfortunate, yet common occurence among the ill for all years prior to 2020, but somehow this circumstance -- among other misleading metrics -- are now used as justification for egregious, repressive govt controls/overreach.

It's madness.

Overwhelmingly, those dying from COVID were already dying from other causes, or have surpassed average life expectancy. Or had other serious ailments.

There will always be outliers, however. In prior years, otherwise healthy, relatively young humans died of the flu, of pneumonia, of other fluke ailments or illnesses, in the THOUSANDS.

I will repeat again that the official covid death count tallies can NOT be used as a reliable metric, as the criteria for counting covid deaths have been misleading, inconsistent per jurisdiction/region, and/or dishonestly inflated. It veers towards criminally fraudulent measurement tactics, since the figures have been used as justification for mandates and policies that have caused (and will continue to cause) unnecessary Deaths and Loss of Livelihoods.

Once again, a targeted approach with a focus on those at risk -- not on the healthy -- would have been the sensible, humane way to deal with this. Sensible precautions. Added 'safety valve' measures to help the less fortunate get through this. Emphasis on better health measures/decisions.

But I repeat myself. Again.

Stickdog, excerpted from another thread:
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/view ... 15#p692560

...the fact that so many millions of us now sincerely believe that such extreme interventions are self-evidently justified in the complete absence of any compelling hard scientific evidence of their benefits stands as a testament to the effectiveness of lockstep mass media fear porn propaganda, as well as to the reigning blue vs. red paradigm that (at least for members of team blue) equates strict adherence to authoritarian decrees about COVID-19 with moral and political virtue.

On the prior page of this thread, Jack Riddler typed:

I'm also more optimistic than most and believe some version of the idea that lockdown was exaggerated and counter-productive will come to be the prevailing view.

Oh, how I'd love for this to be true within a year's time.

I will pray for this outcome. And I'm not a praying man.

You should have read the whole of that comment because then that little bit would have had a different context.

I disagree that asymptomatic cases aren't cases. Symptoms are self reported not found by medical practitioners. For example the ground glass lung condition associated with COVID 19 isn't a symptom. Its a sign (medically conditions have signs and symptoms and they are different,) because it is external evidence that proves something and can be verified. Same with a test, PCR or not. So not counting asymptomatic cases is flawed. If they are asymptomatic and virus can be grown from samples they provide then they are infected with SARS-CoV-2.

But less than one in one thousand counted COVID-19 cases has been confirmed by the growth of the virus in culture. And where is the unambiguous scientific evidence of asymptomatic transmission?

No actual epidemiologist takes the data currently being presented at face value. However, because the general consensus of the medical community is that people are not being precautious enough, epidemiologists can point out how flawed the data presented are only at risk to their careers. So because "it's better safe than sorry", the scarier the numbers are the better.

I want to make it clear that I think that COVID-18 is probably causing many. many thousands of excess deaths in the USA alone and that I think that high risk populations (people over 65 with underlying conditions) should be taking serious precautions. But how much mask wearing mandates, school closures, and mandates against outdoor dining and the forced closure of other services such as nail salons are helping lower COVID-19 associated death rates is very much an open question. And there are no data that I know of that suggest that outdoor transmission amongst strangers is even occurring, especially amongst asymptomatic individuals.

[DrEvil]

Hello RI's,
I had to step away from my keyboard take a break and deal with my mental health, PTSD, etc...

So, needless to say I haven't kept up and asking this may be redundant or already covered, but I just don't have the time nor energy to back read pages and pages.... But I was wondering your thoughts (now that the vaccine is rolling out) any thoughts comments ideas or opinions on VIRAL SHEDDING, post vaccination. Has that topic come up?

I personally respect and trust Vernon Coleman (old man in a chair) as he calls himself, and was really hoping to get his thoughts on it. But I also very much value the collective here, too. I might not agree with everyone here, but I do make an effeort to hear youse guys/gals out.

mRNA and Viral shedding freak me out more than the Covid19,
anyroads, if it's been covered please point to it.

thanks, primates

`Griz

Greetings, fellow primate!

This is just my pop-sci understanding talking, so take it with a huge grain of salt:

The mRNA part of the vaccine isn't a live virus, or a dead one for that matter, just a tiny, synthetic part of one, ergo it can't shed.

[Joe Hillshoist]

But less than one in one thousand counted COVID-19 cases has been confirmed by the growth of the virus in culture. And where is the unambiguous scientific evidence of asymptomatic transmission?

There is none but when transmission is widely out of control and there is no unambiguous evidence saying otherwise it is better to err on the side of caution isn't it?

No actual epidemiologist takes the data currently being presented at face value. However, because the general consensus of the medical community is that people are not being precautious enough, epidemiologists can point out how flawed the data presented are only at risk to their careers. So because "it's better safe than sorry", the scarier the numbers are the better.

I know of epidemiologists who take take the data in Australia at face value.

I want to make it clear that I think that COVID-18 is probably causing many. many thousands of excess deaths in the USA alone and that I think that high risk populations (people over 65 with underlying conditions) should be taking serious precautions. But how much mask wearing mandates, school closures, and mandates against outdoor dining and the forced closure of other services such as nail salons are helping lower COVID-19 associated death rates is very much an open question. And there are no data that I know of that suggest that outdoor transmission amongst strangers is even occurring, especially amongst asymptomatic individuals.

I've got alot more sympathy for your POV than probably comes across and agree with some of this. For example the bolded. However indoors I think it is a different story. Several Australian clusters have formed around restaurants and the masked staff in restaurants are often not infected whereas patrons are. Staff don't spend as much time in the dining area and wear masks whereas masks are allowed to be removed for eating and drinking. There are also documented cases where people wearing masks haven't been infected and those not wearing them have in hair dressing salons and other one on one service establishments.

And from that its obvious things are very different in both our countries in terms of lockdown severity and frequency and various other things like welfare support.