Archives for category: epidemiology

“The blood clots are not rare”

It looks like Alex Jones is on to something big: “Deadly Blood Clots Develop In 62% of People Receiving COVID Vaccine” according to preliminary studies.

I of course know nothing.

But from the beginning, the rapid deployment of a very novel vaccine was being pushed through the regulatory system smelled suspicious. The fact that this new technology was rejected for flu vaccination purposes, and that many of the experimenters warned against this tech’s use on humans, suggested that extra caution was in order.

Extra caution against the cure.

Indeed, the novel coronavirus’s novel vaccines were developed too quickly to be believed. That is — if we can believe the official story. Which we cannot. This is old-enough tech, and there is a literature surrounding it. And if the skeptics in this video are to be trusted, the literature goes against the current vaxx-pushing policy. But that seems like common sense to me, it being imprudent to force a novel technology on the world population with so little public review.

And I mean public review, where scientists debate openly in public, without censorship. With censorship? Let others take the risk.

There has got to be a control group. Let the uncontrolled self-enroll. We all take our risks.

Dr. Charles Hoffe

In the video, Dr. Charles Hoffe, explains how the mRNA “vaccine’s” effects include microscopic clotting damage done to the brain, leading to many of the common symptoms, and similar damage to the lungs, inducing permanent “distorted architecture” (“increased reticulation”) that leads to “high blood pressure in their lungs” which, in three years, would likely lead to death by “right-sided heart failure.”

Sixty-two percent?

Talk about bad odds.

Dr. Hoffe has been removed of his ER duties because he has spoken out. That is a key fact, which helps you to know that we are dealing with a very dangerous madness of crowds and a possible manipulation of such madness by managerial elites, who know that their ability to control the masses is key to their own privileged status.

The second half of the video goes deep into conspiracy theory, where the idea is that our elites are engaging in a worldwide “eugenics” campaign to basically push Holodomor 2.0. I know nothing about that. Doesn’t seem impossible. The Depopulation Death Cult has been around for decades. I once sort of bought into it, back when I was an ignorant environmentalist. Viruses of the mind are more catching than actual viruses. Ideas have consequences.

“A worldwide contagion of a neurosis,” says one doctor. Yes. That much is obvious.

twv

So many things seemed off from the beginning of the COVID biz.

The panic itself smacked of unreason. Indeed, it turned out to be easy to induce panic in the world population — over something that was not catastrophic. Like a very bad flu, it takes out the weakest. This was known from the get-go, with the afflicted cruise ship. Mainly, it was only the old folks and those with “co-morbidities” who died. The rest weathered the storm of the contagion remarkably well.

Many got sick and got over it. I did, in February 2020.

But natural experiments like the cruise ship were quickly forgotten, and hysterical hyping of the possible dangers took hold of the popular imagination. But perhaps it was who got sick that made the difference. Remember Tom Hanks? We started freaking out when our beloved celebrities took sick!

And I immediately began to suspect a weird class element here. Had the contagion stayed to the very old and the immune-compromised, would we have freaked? I began to wonder whether it was pressure, initially, from the rich, that turned the tide: they could die too.

But they didn’t. It was mainly the old. All along.

Now, this week, one octogenarian in Australia dies and the totalitarian rulers there hammer the lockdown regime again, under a “No regrets” policy. What a framing! As if one cannot regret all the damage one does when one takes away freedoms!!!

Some day the sheep of the field may rise up against their overlords and burn them at the stake, or behead them on guillotines. I wonder: “no regrets” then?

What I take away from this is “no freedom.” The masses fear freedom.

People do not valorize freedom much at all if they let it be taken away for so insignificant of reasons. It is always the case that people die. There are many, many causes of death, including the lockdowns themselves. But I go further: Your lack of immunity to a disease does not obligate me. You have to convince me to change my ways to protect you. You have to inspire me, get me to aspire to do what you think is “the right thing.” To accomplish this in a free society you would ask nicely. You would use reason. You would debate the epidemiology and the virology and you would be very concerned about the origin of the disease, to make sure it was not some form of biological warfare to change our policies in a way an enemy, say, might want them changed. Now that we have good reason to believe that the virus was cooked up in a lab (or two), and was released (by accident? on purpose?) and the release covered up, and by an enemy of the United States no less — well, that should give people pause.

But no. Bleating sheep don’t contemplate the malign agendas of shepherds.

I ranted about the misuse of the Precautionary Principle over a year ago. My point was that it is almost always used by one type of person for one effect. In the case of this Current Contagion, Precautionary Principle abusers looked at the relevant scenarios as leading to only ONE KIND of “mitigation effort”: lockdowns, mandatory mask-wearing, and the rush to produce “vaccines” that had been under-tested. Since my rant of March 2020, I keep coming back to my focus on biological warfare. I argued we should emphasize the possibility out of precaution for how power-seeking, illiberal politicians might use panic to secure for them the privilege and power and who-knows-what-else such folks lust for. Oh, and Money. Lots of money for well-connected pharmaceutical companies.

For MASS DEATH wasn’t the most likely result of the contagion. In our servile society, MASS LIBERTICIDE was the most likely. And it came to pass. For the people have been primed by the ideologies of socialism and progressivism and even “conservatism”: some people at risk obligates everyone to give up liberty. That is the key notion of the sentimentalist socialism we all grew up with.

It is the Weaker Brethren doctrine applied to government policy and political ideology. I always thought that it was a bad argument from a Christian point of view, about Christian liberty and the eating of meat offered to idols. (Paul said to “take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak,” thus enjoining the free Christian to curb his liberty so not to offend weak folk who cannot handle liberty.) This is the basic idea at the root of much late-stage churning state nonsense today, only translated from Christian worship and custom to the duties imposed by the State.

For the weak’s sake, we must disable the strong.

Thus the whining envy of socialists and progressives about what the rich spend their money on, or what the healthy do to survive and thrive. Why, the rich should give up all that they have and send it to the poor! Why, the healthy must mask up and stop working so they do not spread their cooties to others, who might infect the weak!

It is all the same sort of thing. Of course there are risks to sociality. Diseases of all sorts can wreak havoc. But the idea that especially in times of crisis our behavior must be regulated by the State, regulating even innocent sociality as a threat? That is a confidence game, a trick. For the servility and fragility of the mass man is now well known, and our enemies know it too.

Our enemies in China.

Our enemies in our own government.

Our enemies among our neighbors who would mob against us and, in high moral dudgeon, destroy us. Just to feel . . . powerful. Even if the whole response is a sign of powerlessness of the poltroon and the puny.

Of course, courage is always something a person could develop. The weak could bear the responsibility for their weakness as do the strong. Going into a disease, we all know that we could die of it — indeed, we all know that one day we will die. Man is mortal. We can be considerate of each other in the face of our mortality, but that does not play in just one direction, just as the Precautionary Principle does not play in the direction of one policy. The weak should understand their claims on others are few. And acknowledge that the strong have their rights as well. No one has a right to life that is open-ended. Under an ill-defined right to life, any obligation can be contemplated and pushed and, since all obligations are backed by force, in the governmental realm, our rights to life could shackle us all forever. But the argument for liberty has always been strong, and, in the end, it serves the weak, too. Their liberty to stay at home is the same as the strong’s liberty to stay at home. But liberty implies the opposite choice. The liberty to seek society must always be defended. And should people want to practically amend the terms of sociality, this has to be done voluntarily, not through state mandate.

twv

The puzzle we have all faced when thinking about a deadly contagion is: why doesn’t it just kill off every last one of us?

From this question epidemiologist launch into their very interesting study of the evolution of viruses. As if conforming to some law that Epicurus identified when he said our worst pains prove to be of brief duration while the long-lasting pains be not so intense, the worst viruses tend to kill off their hosts too quickly to spread themselves widely. So there is a natural limit to the worst viruses.

Now enter a prophylactic “vaccine” that does not prevent infection or, we are told, spreading of the infection: it just allows the infected to feel less put-upon by the disease. It will save some lives, undoubtedly, by lessening the virus’s effects.

But it will allow deadly viral variants to live longer in their hosts to spread to those with weakened immune systems. It will make a super-virus.
What’s not clear to me is whether this protects the vaccinated much, in the long term.

I gather it sets up an arms race. Pfizer and Moderna both are talking about booster shots and constant updates.

So, this is what it LOOKS like to me: Vanden Bossche is probably right. That is, immune escape is going to happen — is probably happening now in “the more dangerous variants” that Fauci yammers on about. This will first affect the NON-vaccinated. Killing millions. Then there will be the blowback onto the vaxxed. There will be hysterical demands for more and more R&D in genetic treatments. Politically, we will achieve a new level of governance: the medical-industrial complex. There will be scant freedom of association, and your travels will be restricted and tagged.

Our civilization will, if it survives, become mostly virtual — as in Asimov’s The Naked Sun — and we will cease exist as a social species. It will be all virtual-social.

If this be correct, it is already too late. The die is cast. We are in this rut. There is no “going back.” We are committed to transhumanist/posthumanist manipulation of the genome, because that is where these simple mRNA pseudo-vaccines will lead us, through their failures.

The evolution of the virus is going to lead us to a weird stefnal future that I only read about in the past.

I could of course be wrong. This is merely the scenario that fits closest to what I have understood of epidemiology for years. I’d love to be wrong. I do not particularly want to die within the next few years. But to accept a correction I would actually have to see it and understand it. In other words, I would have to see some actual science in place of all the cowardly bullying groupthink promoted by CNN and the CIA and women wearing masks as they jog.

twv

Typhoid Mary has loomed over the last year in the form of a suspicion: could SARS-CoV-2 be spread by asymptomatic carriers, like Mary Mallon was for typhoid?

A lot rests on this fear. Most of the lockdown policies, for example. 

Why should healthy people keep a six-foot distance from other healthy people, or wear masks, if there are few or no people spreading the disease while not knowing they are infected?

The whole extreme mitigation craze began a year and a month ago with the “Fifteen Days to Flatten the Curve” ploy. The curve to be flattened was of dire cases necessitating hospitalization. The policy was to prevent hospital over-crowding. That didn’t happen, but the measures were kept. 

And fears of asymptomatic spreading of the virus helped fuel the idea that we — “as a society” — could fend off the worst casualty rates until a “vaccine” could be developed. Now we have a few vaccines, and it has been like pulling teeth to get the CDC to allow the vaccinated some freedom of association.

You probably have heard about studies alleging prevalence of asymptomatic spread of COVID. Most of these studies seem pretty iffy to me, and the best study almost conclusively indicates no such epidemiology — “no positive tests amongst 1,174 close contacts with asymptomatic cases.”

Now, Mary Mallon, the original asymptomatic superspreader, spread typhoid by handling food that she prepared for others. After years of back-and-forth, she was basically imprisoned for 27 years. In America, you might think that a taking of her liberty for the public good would have instituted a system for her compensation. But that was not really done.

Just so, this last year: the liberty taken away from the productive many for the benefit, chiefly, of immune-compromised few, was not handled as a free society would.

Will there be progress?

Not so long as the big issues are ignored. Evaded.

Big issues like just compensation and the actual science of the spread of disease. Were there a case for quarantining people, preventing them from engaging in commerce, the ones who lost incomes from such quarantine should surely be compensated according to the Takings Clause of the Constitution. But almost no one mentions that.

The takings problem is especially interesting in the COVID case because the most at-risk population are retirees who barely lose monetarily, if at all, from “the lockdowns,” while those who lose most — workers and business owners — have the least to gain. This suggests to me that the only halfway reasonable takings/compensation method to manage a quarantine would be to require those who are not monetarily affected by the lockdown orders to compensate those who are monetarily affected in a direct manner. By this I mean the funds to compensate the most negatively impacted should come from those least impacted on a weekly basis, skipping states’ general funds entirely. The least impacted would write checks to a fund that would distribute to those most affected.

Note what this method would do: give immediate incentive to those who benefit most from the lockdowns to oppose the lockdowns when their benefit/cost changes. As it is, in the current lockdown regime, there is not incentive for those who benefit to let up on the request to be benefitted at others’ expense. The state lockdowns compensated for by federal subsidy amounts to an incentive to forever let some benefit at others’ expense. It is the kind of scenario that the Constitution was designed to prevent.

The lockdowns have been just one of many poorly thought-out, irresponsibility-maximizing programs introduced during the panic.

And as for Mary: what should have been done? Well, negotiate with the woman. Pay her off. If her freedom to earn a living was in conflict with others’ health, than the healthy should have paid her off not to work. They would have hired her to “socially distance” — rather than lock her up. Indeed, this kind of policy would not even require a state to manage.

This model should have become the norm. And because it did not, we have lockdowns today that abridge freedoms and benefit some at the uncompensated-for expense of others. Anathema!

And because no one has to pay the direct cost of these policies, the whole pandemic has been one ideological contest sans responsibility. The system actually discourages rational reconsideration of the data. People just choose what they want to believe to fit their situation and their free-floating “values.” A responsibilitarian society would not serve anyone’s free-floating values. Only cost-conscious values would count.

In a free society there would exist strong incentives to look at the effectiveness of masks and other mitigation measures rationally, not in a cultic manner.

twv

Pfizer. Always seemed like a good swear word to me.

Contra Geert Vanden Bossche — who I wrote about a few weeks ago — Dr. Michael Yeadon (pictured above), a former Pfizer Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory, sees no possibility of the much-talked-about but not well-understood possibility of “immune escape” in the current pandemic and subsequent mass vaccination response. Yet he notes that all the talk of “variants” by official experts amounts to the same, and this is worrisome.

Suspicious. In the extreme.

And is only one of the lies being told to us.

By folks in government.

And the press.

But here is Dr. Yeadon:

[I]n the last year I have realized that my government and its advisers are lying in the faces of the British people about everything to do with this coronavirus. Absolutely everything. It’s a fallacy this idea of asymptomatic transmission and that you don’t have symptoms, but you are a source of a virus. That lockdowns work, that masks have a protective value obviously for you or someone else, and that variants are scary things and we even need to close international borders in case some of these nasty foreign variants get in.

Or, by the way, on top of the current list of gene-based vaccines that we have miraculously made, there will be some ‘top-up’ vaccines to cope with the immune escape variants.

Everything I have told you, every single one of those things is demonstrably false. But our entire national policy is based on these all being broadly right, but they are all wrong.

“EXCLUSIVE – Former Pfizer VP: ‘Your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death,” by Christina Valenzuela, April 18, 2021.

So of course his mind clicks to a possible explanation: an induced mass depopulation event.

My mind went there, too. Is he right? Is this suspicion on target?

I do not know. But when I read mainstream take-downs on Yeadon, like the one by Reuters, I am not inclined to think he is completely off base. There is a lot of assertion and counter-assertion in such take-downs, but no real arguments against his position.

“The ex-Pfizer scientist who became an anti-vax hero,” by Steve Stecklow and Andrew Macaskill, Reuters.

The Reuters piece would be more convincing if it actually dealt with Yeadon’s main contentions, helpfully listed by Christina Valenzuela:

Arguing against his actual positions might be convincing. But the criticisms of Yeadon I have seen so far strike me as ranging from clever propaganda to sub-intellectual journalistic garbage.

twv

“Why does nobody seem to bother about viral immune escape?”

…sort of a follow-up to yesterday’s….

People should be aware that there is a vaccination specialist out there who (a) thinks the technology of the mRNA treatments “vaccines” is brilliant, but is also (b) extremely dangerous, epidemiologically, in that, when used as a mass prophylactic against the current pandemic, has a strong potential to produce a highly resistant strain of coronavirus that will infect the young and could lead to a civilizational and even species threat.

Now, I cannot “vouch” for the man. His name is Geert Vanden Bossche, PhD., and he sure seems on the up and up. But I am not an epidemiologist. Still, as I blogged the other day, I understand the concept of antifragility, and I have long suspected that over-use of some medical technology could end up producing a major plague. Scientists have been warning of this for years, and it has been spun out in numerous science fiction tales, many of which I’ve read with a sort of gallows-interest enthusiasm. And here we do have a viral science technician urging world governments to stop the vaccination campaign, for the health of our species, for humanity.

Specifically, Bossche warns that “this type of prophylactc vaccines are completely inappropriate, and even highly dangerous, when used in mass vaccinaton campaigns during a viral pandemic.

Vaccinologists, scientists and clinicians are blinded by the positive short-term effects in individual patents, but don’t seem to bother about the disastrous consequences for global health. Unless I am scientifically proven wrong, it is difcult to understand how current human interventons will prevent circulatng variants from turning into a wild monster.

Racing against the clock, I am completing my scientific manuscript, the publication of which is, unfortunately, likely to come too late given the ever increasing threat from rapidly spreading, highly infectious variants. This is why I decided to already post a summary of my fndings as well as my keynote speech at the recent Vaccine Summit in Ohio on LinkedIn. Last Monday, I provided internatonal health organizatons, including the WHO, with my analysis of the current pandemic as based on scientfcally informed insights in the immune biology of Covid-19. Given the level of emergency, I urged them to consider my concerns and to initate a debate on the detrimental consequences of further ‘viral immune escape.’

PDF provided by Geert Vanden Bossche; numerous typos corrected, above and in quotations below.

I have opposed the popular “wisdom” of how to deal with COVID from at least last April, when the nature of the lockdowns became clear in the wildly moved goalposts. Since then, most folks have stuck to what their bureaucrats and politicians and public scolds have told them, usually with less knowledge of the subject than I possess. It’s all cultic tribalism on all sides now.

But you should understand what you are getting jabbed with. Start with the CDC. Its website is not outright lying. But it is propaganda.

That being said, the technology is not what most folks think it is. It does not work like a simple vaccine. And that difference could make a difference. How big? Very; extremely:

[I]t’s becoming increasingly difficult to imagine how the consequences of the extensive and erroneous human intervention in this pandemic are not going to wipe out large parts of our human population.

This is End Times stuff, really. Which is why “smart people” will resist. They are easily embarrassed by end-of-the-world predictions, since most are by kooks, are heavily ideological, or quickly proven wrong.

But Bossche’s case is quite familiar to us. The concepts he is talking about are part of the general scientific approach of our age. He is not pushing Conspiracy Theory here (though that shouldn’t make us mindless, either). He is advancing a quite-familiar approach to the evolution of contagions. Standard neo-Darwinian science.

But he is obviously worried. He says there is no time to spare, yet worries even more because, in his words, “I have not received any feedback thus far. Experts and politicians have remained silent while obviously still eager to talk about relaxing infection prevention rules and ‘springtime freedom.’ My statements are based on nothing else but science. They shall only be contradicted by science.” Yet “the elite of scientists who are currently advising our world leaders prefer to stay silent.”

This reminds me of some tragedies that occur in tyrannical societies, where the experts fear to speak up, not unreasonably imagining reprisals. Examples abound in the Soviet Union, including the infamous cases of Lysenkoism and Chernobyl.

Though we are talking a possible end to our civilization, I do think proponents of mRNA vaccines can be funny. The especially funny ones fall into two categories, as I blogged yesterday:

  1. The same people who normally extol the FDA and its long, killer waiting periods and expensive regulatory hurdles now push a drug that Donald Trump moved heaven and earth to get around, while
  2. the people who dislike the FDA because of its huge and deadly regulatory burden now like this drug since it has been pushed through — while not recognizing that it is massively subsidized, distributed by an untrustworthy government, and has a demand built up by psy-op and coercive threats, explicit and implicit.

I do not plan on taking this experiment in genetic manipulation . . . though, if the doctor is right, I may be more susceptible to the killer strain it produces than its users.

It is possible we are witnessing the greatest crime against humanity in world history, in its early stages. And the reason? Because experts and politicians will not properly consider scientific evidence that contradicts their favorite policy proposals. And they resist this, despite the dangers, because the general political culture has moved away from free speech and vigorous debate to cultic tribalism. While I have been saying that these anti-free-speech tendencies of today’s hyper-partisanship could kill our civilization, I do not remember considering that they could do so in precisely this manner, and so quickly.

But what do I know? Just go along with the flow. We all gotta die sometime.

Do we really need to all go together when we go, though?

twv

The Masks Do Not Work; Lockdowns Are “Medieval”

You can stop freaking out now. Watch this video by Ivor Cummins and come to the understanding: THIS WAS ALWAYS KNOWN.

The alarmism was pushed mainly by people who did not know much epidemiology. But there were “scientists” who pushed alarm — including geniuses like Taleb — because they, well, I won’t speculate.

Not being a scientist myself, it took me a while to remember what I had once known. But the shape of those curves: that was known.

So the pandemic panic was perpetrated — pushed onto the population — by people with politics in mind: propagandists. Folks who still pretend we need to change the way civilization works because of this new variant of a virus have embraced error and propound social poison.

Give it up. Those who now understand a bit of the science must resist EVERY political-governmental “lesson” promoted by the alarmists. It is a power grab by the power mad.

No more madness, please. Reason is the answer. A “casetemic” does not a viral pandemic make. But it does make for the madness of crowds, the formation of mobs, and general memetic contagion.

Nevertheless, you can still find “studies” puled in the press purporting that SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 are grave transformative dangers. But what is actually transformative? Ignorance, error, misunderstanding, and lies.


Ivor Cummins considers something I’ve been saying for a few months now, and he considers it a reaonable hypothesis: to the minor extent masks and social distancing have an effect, they may very well be negative. Stay through to the end of the video. 

It’s a bit of a puzzler, though, since one would think masks and other mitigation efforts would alter the curves if effective, and since they did not, how can they alter summertime normal acquisition of immunity?

I’m very curious how this will play out.

But remember: there appears to be scant evidence that mitigation really “flattened the curve.” For we have the data. This doesn’t need to be argued over in white heat. Just look at the data, folks.


And by the way? Cummins calls this latter effect of summertime mitigation in the form of an increased wintertime death toll as “unintended consequences.” I’m iffy about that. I think there are indeed people in government who know this very well and have been pushing it for this reason. They want more deaths in the winter, to call a “second wave” and therefore increase your political demand for mandatory vaccinations, complete with Bill Gates’s nanotechnology to track you.

Normal Americans have lost an important political skepticism, and become bleating ruminants.

Meme overkill: isn’t the truth rather different? This “meme” found on Gab.com suggests untruths.

Vaccination never works 100% of the time, on an individual basis. The more people who get vaccinated, though, the less likely a contagion will spread into an epidemic. The contagion has trouble spreading when most potential hosts block the spread with their own immune system’s antibodies. It is a matter of the modal potential host: if the modal possible victim of a virus is immune, the virus has trouble spreading, unable to quickly multiply in society. That is the idea of herd immunity.

It is the same as people who have encountered the disease in the wild, and develop antibodies from actually getting and fighting off the contagion: a disease even in a pandemic slows down its rate of spread and then wanes the more people develop antibodies. Even in the worst pandemics not everyone gets infected. Because the herd immunity threshold eventually gets reached.

Vaccination is an attempt to spur antibody growth without actual infection and the risks associated with suffering through the disease. As a mass program, vaccination often makes sense.

The actual incentives to the individual run this: I take the vaccine and hope it works, but others being vaccinated provides extra protection, but . . . others being infected and surviving is BETTER YET.

That is, me getting vaccinated and others suffering through the disease is the best egoistic strategy.

Extrapolate this out and vaccination would seem the most rational social action.

IF WE CAN TRUST THE VACCINE.

That is one big IF. And lack of trust of vaccine producers (merited or unmerited) throws a huge monkey wrench into our calculations of advantage.

Regarding the current “pandemic,” the disease is deadly only to a small set of the population — that set of people who suffer from co-morbidities such as diabetes and Vitamin D deficiency. Those who are healthy tend to do very well.

If healthy people were even a teensy altruistic, and not sniveling poltroons, they would valiantly risk the disease and let those in jeopardy cower in sequestration, waiting for a vaccine.

Meme engineers out to change human behavior use many techniques. The technique used in the visual meme at top is a cautionary case. It suggests something not true: that what is relevant is that “work” versus “not work.” There are degrees. The desire for others to be vaccinated is not irrational, contrary to the innuendo of the meme.

But there are even more rational strategies.

The most rational one is honesty. Not because dishonesty doesn’t “work” but because honesty encourages rationality generally. It works better.

Right now, we could use a lot more rationality. We are ruled by people whose strategy is to increase fear-based reaction and mass compliance to authoritarian demands. And we are surrounded by cowards who, so fearful, cannot accept new information or wait to make up their minds when actual contexts become clear.

These people have succumbed to the meme of servility. Which is worse than SARS-CoV-2 and its co sequent disease, COVID-19. Our civilization can survive even worse plagues, and has. But can we survive mass servility?

twv

Comparing the coronavirus daily mortality curves* of Sweden and these United States, which looks better, in its general shape? Sweden’s. It looks like the Nordic country has achieved her immunity — without lockdowns. If the country could have only better controlled its old-age home/nursing home crisis, the country’s curve would even look better.

Friends Olof and Rocco and Lee and I discussed some of the problems on a recent LocoFoco podcast:

Note that we ended on that key concept, herd immunity.

But what I really wonder about is this: the slope of the curve: we were told at the beginning that the reason for the “mitigation efforts” was to “flatten the curve,” to distribute the worst cases over a longer stretch of time; we were told that we could not really much change the bulk of cases within the curve, for if you flattened it too much, the curve would re-bulge worse next winter. Could the U.S. mitigation efforts have “flattened” the curve too well, now making it, well, concave, with the recent re-emergence of harsh cases?

There are many factors, though. For it looks like one problem with fatalities is that effective protocols for actually fighting ARDS — the worst extreme cases diagnosis of COVID-19 — have not been nationally implemented, because they would make Trump look good, one of the most effective treatments including HCQ, which the president had touted early.

Is it possible that Trump Derangement Syndrome is responsible for tens of thousands of needless deaths?


* Graphs from the European Union Times and worldometer.

You’re on, Costanza!

It seems like a nifty analogy to me. But the big differences between the two situations are several:

  1. if bombed, survival was, shall we say, not likely, but most people who catch the coronavirus weather through just fine;
  2. the more people who survive the virus, the less of an epidemic it is, since we reach the herd immunity threshold — but the more people bombed and survived had no similar salutary effect for the non-bombed;
  3. what if masks are more like venetian blinds at full open, and they would only diminish the risk by a little, thus giving people false confidence so they would be less likely to go into a shelter when the sirens skirl?
  4. while lights-out was good for manned bombing runs, it made no difference with V-2s — so what if SARS-CoV-2 is more like a V-2 than a bomber run?

There are probably many more, but I think this meets Mr. Alexander’s request for debate.

twv