Image 01 Image 03

Get Ready for a Major COVID19-Narrative Shift Based on ‘Consensus’ and ‘Science’

Get Ready for a Major COVID19-Narrative Shift Based on ‘Consensus’ and ‘Science’

New studies show lockdowns have no “benefit” & cause 890,000 excess American deaths in the next 15 years, providing “reasons” for ending restrictions soon.

CDC Image

Just ahead of the transition to a new administration, our elite media is beginning to publish a steady stream of articles that question the effectiveness of pandemic lockdown restrictions that have been implemented across the country and impacted the economy.

For example, many publications highlighted a new study that demonstrates pandemic lockdown rules may not provide significantly more benefits to slowing the spread of the disease than other voluntary measures.

The peer reviewed study was published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation on January 5, and analyzed coronavirus case growth in 10 countries in early 2020.

The study compared cases in England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and the U.S. – all countries that implemented mandatory lockdown orders and business closures – to South Korea and Sweden, which instituted less severe, voluntary responses. It aimed to analyze the effect that less restrictive or more restrictive measures had on changing individual behavior and curbing the transmission of the virus.

The researchers used a mathematical model to compare countries that did and did not enact more restrictive lockdown orders, and determined that there was “no clear, significant beneficial effect of [more restrictive measures] on case growth in any country.”
Newsweek subscription offers >

“We do not question the role of all public health interventions, or of coordinated communications about the epidemic, but we fail to find an additional benefit of stay-at-home orders and business closures,” the research said.

Dr. Ari Joffe (a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases at the Stollery Children’s Hospital in Edmonton and a Clinical Professor in the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Alberta) published an analysis that showed the harms of lockdowns are ten times greater than their benefits. He factored in the long-term public health issues. He summarizes some of his findings in an interview with the Toronto Sun:

I think that the initial modelling and forecasting were inaccurate. This led to a contagion of fear and policies across the world. Popular media focused on absolute numbers of COVID-19 cases and deaths independent of context. There has been a sheer one-sided focus on preventing infection numbers. The economist Paul Frijters wrote that it was “all about seeming to reduce risks of infection and deaths from this one particular disease, to the exclusion of all other health risks or other life concerns.” Fear and anxiety spread, and we elevated COVID-19 above everything else that could possibly matter.

Our cognitive biases prevented us from making optimal policy: we ignored hidden ‘statistical deaths’ reported at the population level, we preferred immediate benefits to even larger benefits in the future, we disregarded evidence that disproved our favorite theory, and escalated our commitment in the set course of action.

…I believe that we need to take an “effortful pause” and reconsider the information available to us. We need to calibrate our response to the true risk, make rational cost-benefit analyses of the trade-offs, and end the lockdown groupthink.

Pairing with that study is a new paper by the US National Bureau of Economic Research, which estimates the possibility of up to 890,00 excess American death is over the next 15 years due to the unemployment caused by Covid lockdowns.

The economists predict that, over the next 10 years, pandemic-related unemployment could cause about 460,000 excess deaths in the United States, on top of the number of people killed by COVID-19 itself.

The total number of excess deaths could rise to 890,00 by 2035, and to 1.37 million people by 2040.

The economists — Francesco Bianchi, Giada Bianchi and Dongho Song — came up with those predictions by analyzing how changes in U.S. unemployment rates have correlated with changes in U.S. mortality figures in recent decades.

Past studies have shown that unemployment can increase mortality rates by decreasing use of preventive care, increasing the suicide rate, and increasing the odds people will die from cardiovascular disease, the economists write.

Tying this all together and proving that it is ahead of the curve, Florida is doing much better than California without economy-crushing rules.

Florida as of this week has recorded a little over 1.5 million positive test results of COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic, while California has registered nearly 3 million. Per CDC figures, the two states are roughly equal in their population-adjusted case numbers per 100,000 residents, with California at around 7,300 and Florida at a little over 7,000.

The two states have arrived at more or less equal case numbers after roughly a year of divergent COVID-19 mitigation policies.

I have long noted that long-term unemployment has serious health consequences. I also asserted that enhanced basic hygiene practices, improvements in ventilation, taking vitamins, and developing vaccines and treatments were the keys to success in addressing this crisis.

My prediction: After a 100-day “mask rule” is imposed, the coronavirus cases will miraculously drop, and the country will be “saved.” The drop will correspond to the warmer weather, which seemed to help end the first surge in 2020. Then, any outbreaks will be explained by a “bad flu” season until it is reasonable to do otherwise.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Colonel Travis | January 18, 2021 at 7:11 pm

The lies and fear of the past year have been nothing short of evil. The left will do anything for power. Unfortunately, the vast majority either do not see it or do not care.

Just in time to fit the Xiden administration narrative. As many suspected, this China Flu was released to effect world-wide lockdowns especially in what was once The United States of America to destroy our economy, to destroy our middle class, to teach us to obey without question, to alter our election laws in order to ultimately destroy Trump’s re-election and brand his supporters as seditious traitors for life.

No, it isn’t a “major narrative shift”. Big Brother (aka Doctor Fauci) was just malquoted doubleplusungood. You need to rewrite this blog post fullwise and upsub it antefiling.

Yeah, funny how they’re just discovering this now, isn’t it?

How many media outlets will note that Trump was right after all? I’m not going to hold my breath.

Has Big Brother given twitter and facebook the go ahead to stop censoring what the Dem’s Ministry of Truth previously labelled ‘misinformation’?

PatriotGal_2257 | January 18, 2021 at 8:04 pm

Yeah, and these ridiculous masks should be abolished, too. Now, not in a 100 days.

Democrat fraudsters broke the economy with shutdowns to get rid of Trump just in case vote fraud was not enough. Now they want to fix it to generate taxes for their usual overspending spree. Humpty dumpty comes to mind.

    Owego in reply to dunce1239. | January 19, 2021 at 9:04 am

    The warning in Humpty Dumpty lost to most: “…all the king’s horses and all the kings men/couldn’t put Humpty back together again.”

Just wait until the CDC issues new guidelines that change how Wuflu deaths are reported. Pre-January 20 the CDC’s goal was to artificially inflate the number of deaths. Post-January 20 the goal will be to decrease the number of deaths.

    For example the fellow with blood alcohol level of 5 times the legal limit, who died in a motor vehicle accident he caused, who tested positive for the Wuhan Flu, didn’t die of Covid? Crazy talk.

    Or all the people, who were already DNRs on hospice care, they didn’t die of Covid?

    Maybe comrade Recovering Lutheran needs to be reported for some re-education.

    Oh well, I’ll be reported for joking about re-education camps. Bother. As Humphrey Bogart said, “They’ll know where to find me, I left a note in my apartment.” For me, you can find me at the 9:30 Sunday Mass at the Cathedral, sitting in the back on the Mary side.

No. Something else is going on here.

First- Newsome may not survive a recall.

Second- look to Washington State. Inslee has no interest in seeing this end. There’s a reason the evergreen state is nearly last in getting the vaccine deployed. The majority of those being hurt by his shutdowns ARE people who do not support him. Inslee’s major voter constituents are just fine. Teachers in half the state have had 10 hour work weeks since Sept. I would say it’s deliberate sabotage at this juncture on the part of Inslee.

Inslee is bucking to use this as a force for an income tax. We are in effect California light and headed towards full California.

    AFSarge in reply to Andy. | January 18, 2021 at 9:10 pm

    The Washington state democrats just voted to give Inslee the power to continue the lockdowns, destroying the state and having people live in fear until HE decides it should end. And King county just re-elected this moron for another 4 years, along with Sideshow Bob, the joke of an attorney general for the state.


    DaveGinOly in reply to Andy. | January 19, 2021 at 1:43 pm

    The state workers’ union in WA have been circulating a flyer to its members, warning them that Inslee might start laying them off if “progressive revenue solutions” aren’t adopted. A friend of mine asked what I thought about this and I told her “progressive revenue solutions” is Orwellian for “income tax.”

File this one in the “Common-sense; I told ya so” cabinet, the one that the vile and totalitarian Dhimmi-crats never look inside.

    guyjones in reply to guyjones. | January 18, 2021 at 8:43 pm

    Some Dhimmi-crat loser gets his/her jollies from “down-voting” our posts. Morons can’t proffer any substantive rebuttal, so, this is how these infantile idiots roll.

I think it’s worth noting that the first study cited is in opposition to a number of other studies that come to diametrically opposite conclusions with regard to lockdowns and resultant deaths. I’ve not seen a specific discussion on why that might be the case. Looking at the paper it also has a restricted timeline running from February to April and since then Sweden has had a massive spike in covid and to a lesser extent S Korea. Additionally there is no policy discussion on the variables. South Korea foot example is well known as having a very effective contact, test and trace system in place. In other words the study seems quite limited.

Additionally id point out that the economic study makes the following conclusion “Without any doubt, lockdowns save lives, but they also contribute to the decline in real activity that can have severe consequences on health. Policy-makers should therefore consider combining lockdowns with policy interventions meant to reduce economic distress, guarantee access to health care, and facilitate effective economic reopening under health care policies to limit SARS-CoV-19 spread” is in actuality it’s conclusion recommends policies dealing with the economic stress associated with unemployment, and other economic issues.

The observation that in 100 days the crisis will ‘miraculously’ disappear seems an odd statement. The vaccination programme will have has ample time to have been rolled out and a significant reduction in infections and therefore deaths will be a natural consequence. Yes that’s a result of the swift development of a vaccine not a miracle.

    NYBruin in reply to mark311. | January 18, 2021 at 8:52 pm

    I’m skeptical of this study. It’s authored by two economists and a hematologist. Perhaps we should focus on those with expertise on infectious diseases instead.

      alaskabob in reply to NYBruin. | January 18, 2021 at 9:50 pm

      A hemotologist is quite capable of dealing with infections. Subspecialization in Hemotology requires Internal Med credentials. Guess who deals with genetic immune issues?

        CommoChief in reply to alaskabob. | January 18, 2021 at 10:36 pm


        Nor does it take an ‘expert’ in any field to review the effectiveness of the policy prescriptions applied by our credentialed elites.

        The fact is most reasonably educated people can look at data sets and observe the results v what was promised. This is as true for Rona as nearly every other thing under the sun. IMO, generalists make better decisions than specialists. The specialist brings too narrow a focus to the issue while a generalist brings a dare I say ‘multidisciplinary’ approach.

        I have multiple college degrees including advanced degrees. Not in any scientific field unless one considers finance/economics science. I have zero training in immunology or public health.

        I, like many of you, suspected long ago that the Rona was being hyped out of proportion to the true threat. Why not simply protect the most vulnerable populations to the spread of a respiratory infection? Treat it like a pneumonia that spreads like a common flu? Limit visits to those in community or group living settings and push out ppe to those people with correlated risk factors and their care givers?

        I know many of you have figured out the proper response from govt v actual response a long time ago. I am certainly not alone in that. Expect Biden to continue to co-opt DJT Federal response and claim credit for implementing. Expect the legacy media to continue to provide cover and to memory hole Trump admin actions. Hell, see the preview with Cuomo in NY.

        My larger point is that, in my experience, the expert tends to have tunnel vision while the generalist or a regular Joe/Jane with a basic education and common sense can do a much better job of seeing the big picture. Let the experts brief and inform by all means. Do not let experts run anything outside their lab, they simply aren’t equipped to do so.

        Bob, I declined the shot.
        I am wondering if I have lost my mind.
        If I took it, which would I accept?
        The Moderna derived from abortion juice, or the Phizer?

        DaveGinOly in reply to alaskabob. | January 19, 2021 at 2:38 pm

        While it’s great to have medical credentials, many of these studies fail because they don’t have statisticians and economists onboard.

        I read a very long article yesterday about the possibility that the virus is an escape from a facility in Wuhan. Every single naysayer, medical/virus/genetic experts all, denied the possibility because they insisted the virus is natural, and not man-made or otherwise engineered. Not one of them understood that “natural” and “lab escape/release” are not mutually exclusive. So having someone versed in logic and set theory may also be beneficial.

      Yes, like fauci…

    alohahola in reply to mark311. | January 18, 2021 at 11:02 pm

    My gosh, do you really believe the crap you spew?

    Mac45 in reply to mark311. | January 18, 2021 at 11:58 pm

    You’re right, we can not trust this study. We have learned, through the last year, that we can not trust the scientific community, the medical community, the political community or the media. The more verifiable, accurate data that we get on the COVID-19 virus, the more we see that it was never the apocalyptic disease that it was reported to be. Once the data is properly classified, into exposures, verified cases, deaths as the direct result of COVID-19 symptoms and deaths of exposed persons and person claimed to be exposed, then we will get a true picture of the severity of COVID. And, considering the amount of damage done to the economy and the working class, the backlash will be severe.

    They will try to claim that a “reduction” in COVID cases and Covid deaths was the result of various “vaccines”. They will try to say that the draconian measures put in place will have broken its back. They will try to spin it a number of ways. But, an incredible number of people will simply not believe them.

    felixrigidus in reply to mark311. | January 19, 2021 at 2:52 am

    You are missing the point if you really think it is “worth noting” that there are studies that support different conclusions. Of course, the “study seems quite limited.” That is hardly a feature that is surprising in any study. Even less surprisingly, different studies sometimes yield non-identical conclusions.

    What is different is that just now the media pivot their narrative. You do remember that Bill Maher said the quiet part out loud when he publicly suggested to artifically create a recession as that would increase the chances to defeat Trump at the ballot boxes (cf. The Hill 08/17/19 “Maher stands by recession remarks: ‘Very worth’ getting rid of Trump”).

    And, lo and behold! Now that Democrats are about to seize power at the federal level the narrative pivot begins. You seem to be quite eager to distract from that main thrust of the article with a lot of irrelevant data points you claim are “worth noting”. In this context, they are not.
    It doesn’t seem to work

      felixrigidus in reply to felixrigidus. | January 19, 2021 at 2:55 am

      Please ignore the last line of the comment above. Somehow I managed to not properly delete it before submitting the comment.

      mark311 in reply to felixrigidus. | January 19, 2021 at 4:05 am

      With all due respect , the study can’t be treated as living in a vacuum science doesnt work that way. If you aren’t critical about what’s presented then you are taking the conclusions at face value. The point I was trying to get across with respect to the study is that it doesn’t really provide much to go on in order to draw a conclusion so what’s the point in it. It seems bizzare that a study released so recently would chop the data point so early.

      Your other point about a narrative derived from suddenly being the Biden administration doesn’t really work either. The fact is Trump did well to get a vaccine approved in this space of time, kudos but the roll out hasn’t quite got into gear yet. So naturally over the next period in time (provided Biden doesn’t fuck it up) the population will naturally get less infections. That’s not magical that’s cause and effect in play.

      The overall thrust of the article was pretty plain which is why I pointed out some counter points. Nodding in agreement like a sheep when so many flaws were apparent in the scientific narrative didn’t sit right.

        felixrigidus in reply to mark311. | January 19, 2021 at 6:13 am

        Thank you for your reply.

        “With all due respect, the study can’t be treated as living in a vacuum science doesn’t work that way. If you aren’t critical about what’s presented then you are taking the conclusions at face value.”

        Absolutely true. And yet that is precisely what quite a few politicians have done to justify totalitarian measures to combat the virus. Media and the CDC bureaucrats have basically suppressed any of the less panic-inducing studies (of course, only after Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia). And it looks like they are pivoting now and soon Oceania will always have been at war with Eurasia.

        “The point I was trying to get across with respect to the study is that it doesn’t really provide much to go on in order to draw a conclusion so what’s the point in it. It seems bizarre that a study released so recently would chop the data point so early.”

        Selection of data is unavoidable, the question is what rationale there is for limiting the data set, and especially if a study seems to oppose or propose a political agenda a healthy dose of scepticism is advisable.

        “Your other point about a narrative (…) That’s not magical that’s cause and effect in play.”

        The narrative shift is kind of the point of the article, and whether or not the vaccines do what they promise will be for future studies to reveal. Statistical numbers will be reduced significantly – no matter if the vaccines deliver as promised, are only half as good as advertised, or are totally ineffective – once a covid death is no longer a death “connected to” but “resulting from” Covid-19.

        The political interest to see this shift is clear. It allows reducing the imprudent totalitarian measures and eventually lifting them without a need for admitting that these measures were never warranted in the first place. Granted, that is not specific to the Biden administration, given the political biases of most journalists, media probably are much more comfortable with doing it to cover for a Democrat administration.

        “The overall thrust of the article was pretty plain which is why I pointed out some counter points. Nodding in agreement like a sheep when so many flaws were apparent in the scientific narrative didn’t sit right.”

        Yes, with good reason. And yet, while prior we have had vast swaths of elites celebrating the erasure of any such studies by Facebook and Twitter as well as in main-stream media, now they are starting to get mentioned again. Soon they won’t even be labelled by Twitter or Facebook and one can easily imagine that reports on studies that do not reinforce the results of the newly-permitted studies will get “safety labels” instead. And the same elites that cheered on the war against Eastasia will never have dones so but will always have cheered on the war against Eurasia…

          Felixrigidus, a thoughtful reply so thank you.

          With regard to your first point I’m.not clear what exactly has been suppressed but I take your point in that Covid studies were figuring out what is or was going on. In other words the science on the subject was evolving. I think there was an early phases of the west in general fucking up the response (including a misunderstanding on the science or at least the relevent science). The broader and more applicable point in terms of policy is understanding what works. You will find a lot of soul searching in the US and the UK in terms of policy response especially when compared to somewhere like south Korea. There are plenty of lessons to be learnt. I think the two key lessons are 1) swift policy response to contain potential pandemics and 2) a well developed contact and trace system to mitigate against future viruses.

          On the second point is sounds like we largely agree. On the particular detail of the study in question my view is that it makes no sense to restrict the data set to such a narrow period. Why no include the next quarter of validated stats.

          As for the narrative shift I think our views differ here. It seems plain that there is a means of reducing economic controls once the vaccine has been distributed to a significant percentage of the population (preferably elderly and health care workers) once that’s done then the risk from covid reduced drastically. I guess that will depend on how well the vaccine roll out happens.

          felixrigidus in reply to felixrigidus. | January 20, 2021 at 7:33 am

          Mark, I think you sum it up nicely. It looks like we can agree, and agree where we disagree.

          Since you asked “what exactly has been suppressed” let me try to explain what I mean by that. Journalists filter information, and that is necessary so that the public can be informed at all. It is a healthy practice if there is a good faith effort to pick all relevant information and not a monoculture of thought in that market. We seem to be very close to the point where neither is the case.

          At some point, big tech and media outlets with considerable reach decided, as if coordinated, to minimize reporting of “dissident” scientist’s findings. Dissident as in disagreeing with WHO statements at a specific point in time.
          Warning labels were put on posts and measures to limit their reach were employed. In the vast majority of media outlets no mention of these studies was made, or routine poisoning-the-well epithets were added.

          To paint a picture: say the headline on page 1 says “Scientists call for lockdowns to prevent covid deaths reaching 10 million in the next month” and there is an article on page 53-54, the 42nd paragraph of which mentions how “controversial economics professor” alleges “that a lockdown would hurt the economy and lead to an increase in poverty within the next few years” which in turn “as other conspiracy theorist warn” could lead to a reduced life expectancy. “X’s conspiracy theory was applauded by far-right racist terrorists who are covid-deniers.”

          Maybe we disagree on the extent of the problem. And you may take issue with my caricature. Nevertheless, I suspect we can agree that this kind of suppression actually took place.

          Because journalists are remarkably uniform in their political biases, this Iago-style of motivated information editing cannot balance itself out in the market of published opinions. When journalists saw their prime directive as reporting the truth there was a safety valve, but since the prime directive for journalists now is “preserve the narrative” there is little chance of any balance. With the advent of cancel culture, which seeks to silence the other side of the argument by threatening the very livelihood of anyone even presenting it, truth and liberty are in mortal danger.

          mark311 in reply to felixrigidus. | January 21, 2021 at 6:40 am

          I think you are right in your charachterisation of where i stand, the level of suppression can be debated and in principle its been overcome in my view. I do appreciate your point about the media reporting on the science, i tend to refer to direct science sources places like New scientist, Nature, Ars Technica so the nuances of the debate are expressed more coherently.

          Clearly we disagree on many things but i very much appreciate the time and thought you give to your responses so thank you.

    randian in reply to mark311. | January 19, 2021 at 4:55 am

    The observation that in 100 days the crisis will ‘miraculously’ disappear seems an odd statement.

    No, it’s an obvious fact. Coronaviruses naturally go dormant in spring and re-energize in the fall. A 100 day mask mandate puts us in early May. The masks will have done nothing, it will the natural lifecycle of the virus, but you can be sure it will be loudly claimed by all media outlets that the masks are the reason for the dropoff in covid-19 activity.

      mark311 in reply to randian. | January 19, 2021 at 10:36 am

      Except from the data we know that simply isn’t true, the virus is worse in winter true but the original spikes on transmission occurred in spring so no that doesn’t really help.

Now, we can wait for the inevitable flood of whitepapers detailing how the manifestly idiotic, irrational and indefensible “lockdown” has caused and will continue to cause exponentially more death, suffering, misery, economic and social harm than Wuhan virus, alone.

    mark311 in reply to guyjones. | January 19, 2021 at 4:06 am

    There are already studies on this, several studies have indicated quite different results compared to the referenced study. It’s quite early in these kinds of scientific discussions so it remains to be seen who will be proven correct. The debate continues.

      DaveGinOly in reply to mark311. | January 19, 2021 at 2:51 pm

      Indeed, studies like this were being released months ago by scientists, economists, statisticians, and other experts. It’s just that until now those studies (in opposition to the narrative) were streng verboten and (quite intentionally) didn’t receive the media attention they should have.

      The politics of COVID have changed, so these studies are now getting an airing. Not because anyone has seen the light, but because its in furtherance of an agenda, as the COVID narrative has been all along.

        mark311 in reply to DaveGinOly. | January 19, 2021 at 3:01 pm

        I’m struggling with your argument? Are you saying that the studies are correct but now are being used to further a specific political narrative, in this case well why not provided that narrative fits the best scientific evidence available that’s entirely logical. The indications so far (the cited study in the article not with standing) have all come to similar conclusions that a range of tools including lockdowns have a role to play to minimise transmission and therefore death. The vaccine is a new powerful tool which will alleviate the necessity of these other contra liberal policies.

          DaveGinOly in reply to mark311. | January 19, 2021 at 3:50 pm

          The point is that our “leaders” are cynics (at best). They are accepting the science now only because it supports their goals. They rejected it (the same science) earlier because it didn’t support their goals at the time. The condemnation is of the cynical nature of the leadership, not the science. Certainly, if COVID isn’t as dangerous as we were told, that’s good news. But if we knew this months ago, what kind of people would suppress such news? People with an agenda and who are willing to do a lot of damage to the lives of millions in order to see it fulfilled, that’s who.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | January 21, 2021 at 6:47 am

          I need to unpack this a little bit.

          Firstly for clarity the cited study is an exception in that other Covid studies are strongly supportive of lockdown measures.

          Second the science evolves and given the novel (and mutating) naturs of the virus thats understandable

          Third the leadership response has been pretty clear. Trumps leadership didnt really follow the science at all, and Biden has been generally supportive of it so given that the leadership is now in Bidens hands thats just a logical follow on.

          Fourth If the science is wrong then globally there are a lot of people looking at this issue from a number of different angles. Scientists by and large are critical so if a study comes along challanging the orthodoxy then they look at it and discuss on its merits. Sometimes that critical process highlights flaws to be refined to increase confidence of the conclusion and sometimes that critical process highlights why that conclusion is wrong. I havent seen a rebuttal yet of the study cited above but i do have concerns about the author given the Great Barrington Declaration had some pretty serious allegations levelled against it.

Any chances they will dial down the testing? Either make it less sensitive, or only test those with, y’know, symptoms? The guy who designed that test thought using it way we are would be inappropriate.

I’m old enough to remember when people who “tested positive” but were asymptomatic, were considered “false positives”. False positives are a thing. Come on man, the last thing you want to be is a false positive for cancer. Doctors will tear you up looking for a cancer which isn’t there.

    mark311 in reply to Milwaukee. | January 19, 2021 at 3:07 pm

    Your cancer analogy isn’t quite accurate. If the test is designed with the minimum of false negatives and as a result there is an increase sensitivity leading to an increase in class positives in your cancer patient example the solution is simple with each positive test do further more accurate investigation (without’cutting them up’). In covids case the situation the necessity was to catch as many cases as possible thus those infected could be isolated preventing further infection. This was to reduce the transmittability. It was a case of prioritising an outcome. Presumably when the number of covid cases becomes more manageable they will do two tests one as a catch all and a second to confirm.

Henry Hawkins | January 18, 2021 at 9:03 pm

When you own the media you don’t have to do anything, just inform your media agents on what you want them to report. The truth has been made irrelevant for many years.

Anyone familiar with Philip K. Dick’s 1964 novel ‘The Penultimate Truth’ wonders if the author isn’t a time traveler. The book is spooky in its foresight of today’s American dynamic, even more so than ‘1984’, ‘Animal Farm’, or Arthur C. Clark’s literary clairvoyance.

“There is no real direction here, neither lines of power nor cooperation. Decisions are never really made – at best they manage to emerge, from a chaos of peeves, whims, hallucinations and all around assholery. ”

I was called about my reserved vaccine and to call back to set a date.
I called back and said we could do it later.

My Dodtor refuses to prescribe either HCQ or Ivermectin…
And I doubt he would do it at gun-point.
He is P.C., anf that reighns far above Medicine.

TennesseeRedDog | January 18, 2021 at 10:49 pm

Science has little to do with the mess the politicians have made. Their lust for power is boundless. It’s clear Covid was a CCP lab-engineered virus realeased to do exactly what it did.

I am reading a book right now called:

The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History

It basically said that it took them like 20 years to get a vaccine right for the Flu and that is debatable. They said that the 1968 Flu was never really addressed and if it comes back it could be like 10 times worst than the 1918 Spanish flu. The China flu really is not that big a deal based on population size now and treatment options.

    DSHornet in reply to MarkSmith. | January 19, 2021 at 8:59 am

    Discovery Channel has a one hour documentary about the 1918 flu pandemic. Watch it, and pay attention to the statement at the end where the narrator says something about its origination being in central China. A century on, nothing has changed.

Lots of down votes.. There must be a troll lurking around.

Our minuscule county lost 6 young males via suicide by July 1, 2020. An unprecedented number. Each was attributed to lost of relationships or social media (Facebook). Thereafter the Department of Health stopped reporting the deaths because of the copy cat syndrome in that age group. Indeed, they were terrified that reportage of females deaths would lead to an epidemic. (it happened once before via copycat).
Our county has lost one person to Covid, and that person was old with many issues….well over 80.
Fauci is insane…all of these people are insane..and they infest every single government agency. Insane micro-agenda nutcases.

The drop will correspond to the warmer weather, which seemed to help end the first surge in 2020

Of course it helped, all coronaviruses have a trough in their infection curve starting in the spring and lasting until the fall when it ramps up again. The current spike in cases, ignoring the 90+% false positives created by excessive PCR amplification, is not a “surge” as the media uses the term, but the natural infection curve of this disease type. There will be another one next fall.

This is why Biden wants a 100 day mask mandate. The virus will naturally go dormant about the time the mandate ends, regardless of masks, but Biden wants to take credit for saving us, and he wants the media to relentlessly propagandize about how great masks were at saving us so he (and state officials) can mandate masks any time they want. Like next fall and lasting all winter.

Everybody with half a brain (which obviously excludes the Communist agitprop writers in the MSM and Silicon Valley) knew that the whole “pandemic” narrative would be manipulated once the Communists took power.

It’s just like the reporting on the homeless – when Republican presidents take power, millions of homeless magically re-appear, and disappear the moment a Democrat enters the White House.

Bucky Barkingham | January 19, 2021 at 7:19 am

Here’s another prediction: In mid 2020 a new, more virulent Covid strain will appear leading to strong lock down and stay home measures and precluding in person voting, but just in time for the mid term elections there will be internet voting. AI to the rescue (of the Leftists in Congress).

Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

My conclusion? Trust no one.

As in any profession those who are trained can be easily manipulated into thinking whatever the MSM wants. As a retired research chemist I watch the news and marvel at the ways the truth is distorted into lies meant to put fear into the public so the powers that be can accomplish their goals that would otherwise be rejected by the public.

One lie concerns testing. The current test used is designed to find the virus’ genetic material. The test takes all the genetic material collected and amplifies through a series of cycles (each one doubling the number of that which preceded it) until the signal becomes strong enough to detect. The problem with this is that the test does not differentiate between live virus, dead virus, and pieces of dead virus. Being that our nose is a veritable garbage dump that collects from all we breath (over 10,000 liters per day), it is common to have dead virus particles as well as portions of dead virus particles present. Once the number of cycles used to amplify the signal (cycle threshold or CT) reaches 35, the number of false positives starts to become an issue and the more cycles used thereafter increases the false positive rate even more. The current CT used in tests is typically 35 which has around a 97% false positive rate. If a person were truly infected with the virus, then the virus load in the body would be so great that a CT of only 15 – 20 would be required to create a signal on the test. I predict that the CT used in the testing protocol will quietly be reduced to 20 which will then result in a drastic reduction on positive tests.

Another strategy to expect is that the death rate will be changed from “Death with COVID” to “Death by COVID”. We are currently being told the former which means if you get shot 8 times while robbing a bank, die on the street in a pool of blood, but you test positive for COVID, then you will be listed as a death with COVID. This is why so few people are now dying from the seasonal flu, heart disease, cancer, and so many other diseases while why the overall death rate has not increased significantly. Changing the reporting to death by COVID will drastically reduce the reported death rate.

This now leads us to the Toledo Two Step. First, they reduce the CT on the testing protocol so we see a sudden and sharp decrease in the number of infections. A week later that change the reporting criterion to death by COVID which will lead to a sharp decrease in reported deaths. At this point the media proclaims the pandemic over, gives Biden the credit for his effective and courageous effort, while blaming Trump for his ineffectual, even criminal, response to the pandemic. And why not because the “data” is incontrovertible and proves without a doubt what happened (sarcasm).

This is a classic case of data manipulation and is frequently seen in research and other arenas. It becomes a major problem when the peer review system becomes corrupted or when pressure is brought to bear to force honest scientists to go with the program in order to receive funding, not get fired, not be attacked on social media, etc. It happens far more than you’d think.