For years, scientists and commentators who questioned COVID policies were censored, blacklisted, and canceled across the country. Many of these dissenting views have since been vindicated from the lab origins theory to the lack of efficacy of surgical masks to the opposition to the closure of schools. Now, a new study in the Journal of Infection further undermines the once orthodox views of the pandemic, concluding that “reopening schools did not change the existing trajectory of COVID-19 rates.” In other words, we shut down our schools, without any demonstrable benefit to the country. We did, however, succeed in reducing free speech in the name of combating “disinformation.”
The report is based on one of the comprehensive studies to date on the pandemic:
“Data were extracted from government websites. Cases and COVID-19 hospitalization and death incidence rates were calculated during the Delta and early Omicron periods in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland and the United Kingdom, for two weeks preceding and six weeks after schools reopened. We summarized stringency of public health measures (GRI), COVID-19 vaccination rates by age and SARS-CoV-2 testing rates.”
In comparing these different countries, the scientists found no significant differences in reported cases: “No consistent patterns in cases, hospitalizations or deaths despite school re-openings or changes to public health measures,”
The suppression of the lab theory and the targeting of dissenting scientists show the true cost of censorship and viewpoint intolerance.
The very figures claiming to battle “disinformation” were suppressing opposing views that have now been vindicated as credible. It was not only the lab theory. In my recent book, I discuss how signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration were fired or disciplined by their schools or associations for questioning COVID-19 policies.
Some experts questioned the efficacy of surgical masks, the scientific support for the six-foot rule and the necessity of shutting down schools. The government has now admitted that many of these objections were valid and that it did not have hard science to support some of the policies. While other allies in the West did not shut down their schools, we never had any substantive debate due to the efforts of this alliance of academic, media and government figures.
Not only did millions die from the pandemic, but the United States is still struggling with the educational and mental health consequences of shutting down all our public schools. That is the true cost of censorship when the government works with the media to stifle scientific debate and public disclosures.
Many still hope that Congress and the incoming Trump administration will conduct a long-needed investigation into the origins to allow for a more credible and open debate. That hope was increased by the nomination of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, one of the organizers of the Great Barrington Declaration, to be the next head of the National Institutes of Health.
One of the most lasting costs was born by our children who have shown both educational and psychological harm from the shutting down of schools. The study confirms what dissenters said all along: there is no evidence that this was necessary or had any benefit to society:
“Our findings show that there were no consistent patterns to case, hospitalisation or death rates in each country or jurisdiction, irrespective of whether schools were open for onsite learning or changes to PHSM. School closures were adopted by many countries as part of a suite of PHSM but in the future should only be implemented where there is strong evidence of effectiveness. Predesigned and approved study protocols, along with scenario-based planning for schools are needed to prepare for the next pandemic. The negative consequences on child health and development are profound, so understanding the role of schools in SARS-CoV-2 transmission should be a priority for pandemic preparedness and response.”
“No Consistent Patterns:” Scientists Find No Evidence that Closing Schools Materially Reduced Transmission”
Another thing George Svelaz, Dennis, Gigi and Anonymous were repeatedly wrong about. If they say black, it is white. There is no use talking to them unless one is having fun with the wildlife.
S. Meyer,
They have been wrong on so many things. They keep on stepping on rakes. One would think, after having been proven wrong so many times, they would stop and look not to step on the rakes. But they dont.
The select few are known for their ignorance and refusal to research after being shown to be wrong. They are likely the kids in the back row in grade school, and today, they have little unless given to them by others.
Lesson #1: trust the science–not MSNBC.
Lesson #2: never again trust a liberal when your rights are in question.
Lesson #3: never trust government bureaucrats—especially union protected federal government bureaucrats all but guaranteeing them lifetime employment at the public trough. The chances they will ever face any consequences other some negative publicity are, for all practical purposes, nil, no matter how uninformed, reckless, or malicious those decision might be.
Defund D.C.!!
Lesson #4: Fauci is not the science.
Agreed!
George Svelaz, Dennis, Gigi and ATS provide a valueable service to us all.
So long as their arguments are shallow weak and unconvincing, that increases probability that the alternatives are correct.
They are the canaries in the coal mine.
It is when they start to actually make sense or when they start being right more often that the rest of us should rethink our positions.
Except we are changing the players this is the same as the challenges to the established wisdom regarding COVID.
When people are trying to silence challenges – that is a good sign those challenging established wisdom are correct.
Regardless, we ALWAYS want the best naysayers that there are out there forcing us to re-assess our own positions.
The very fact that George etc are so poor in their arguments itself increases the likelyhood the alternative is right.
John Say,
That is an excellent point.
I consider them fluffers, they are present to provide diametrically opposed arguments to anything Turley posts. This in turn generates volumes of site traffic, this in turn results in scrilla…
We are for free speech, even if it makes no sense. And sometimes we can be wrong. I think we all know that.
And please don’t forget the outsized influence wielded by the teachers union and their hysterical leader Randi Weingarten during COVID to keep schools closed and to funnel billions of dollars to school districts with classrooms some of which were empty for more than a year. Only a Biden (Pres. or Dr.) would support and facilitate a massive funding increase to teachers responsible for eighth grade students that demonstrate only third grade math and reading skills and are promoted to high school. A question remains if this was a purposeful act by those wielding federal power to further retard functionally illiterate government school students or just political pandering to the teachers union. After all, both President Biden and Doctor Biden repeatedly claimed that “ . . . educators have champions in the White House”. (Note “champions” is plural). They never claimed that the students or parents had champions in the White House, or anywhere else in the federal government for that matter. After the education disaster hoist upon our children by the federal government during COVID, if there is any better argument out there to support the elimination of the federal Department of Education and returning control of education policy to localities, and returning educational tax dollars to parents,I’d like to hear it.
The Pandemic Era was instructive. We saw the true colors of many who had (have) power. It is frightening to observe.
This is reminiscent of the CIA experiments on mind control and the work of researchers such as Dr. Margaret Singer.
This punctuates the need for free speech and the flow of information.
There are lessons to be learned and in time more information will shine a light on this dark period of world history.
Occam’s Razor. The schools were closed because the teachers were terrified of catching it from the kids, and the teacher’s unions have enough political power to get what they want. Since the death rate from C-19 was exponential with age, and rapidly goes up with obesity, they were probably justified in that fear.
The death rate from COVID-19 increased exponentially with age, with most deaths among the elderly and sick, who were retired. Schools should never have been shut down. Other sectors adapted workplaces, but teachers’ unions ignored children’s needs. It’s time to reform education with charter schools and funding that follows the children.
Nope, they’ll give it to Tammy Faye and Jim Baker with a kickback. Apparently you still don’t understand the depraved mind, Mr. Meyer.
But I do understand the depraved mind. You give me a lot of practice.
Except that there is no proof that kids were vectors and there was no justification for treating them as such. Fearful people need to figure out who to alleviate their fears and not destroy others.
Ah, but if teachers could stay home yet still get paid, from their perspective that was the dream. They could just DoorDash and Instacart their meals.
People were terrified because we were lied to about available and effective treatments. It was all about money. Pharma made the shots (they weren’t vaccines), but couldn’t get Emergency Use Authorization unless there weren’t any effective treatments available.
There is no question the covid ‘response’ was one of the most egregious crimes against humanity in modern history. The level of tyranny that avalanched from it was and is madness. We can never allow it to happen again, and one needn’t be a kooky anti-vaxer or conspiracy theorist to see it plain as day.
Many of us knew by the summer of 2020 what was unfolding before our eyes, but we were marginalized or worse, *for years*. It is one of many insanities perpetrated by the modern left/globalists that will take generations to correct, if ever. November in America was a miracle, let us not squander it, no matter what.
A thorough investigation will probably show that teacher unions played the most important role in the decision to close public schools. Public employee unions are the most important actors in controlling local government in our big cities. It is long past time to remove the right of public employees to unionize. President Trump, this is another area where you can help liberate the American people.
FDR was correct – Public Employee unions can not be allowed.
That alone would drive us rapidly to a affordable high quality private education system.
Colleges? Universities?
Stanford was among the first to send their students home.
On the other hand, remote learning allowed parents to listen in on the poisonous propaganda that was being passed of as “education”, with results the Left never expected. Every dark cloud…
@Cionnath
Indeed. Blessings in disguise. It could also be said it illustrated how asleep at the wheel modern parents themselves had become at that point, though.
No surprise! Shutting down every aspect of the USA’s social, economic, educational and business life was all about government control – federal, state and local, elected and the unelected flunkies like Fauci.
I could guess why schools were locked down. I was staying in downtown Chicago one summer when a national teacher’s union was having its convention. Some of the delegates were staying in my hotel.
These public school teachers were uniformly morbidly obese. I feared being on the elevator, thinking the max number of people must need to be cut in half.
The teachers’ unions no doubt feared their membership would be decimated if schools remained open.
Locally, some teachers staged a walkout and carried signs that stated their objections to keeping schools open. Every one of them was obese.
Many more studies will confirm that when it comes to the security of rights, we need to trust our natural instincts.
The government’s COVID era policies will ultimately be this generation’s Intolerable Acts leading to a 21st century revolution ending what progressivism began.
A thought. Trump must change whatever laws the libs made that prevent citizens and corporations from suing the pharmas.
They only understand money, so hit them where it really hurts … court cases from now to kingdom come.
But I guess trump will play nice with them, they still donate.
People used to be able to freely sue vaccine makers, with the result that they were ready to pull out of the US market. Tbe only other option would have been to price the cost of litigation into the price of the vaccines, making them prohibitively expensive.
So Congress set up a program much like workmen’s compensation, to compensate Americans for actual injuries, outside our tort litigation system.
Congress… compensate? Nice idea, but who pays? The taxpayer I think. No, the pharmas must pay. If I recall correctly, didn’t they rake in 10’s of billions in profits from the vacines? So, take it back. That would be nice, but congress doen’t have the will or means to do that. So, pharma and shareholders stay rich, Americans just keep getting taken advantage of buy corporations. Business as usual. Don’t think Trump can change that. Congress certainly won’t.
Micheal, this trope is frequently pushed when an industry seeks government protection,
But the answer is trivial. The courts must do their job.
People SHOULD be able to sue when they were iinjured by the negligence of others.
But damages must be confined to real damage and punatives should only be permitted when there was extremely serious recklessness.
Most other medicines and medical treatments do NOT have special protection from government.
It is perfectly appropriate that the costs of those harmed by a drug or vaccine are paid by those helped by the drug or vaccine.
And that is exactly how free markets work.
Businesses only go bankrupt or leave the market from lawsuits if the value of the product is very law compared to the harm – which means it SHOULD be off the market,
Or if damages awards are way out of line.
Companies want to make profits for their shareholders.
Free markets – with properly working tort law
drive companies to produce products with the greatest benefit and the lowest harm.
That is what we want.
Perfection is not acheivable.
Most every vaccine, drug or product of anykind is going to harm SOME PEOPLE.
Where that harm is attributable to the product, the company making the product should pay to make whole the few who are harmed.
We want the incentives to drive them to minimize that number, and maximize those who are helped.
@John Say: What about injury without negligence? Any vaccine or medication will show an adverse event in someone if a sufficiently large number of patients are exposed to it. This likely is due to our individual genetic variability. It is not negligence of the manufacturer because a rare person is harmed by a vaccine that prevents morbidity in millions, and significant mortality. One way to figure out if a vaccine will show a rare adverse effect is to use it in a large number of people after experimentally it is shown to be effective in monitored controlled clinical trials. These clinical trials are done with the intention to determine the number of patients needed to treat to be beneficial. After determining it to be safe in this experimental population, widespread use (because of its beneficial effect on the individual and society) should be encouraged but continuously monitored for unexpected untoward events that can only be determined when an exceptionally large number of patients are treated. Negligence would occur if such an adverse event was identified but covered up by the company, not because it happened. There is such a thing as injury without fault, although many personal injury attorneys will argue against that. (I would dare those personal injury lawyers to support a “loser pays” legal system.) The alternative would be to not market a vaccine that would benefit an exponentially large number of people (think polio virus vaccine, meningococcal vaccine, Tdap, hepatitis vaccines, among the many others). Wouldn’t withholding widespread use of a vaccine determined to be effective, and initially safe, be negligence on the part of Pharma with respect to unvaccinated individuals who develop permanent side effects from disease contracted from disease that would have been prevented by vaccination but withheld from use by Pharma for fear of litigation? Think pneumococcal pneumonia and meningitis (brain damage, permanent hearing loss), meningococcal meningitis (death), polio (permanent paralysis). This week’s hearing of RFK Jr. to be HHS Secretary will be interesting, indeed.
“What about injury without negligence?”
What about it ? Torts do not require negligence. It just increases the odds of winning.
Where a product has a possibility of harm and the purchasors choices increase that possibility – either the tort should fail or the harmed party should only be partly compensated.
But where the purchasor has no control over whether there is harm such as your drug example where a small percent have a problem without obvious prior indicators, then YES the producer of the product should be liable. and the costs associated with that liability should factor into the product.
“Any vaccine or medication will show an adverse event in someone if a sufficiently large number of patients are exposed to it. This likely is due to our individual genetic variability. It is not negligence of the manufacturer because a rare person is harmed by a vaccine that prevents morbidity in millions, and significant mortality.”
The liability for negligence should be greater than random adverse effects, but if it is your product that harmed someone and there was no negligence on the part of the consumer then yes, you are obligated to make them whole.
This is not some effort to bankrupt product makers. It is just factoring int he cost of harms into the product – where it belongs.
“One way to ….”
So What ?
I am not looking to be flip.
producers in free markets are responsible for mitigating the harms of their products. The failure to do so should result in successful Tort claims.
You list ONE WAY – there might be MANY ways, or variations on different ways. It is up to the producers int eh free market to decide how to mitigate their risk.
Your getting into the weeds of exactly how they should do this. You are probably right.
EXCEPT that it is the producers responsibility to decide how they approach harm reduction and mitigation.
Among other reasons because there is not likely ONE WAY, but many,
and what markets are good at is finding every better ways.
The producer who finds the least expensive way to reduce harm makes more profit,
There is an should be a difference between fault and without fault.
That does not mean that if someone is harmed who would not have been but for your product that you are not responsible.
All we are debating is who is going to bear the cost in the rare instance something goes wrong,
and what arrangment best either avoids that or maximizes the cost/benefit.
There are several choices.
The consumer bears the cost for random or unexplainable product harms – that discourages harm reduction, and provides the worst distribution of the cost of harm.
The company bears the cost for random or unexplainable product harms – that encourages harm reduction, and pays for harm out of the cost of the product.
Government socializes the harms. That is the least efficient and most expensive way of dealing with harms.
Insurance only slightly complicates the matter. consumers can be insured against unanticipated harms.
producers can be insured.
The latter still provides the best incentives to eliminate or mitigate and balance harm.
I am note sure how I feel about RFK jr at all.
On the one hand he has been a torts attorney for a long time – and whil I may not agree with him on all his cases.
That is exactly how we most efficiently and cost effectively deal with the issue of harms.
Of course the courts MUST evaluate the claims well – there will be unscrupulous tort lawyers making bogus claims, and good ones making claims broader than the evidence will support.
It is STILL better to “regulate” markets through what is a free market method – torts.
The next better alternative is “caveat emptor” – buyer beware. That places the cost entirely on consumers.
And if consumers want proof of product safety they can demand it from producers before buying.
But the WORST answer is govenrment regulation.
I am not sure about RFK jr as a HHS secretary. I want more RFK jr;s are Tort Lawyers – not as govenrment regulators.
@John Say: If you are to ascribe liability for injury to Pharma vaccine producers even when negligence is not, and can not be, proven, then should not Pharma accrue future financial benefit from people in whom devastating disease was prevented by vaccines developed and marketed by their companies? Shouldn’t Bill Gates’ and Elon Musk’s pediatricians be financially rewarded? Of course not. “Loser pays” would go a long way in correcting an out of control tort bar.
“But where the purchasor has no control over whether there is harm such as your drug example where a small percent have a problem without obvious prior indicators, then YES the producer of the product should be liable. and the costs associated with that liability should factor into the product.”
You are incorporating “insurance” into the product, where the premium is wrapped inside the purchase price. Is that a good policy, forcing people to pay for insurance that has a flat payout? Awards are not flat. Are you ending litigation or creating more? There are potential solutions, but I want to hear from you first.
A system kept in check only by the greed of plaintiff’s attorneys hoping for a big score is non-optimal. The government qualifies and releases vaccines to the market. They do so, because the cost of a pandemic would be much greater. If pharma sells vaccines identical to what the government approved, why penalize them?
The protection of Big Pharma from Vaccine lawsuits was done with Trump as president.
Nor do I have a problem with that. It was a requirement to develop a vaccine rapidly.
The problem is that the vaccine did not work sufficiently well, and we went ahead with near forced use of it, often on inapproriate people anyway.
That failure was one of Public Health officials – not Big Pharma – though no doubt Big Pharma was egging them on.
We have many problems in Pharma. But those are all failures related to protecting Big Pharma from competitition.
The regulatory process has destroyed small and medium Pharma. Laws that prevent the re-importation of drugs
result in the US subsizing drug development costs for the world.
The protection of Big Pharma from vaccine lawsuits was due to a perceived national emergency. Such protection for a private entity should entail added responsibilities and risks for those who take these responsibilities lightly. Without delving into all the failures, the manufacturers were obligated to release their data to the public in a timely manner while safeguarding their property rights. Transparency is essential under these conditions.
Perceived national emergencies either almost always or ALWAYS result in bad decisions.
John Say: The protection of Big Pharma from Vaccine lawsuits was done with Trump as president.
No. It began with The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in 1986, signed into law by President Reagan. And it had nothing to do with protecting “Big Pharma” from competition. Believers in free markets can understand why any company would decline to participate in a segment of their market where the risk overshadowed the possibility of profit.
That scenario can be home insurance companies declining to participate selling policies in high risk areas of California as we have seen happen, and alternately pharmaceutical companies deciding that lawsuit awards with vaccines could lead them to choose to invest their money and time on drugs and medications to treat acne, upset stomachs, etc.
“The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 is a law that created a special program to handle disputes in an effort to ensure a stable and reliable vaccine supply by shielding companies from most lawsuits. The Vaccine Act appropriately places the responsibility for determining the optimal design of life-saving childhood vaccines in the hands of expert federal agencies, not a patchwork of state tort systems. The federal program, involving what is known as the vaccine court, has awarded more than $2.6 billion for vaccine injury claims in nearly 2,500 cases since 1989. It is funded by a tax on vaccines.”
Old Airborne Dog
OAD the only debate here is what method is used to get consumers to pay for the harm of a product.
The harm of any product is ALWAYS ultimately born by consumers.
If you use torts to pass it to the producers that results in higher prices and socializes the cost of harm across all consumers.
And it does so fairly efficiently.
An even more efficient way to deal with it is “caveat emptor” let the buyer beware. Producers still receive market pressure to make safe products. J&J responded to the Tylenol poisonings by introducing anti-tamper features in the product. They worked diligently to save a valued brand. And consumers responded.
But the least efficient way to pass the cost of harms back to consumers is through government.
“The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in 1986” was a stupid mistake – and yes it “protects” big pharma.
Vaccine producers threatened to quit producing vaccines and govenrment caved.
If vaccines are truly so dangerous that the cost of torts will bankrupt producers – then they should not be on the market at all.
You claim that the 1986 act worked – it compensated those harmed from a fund paid for by a tax on vaccines.
All that proves is that either the vaccine fund is NOT compensating those harmed fully, or vaccine producers were lying, or torts awards against vaccine producers were out of whack.
Of course the 1986 vaccine act “worked” – Obama care “worked” if your definition of worked means delivering about the same results at higher prices, while screwing up all kinds of things in the markets.
Most every single thing that left wing nuts seek to do “works” – in the sense that more often than not those the aim to help are actually helped in some way. The first order effects of most leftwing programs are positive. Even Communism and socialism “work” in the sense that the standard of living in the USSR rose througout its history. The same is true of the socialism lite practiced internmitently in europe. The standard of living in Europe has risen over the past 4 decades.
Massive amounts of economic data througout the world demonstate that over the past century plus – the rate of rise in standard of living declines by 1% for every 10% of GDP that govenrment consumes.
There is absolutely ZERO doubt that at the first order Government nearly always solves the problems it tackles.
It is also true that most of the time – even counting unintended consequences governemnt actions does not make things worse OVERALL.
But free markets ALWAYS perform BETTER. The 1986 vaccine act you cite worked. Not passing it ultimately would have worked better.
I beleive it was Llyod Benson that said of the Clinton efforts to impose National HEalthcare because of rapidly rising health care costs.
“The one thing about things that can not go on forever is, …. They don’t”
John Say posted: OAD the only debate here is what method is used to get consumers to pay for the harm of a product.
No, my response was to your claim that the Vaccine Act began with Trump.
Trump is a president who is two Democrat presidents and two Republican presidents removed from the President who actually signed the Vaccine Act into law – Reagan. The Vaccine Act and what played out afterwards is an old story – not a new story supposedly beginning with Trump.
If you use torts to pass it to the producers that results in higher prices and socializes the cost of harm across all consumers. And it does so fairly efficiently.
Well, that’s certainly Free Market theory – except it wasn’t working with the pharmaceutical industry.
Like most other things in life, Free Markets aren’t absolutely perfect and there are places where they fail. That doesn’t mean a socialist system is better; it just means free markets aren’t perfect. One of the reasons for the Act was consumers claiming it was nearly impossible for a single person to be able to fight the battalions of lawyers “Big Pharma” had. If the vaccine injury you believed you suffered couldn’t be included in a class action lawsuit, your pockets weren’t likely to be deep enough to keep up with the drug companies lawyers..
An even more efficient way to deal with it is “caveat emptor” let the buyer beware.
You can state that – but that isn’t what was done, and you can’t prove a negative.
In fact, the opposite was true: a large number of the lawsuits resulting in massive awards were based on “fair warning” that courts increasingly said were just never fair enough. The drug monographs that come with even over the counter medicines are beginning to look like small novels as a result.
“The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in 1986” was a stupid mistake – and yes it “protects” big pharma.
Wrong. “Big Pharma” was already beginning to protect itself without any help from the government – they were increasingly withdrawing from vaccine production where the risk-benefit analysis told them it made more sense to put their R&D money into other sectors of the drug industry.
Who it REALLY protects is consumers who don’t have to worry that they won’t have the money to fund a lawsuit against “Big Pharma”. And, it protects the society that has so many mandates for vaccines for school, employers, etc. who want to ensure their are pharmaceutical companies willing to supply the country with the vaccines they mandate.
It was put this way during the debate over the act: “Because society mandates the use of vaccines, through state laws for school enrollment, it is reasonable and appropriate that society take responsibility for unavoidable adverse outcomes associated with the use of vaccines.”
If you prefer a model where pharmaceutical companies – and consumers – are all on their own, that’s a choice for Americans to make and have made. There’s a reason the Vaccine Act got the support it did, and it wasn’t because they bought Reagan.
A survey of pharma companies by Deloitte found that the cost for development of a new drug to get it to market today is 2.8 billion dollars. That’s the cost of the ones that make it to market – not the cost of the ones that failed and greatly outnumber the ones which succeeded. Total R&D spending by the top 20 pharmaceutical companies was $141 billion – compared to ten years ago when it was $85.47 billion. That’s an average of over $7 billion spent on R&D alone, in those companies, all other business costs excluded.
The return on investment for those companies was 1.2% – this is what AOC, Sanders, Biden, etc call “price gouging” and “windfall profits”. What I see is why investment counselors aren’t rushing their clients to invest all their money in “Big Pharma”.
If you believe that there’s also a “Little Pharma” of small and medium companies with pockets that big they can come up with just 7 billion every year just for R&D in hopes they’ll hit a winner because the Free Market will get them through those costs to be a competitor, so be it. I doubt there is, and that’s probably also part of the reason for the Vaccine Act as well.
Old Airborne Dog
And that protection was extended by Biden.
The protection of Big Pharma from vaccine lawsuits was done with Ronald Reagan as president, via the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986
“Trump must change whatever laws the libs made that prevent citizens and corporations from suing the pharmas.”
The reason for that was the cost of developing new drugs/vaccines and keeping the cost of drugs/vaccines affordable. Tort reform to address the slip and fall lawyers was probably not considered as an option. I have no idea how many potential new drugs/vaccines are good enough to be worthy of coming to market, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was only one in a hundred or perhaps one in a thousand. All the R&D and invested time put into the failures goes in the loss column.
I have no links to “Big Pharma” or “Big Oil” or any of the other “Big Evils” out there. But if they’re still in business while apparently making obscenely high profits like Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, AOC etc claim they are – everybody should rush to buy their stocks to get a cut off those profits if they are indeed obscenely high.
Surely Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the insider traders in Washington DC have most of their investments piled into “Big Pharma” if they are indeed making windfall profits? How about Warren Buffett or George Soros? If none of these people are heavily invested in “Big Pharma”, there must be a reason why.
Old Airborne Dog
Mask wearing was a legacy of the century-old Spanish flu pandemic. Mask usage ebbed and flowed, as did the pandemic itself. In San Francisco, a decrease in mask-wearing appeared to coincide with a surge in cases, at the pandemic’s end.
Very early on there was data from lab tests on N95 masks. These were about 77% effective in preventing the spread of Covid.
77% sounds really good. But the math of epidemics is exponential, and 77% effective is barely a speed bump.
Early on there was also an excellent 3blue1brown video series on youtube.
It was NOT specifically about covid, but it was about mathematically modeling epidemics.
The initial Wuhan Covid Variant had a transmission rate of 2.85-3.5. It was very clear from the 3B1B models that
Defeating Covid would require measures that were 99.9% effective. That 77% effective just meant it would take longer before the whole world got Covid.
I would further note that all the public health efforts to Thwart Covid are the likely cause for Covid becoming endemic.
The spanish flu came and went in about 18months. Never to return. But covid is with us forever now.
Why ? Because immunity – whether natural or from the vaccine does not last long, Therefore the More We slow the spread of Covid the more likely it
ends up with us forever – which it has.
John Say: Very early on there was data from lab tests on N95 masks. These were about 77% effective in preventing the spread of Covid.
And there were studies finding “social distancing” was effective at the same time.
Anyone attempting to convince skeptical observers that ANY form of mask that does not form a patent seal to the face to prevent airflow going around the filtering medium is effective is a fraud.
That’s before you get into the issue of masks being properly fitted and worn, whether they’re equipped with a one way valve, if the same mask is repeatedly used, and the mesh size of these masks in comparison to the size of Wuhan Flu aerosol particle sizes.
Perhaps one day somebody will ask why OSHA workplace safety standards for working for long periods in hazardous environments i.e. asbestos, pesticides, etc. weren’t considered when advising protections against Wuhan Flu. A half mask respirator with P100 filters would both have effectively filtered environmental air and have been a low cost level of protection within the reach of most people.
Old Airborne Dog.
OAD you are fixating on unimportant details. As I noted – even 99% effective PPE used in NYC still resulted in 100% of hospital workers testing positive.
Lets assume that Social distancing is 50% effective – it is probably less – but it has SOME effectiveness.
So for one exposure you have a 50% lower chance of getting Covid.
For two it is only 25% less, for 3 13%
In india masks were about 15% effective for 30 days and about 5% after 90. After ayear the net effectiveness would be very nearly zero.
You can use the Methods – vaccines, masks etc that have SOME effectiveness to protect the most vulnerable population – but ONLY for a short time. The longer these measures must be used the less effective they are.
Using them universally does the OPPOSITE of what you want – it makes the epidemic last longer increasing the odds of infecting the most vulnerable.
john, your lengthy posts are often riddled with declarative conclusions, and are wrong. here’s example, “Lets assume that Social distancing is 50% effective – it is probably less – but it has SOME effectiveness.
So for one exposure you have a 50% lower chance of getting Covid.
For two it is only 25% less, for 3 13%.”
Pure nonsense.
You MUST include variables like length of actual exposure, time distance between exposures, etc.
John Say: OAD you are fixating on unimportant details.
While you are fixated on making claims that aren’t true i.e. the Vaccine Act began with Trump instead of 30 years earlier with Reagan. The Vaccine Act HAS been effective – the shyte show that was the vaccine mandates for experimental vaccines that would have never seen the market at that stage of development without Wuhan Flu doesn’t change the previous 30 years.
And your claims that non-sealing face masks with mesh sizes larger than the size of aerosol Wuhan Flu virus were effective. Somewhat amusingly, fixated on the belief that the government and their chosen researchers and studies who told you six feet of separation was effective, are reliable when their claims are about the efficiency of those face masks.
If you want to move on from those topics to probability based on the number of exposures factored in with distance, vaccines, which vaccine, etc… of course that’s fine. But that’s a diversion from what you stated and what I have replied to.
One could easily and at least as accurately say that the strategies used in response to Wuhan Flu were pretty much the opposite of what should have been done. School and business closures, vaccine mandates, decisions made to serve political objectives, masks that were ineffective instead of advising masks/filters that ARE effective, etc – they did everything wrong.
Old Airborne Dog
OAD we are not at odds over the failure of the public policy.
We seem to be at odds because the math of epidemics says that 77% effective against a virus with a transmission rate of 2.8 or higher just means it will take longer to infect everyone.
We’re at odds because you want to believe Biden/Fauci’s chosen researchers and studies who claim that 77% efficiency for those non-sealing respirators. Which is somewhat amusing, given your very deep skepticism of much of the other tripe that Biden and Fauci rolled out.
I know they didn’t and don’t, and I can easily find several metadata studies which found they don’t. Common sense tells me that when I’m seeing people walking the sidewalk in winter with the fog of their breath coming around the edges of their mask, there’s no way that’s a 77% effective mask when dealing with the micron size of Wuhan Flu aerosol.
What’s actually meaningful is if you’re wearing that mask in a crowd or on a lightly used sidewalk; indoors or outdoors.
Old Airborne Dog
Treatment protocols were politicized too. Many hospital owned docs prescribed nothing until the patient was in crisis and needed hospitalized. Independent docs gave a z-pack, ivermectin, baby aspirin etc… with good results. What a sad, crazy time. Also, suicide and drug deaths among young people were higher – at least among people I knew.
And far as I could tell, the chaos was pushed and pulled by liberals.
Please do not call left wing nuts liberals.
Few call themselves that.
They prefer the term progressive – which is appropriate. Progressivism is the leftist ideology of the late 19th early 20th century that brought us scientific racism, genocide, Wilson and Hitler.
A liberal is one who prizes liberty.
Liberal should be the term that we use to identify libertarians.
However after the term progressive was associated with racism and genocide, the left rebranded as liberals.
The liberalism of the 60’s or those immediately following, of the Kennedy’s MLK, Derschowitz, the ACLU,
shared more in common with libertarianism. It was generally about individual freedom, though mixed with a contradictory view that governemnt was a positive force to bring about the end of poverty or discrimination.
That form of liberalism and that of the majority of the left today are significantly at odds with each other.
Modern progressivism – like its century old cousin is anti-liberty. It is illiberal.
My husband and I had what we believe was Covid in Jan ‘20, following a trip to a massively crowded New Orleans. The doctor at the walk in clinic tested us for flu A and B: negative. He said he didn’t know what we had, but gave us a z-pack (to protect our lungs) and a very strong cough med so we could get some sleep. At one point before going to the clinic, I considered heading to the ER. That seems to have been a death sentence, especially later when hospitals began to get paid for putting people on ventilators.
In early 2020 I was hit hard with a nasty cough. I had a z-pack at home from a recent trip abroad that I hadn’t used. I called my doc and they told me not to come in, just take the z-pack and cough meds. I coughed up junk for three weeks solid. It had to have been Covid. Very thankful for my doc.
Pneumonia. You’re lucky…
Yep
Kirsten
What we should have wanted was doctors, labs scientists trying all kinds of different treatments looking for something that worked.
The least likely way to find an effective treatment quickly was to leave that to a few govenrment funded experts.
I am not sure if HCQ or Ivarmectin really proved to be effective.
That said there is ZERO doubt they were atleast as effective as the expensive approved treatments.
In “hindsight” the only preventive that was effective was normal Vitamin D levels – low levels of Vit D correlated very strongly to getting infected, and to severe rather than Mild Covid.
The only effective treatment – even today is calciferal – which is the analog of Vitamin D.
Neither normal VitD levels nor treatment with Calciferal are 100% effective, but they radically improve your chances.
Nothing else proved to be effective.
But Doctors SHOULD have been free to try any treatment they could think of. Better to have a million different efforts to find a treatment for covid than a handful.
Actually, many doctors did study what was effective in other countries and prescribed a treatment protocol that worked. But you had to live in rural America to get a doc with that kind of independence. People in my town were driving out to country docs when they realized their docs were hamstrung. At least we still could do that.
Did you hear even one PSA urging people to get outside, exercise, get some fresh air and sunshine, eat healthy, lose some weight? No – locking people in their homes, closing parks, beaches, and other outdoor venues was precisely the wrong advice – which of course was what happened.
I have so many covid stories. I was a pharmacy technician during covid. One day, after about a year of the craziness, I refused to let them do the temp check on me and refused to wear a mask. I expected to be fired and I was. I will never work in the medical field again.
Healthcare professionals’ lives were destroyed just for believing ‘the science’ and wanting to offer their best professional medical care to their patients.
It was all about Control and Globalist, Davos, objective of control and shaping society/people to what the Globalist wanted. Two class system Elites/Managers and then the rest of the people. This philosophy was adopted by the Left Wing DEM’s and the Washington Elites. Along the way Doctors/researchers etc jumped on the train for $$$$.
Trump is destroying the Elites/Globalist/DEMS dreams of Control.
I wish I could share your optimism. The war has just begun, libs will not back down. They are still ingrained in important bureaucracies, to think biden thought he was in control, and trump can’t flush them out. Only time will tell. I fear it will get worse. Reps need to fight the dirtry fight. Meet them where they stand and use their tactics.
@Anonymous
Agreed. We have barely begun, and it’s clear they have no intention of relenting. We will have to hold the line for some time.
While I agree to some extent a very important hurdle was past with this election.
The single largest reason people gave for their vote was that the Wokeness had gone too far.
That is what matters – that first the majority of people do not support this,
AND that we all KNOW that the majority of people do not support this.
You are correct to the extent that these left wing nuts are still entrenched througout our institutions.
and still wield great power.
But the majority recognize them as a cancer to be rooted out, and the majority KNOW they are the majority.
Peter Theil beleives we hit peak Woke in 2020. And I agree.
I am not sure how fast the progressive left will be defeated and rooted out,
SOMETIMES these changes happen rapidly. The degree of failure of the Biden administration, the extent to which the woke clung to power desparately, for so long,
is a strong indication that their collapse could be rapid.
Lab rats…it’s a retrovirus. No vaxes cause they mutate by individual. It’s like cancer.
Argue as you will, we seem to be missing the point. Remember this? “No Good Crisis Should Go To Waste.” Well, those who wanted control of society and a weapon to use against anyone who resisted them created one (thanks to Fauchi and the Chinese). That’s what needs scrutiny. If we don’t rip back the cover and let the sunlight in, we are doomed to repeat it in the future.
I agree to that. Fauci must be questioned.
Sweden was the “control.” It kept schools open for those 16 and younger with no ill effects to the kids, their parents, or their teachers. But, of course, nobody talked about Sweden from 2020 to . . . today, with very rare exceptions, and then whoever is discussing Sweden’s approach insists it did more poorly than its neighbors, without noting that Sweden had the lowest overall death rate during the ‘pandemic.’
Group think is not just a theory . . . . and it is greatly facilitated by suppressing “dis-information” and “mal-information.”
Frankly, from a more distant POV that Professor Turley takes here, I regard the entire COVID affair as a perfect example of government bureaucracy doing EXACTLY what government bureaucracy will ALWAYS do if not effectively restrained. This is why we must remain eternally vigilant against such abuses, and unfailingly support those who seek to reduce the scope and power of government over citizens.
Have you EVER seen the head of any government agency sit before Congress and say to the effect, “Please stop funding us. We’ve accomplished our mission for which you created us”. It’s about as rare as a chicken with teeth.
They are incentivized to beg for MORE money so they can expand their turf. And mission.
The powerful rarely perform their magic with a single cause and effect plan. What did the entire cv2 fiasco accomplish?
Damage to people’s confidence
Damage to the economy
Mass experiment in social obedience
Killed millions of people- green new deal
Damage to the Trump administration
Mass transfer of wealth
Acceptance of mRNA shots for babies and young people who were not at risk
And more…
So what do we do in case of another plandemic? We assume that those bad people are going to be worse than the last time. We need to identify the bad actors rapidly and “do unto others before they do unto you” or, if they have already done unto us at least we do unto them before we crash.
As a PH professional I was suspect of this entire narrative and specifically the injection. I already knew the entire mask and social distancing was false. Examining the absolute risk and the Number Needed to Treat (NNT) data reinforced the “disinformation.” Hence, the injections weren’t effective or efficacious.
PH pro huh? Excuse my skepticism.
And when you knew that, when and what did you tell the public?
Stop taking credit for something you hand no hand in determining.
Stop taking credit for something you had no control off.
Doctors with stellar reputations were silenced- why would you think this gentleman would have been listened to if he had?
Two of my pet peeves re government handling of covid…
Re masks: Once a mask is wet, it is no longer effective. In fact, a wet mask acts as a conduit for germs to enter. Also, the covid virus was far too small for a mask to screen out. And yet, masks were required.
Re the RNA vaccines: These vaccines were distributed and in many cases required for jobs and for normal, mask-free living. And yet they were still experimental. Per federal regulations, available (albeit preliminary) information about risks and benefits should have been provided prior to administration so that we the people could make an informed decision. However, when I asked for this information, I was told that it wasn’t available. And yet, my consent form read that this information had been provided.
Informed decision. You give Americans too much credit. They are a stupid lot addicted to theri sicail media and themsleves.
“Re masks: Once a mask is wet, it is no longer effective. ”
You are much too kind regarding the mask mandate. Remember, there were NO STANDARDS for what masks were to be worn, only that everyone have one “on”. I saw bandanas. I once saw cheesecloth. I constantly saw large numbers of people wearing surgical masks pulled down beneath their noses (while 100% breathing through their nose), even in medical facilities. This mandate, along with the others, was not at all intended to be a medical intervention, it was intended solely to increase and cement the unilateral, absolute, power of government bureaucracy to dictate to citizens how to run their lives, at what ever level of granularity that bureaucracy chose to exercise that control .
“Granularity!” Love the use of one of public health’s favorite words! Invented to sound smartish. 🤣
I saw crazed people running around swearing, yelling at each other, pushing. People (use that lightly) screaming at others to get vacinated or they would put them in a Konzenstrationslager or kill them.
Excatly what one would see with a panic and we all saw it. perfectly managed by a hoard of freedom hating democarts in DC.
I saw people yell at strangers in supermarkets because they weren’t adhering to the “one way” arrows down the isles. My favorite was watching people driving alone in their cars wearing masks. When I saw someone on their motorcycle wearing a mask but no helmet, I knew we had entered crazy land.
“My favorite was watching people driving alone in their cars wearing masks.”
/\ /\ /\ T H I S /\ /\ /\
I still occasionally see some loony tune doing this. Now, if you see someone driving alone wearing a mask in city street traffic, there is a slight possibility they might be about to pick up someone who is infectious, or have a similar valid reason, but I saw (and, again, occasionally still see) drivers doing this on limited access highways.
“There are idiots. Look around.”
Some “celebrity” wearing one made of open work crochet was my favorite.
Note: I don’t shop at Costco anymore more because they sicced security in me for not wearing a mask. I don’t need to give money to businesses that abuse me.
😂 Nancy’s masks always matched her outfit. Get a burkha Nance.
It was so poorly done there’s little to glean. Those faux vaccines must be temperature controlled. Right..
It’s why Fauci needed a pardon