Politics of Covid-19
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
Ahhh. To live in Montana and get a buffalo.
Here Are The Vaccine Incentives Being Offered In Each Of The 50 States
Delaware - 10 free copies of Hunter Biden’s book.babylonbee.com
Texas reports zero COVID deaths months after liberal media predicted doomsday as Abbott reopened state
Texas has a lot to celebrate this week after reaching zero COVID deaths for the first time since the pandemic began.
www.foxnews.com
The rich and powerful thrived as the rest of us suffered in the year of lockdowns
The pandemic saw a huge amount of power and money transferred to what Michael Lind calls the “overclass” of politicians, corporate managers and bureaucrats. Small businesses shut down while big-box stores deemed “essential” remained open. The laptop class worked from home — to the delight of many of its members — while the working class brought them stuff. Federal money flowed like water to the connected. The national debt went from scandalous to essentially absurd, an amount of money that no one expects to be repaid.
The Chinese Communist Party used the threat of the pandemic and lockdowns to crush a rebellion in Hong Kong. The American powers-that-be did something similar: People who demonstrated for the wrong causes were called granny-killers and shut down; people who demonstrated for overclass-approved causes (like New York’s “Black Trans Lives Matter” rally, featuring thousands and endorsed by Mayor Bill de Blasio, even as he welded the gates of a Jewish park closed) received letters of support from “public-health” people who assured us that racism is a bigger public-health problem than COVID, even as they used COVID as an excuse to remake American society.
The pandemic saw a huge amount of power and money transferred to what Michael Lind calls the “overclass” of politicians, corporate managers and bureaucrats. Small businesses shut down while big-box stores deemed “essential” remained open. The laptop class worked from home — to the delight of many of its members — while the working class brought them stuff. Federal money flowed like water to the connected. The national debt went from scandalous to essentially absurd, an amount of money that no one expects to be repaid.
The Chinese Communist Party used the threat of the pandemic and lockdowns to crush a rebellion in Hong Kong. The American powers-that-be did something similar: People who demonstrated for the wrong causes were called granny-killers and shut down; people who demonstrated for overclass-approved causes (like New York’s “Black Trans Lives Matter” rally, featuring thousands and endorsed by Mayor Bill de Blasio, even as he welded the gates of a Jewish park closed) received letters of support from “public-health” people who assured us that racism is a bigger public-health problem than COVID, even as they used COVID as an excuse to remake American society.
It Turns Out Even Fewer Children Were Hospitalized for COVID Than Originally Reported
What our children are being subject to because of this virus is tragic enough. Research has just come out which makes the masking, distancing, and school closures even more needless, though. "New Research Suggests Number of Kids Hospitalized for COVID Is Overcounted," David Zweig reported for Intelligencer. It was discovered that hospitalizations for children were overcounted by at least 40 percent.
That research applies to studies published in Hospital Pediatrics on Wednesday, with commentary from Dr. Monica Gandhi who is an infectious diseases specialist at the University of California-San Francisco, and Amy Beck, who is an associate professor of pediatrics there.
The reason is particularly frustrating because it just seems so sloppy. Emphasis is original:
What our children are being subject to because of this virus is tragic enough. Research has just come out which makes the masking, distancing, and school closures even more needless, though. "New Research Suggests Number of Kids Hospitalized for COVID Is Overcounted," David Zweig reported for Intelligencer. It was discovered that hospitalizations for children were overcounted by at least 40 percent.
That research applies to studies published in Hospital Pediatrics on Wednesday, with commentary from Dr. Monica Gandhi who is an infectious diseases specialist at the University of California-San Francisco, and Amy Beck, who is an associate professor of pediatrics there.
The reason is particularly frustrating because it just seems so sloppy. Emphasis is original:
Is It Unethical to Refuse a COVID-19 Vaccine?
People who don’t get vaccinated need to muster the moral imagination to think of how that decision will fail to protect those who are vulnerable in our communities. If skeptics don’t get vaccinated, they will undermine herd immunity, causing more people to die. And that is immoral. Enduring the mostly minor side effects expected from the vaccines is part of the contribution that people are reasonably expected to make for the common good.
People who don’t get vaccinated need to muster the moral imagination to think of how that decision will fail to protect those who are vulnerable in our communities. If skeptics don’t get vaccinated, they will undermine herd immunity, causing more people to die. And that is immoral. Enduring the mostly minor side effects expected from the vaccines is part of the contribution that people are reasonably expected to make for the common good.
The Age of Coercive Control: We're in an Abusive Relationship with Our Government. Now What?
Coercive control is a form of abuse. It is defined as “a pattern of controlling behaviors that create an unequal power dynamic in a relationship. These behaviors give the perpetrators power over their partner, making it difficult for them to leave.”
Mostly, this term is used when describing a domestic relationship. But I argue that the relationship between government and citizen is much like a domestic relationship, only with the government holding a far greater ability to harm the individual in a variety of different creative ways, most of which entail the weaponization of whole institutions against the individual. At least the victims of domestic abuse sometimes have institutions that will help them escape. The citizens of the free world are facing an enemy that holds access to and the power of every institution in the land, including the power to fine, imprison, stalk, harass, steal your children, or bankrupt you under the color of law. It’s not a crime for the government to do these things to you because they’ve written themselves protections in the law called immunity.
Here are the signs that you are a victim of coercive control, according to Medical News Today:
Monitoring Activities:
This sounds familiar. With the implementation of COVID restrictions on our formerly free society, we have all been subject to unlawful monitoring of normal behaviors, including what we wear (on our faces), where we can go, who we can socialize with, what entertainment we can have—and they even wanted access to our phones through contact tracing apps. The perpetrators of this crime against us told us it was because the government cares about our health. But according to science, this is not loving behavior, but dangerous abusive control.
Exerting Financial Control:
Coercive control is a form of abuse. It is defined as “a pattern of controlling behaviors that create an unequal power dynamic in a relationship. These behaviors give the perpetrators power over their partner, making it difficult for them to leave.”
Mostly, this term is used when describing a domestic relationship. But I argue that the relationship between government and citizen is much like a domestic relationship, only with the government holding a far greater ability to harm the individual in a variety of different creative ways, most of which entail the weaponization of whole institutions against the individual. At least the victims of domestic abuse sometimes have institutions that will help them escape. The citizens of the free world are facing an enemy that holds access to and the power of every institution in the land, including the power to fine, imprison, stalk, harass, steal your children, or bankrupt you under the color of law. It’s not a crime for the government to do these things to you because they’ve written themselves protections in the law called immunity.
Here are the signs that you are a victim of coercive control, according to Medical News Today:
Monitoring Activities:
This sounds familiar. With the implementation of COVID restrictions on our formerly free society, we have all been subject to unlawful monitoring of normal behaviors, including what we wear (on our faces), where we can go, who we can socialize with, what entertainment we can have—and they even wanted access to our phones through contact tracing apps. The perpetrators of this crime against us told us it was because the government cares about our health. But according to science, this is not loving behavior, but dangerous abusive control.
Exerting Financial Control:
Fake Florida Whistleblower Rebekah Jones Admits Entire Operation Was A Hoax
Rebekah Jones, the Florida COVID-19 “whistleblower who wasn’t,” conceded Thursday that her entire operation to frame health officials with manipulating pandemic data was a hoax when she admitted she was never asked to delete deaths in the database.
“Deleting deaths was never something I was asked to do,” Jones wrote in a since-deleted post captured and published by National Review’s Charles C. W. Cooke. “I’ve never claimed it was.”
Rebekah Jones, the Florida COVID-19 “whistleblower who wasn’t,” conceded Thursday that her entire operation to frame health officials with manipulating pandemic data was a hoax when she admitted she was never asked to delete deaths in the database.
“Deleting deaths was never something I was asked to do,” Jones wrote in a since-deleted post captured and published by National Review’s Charles C. W. Cooke. “I’ve never claimed it was.”
PolitiFact Quietly Retracts Fact Check Of COVID-19 Wuhan Lab Theory
Politifact claimed social media posts by users had mentioned Yan’s comments, and that the fact check was an effort to stop the spread of disinformation. An editor’s note now puts forth that Yan’s theory “is more widely disputed.”
“When this fact-check was first published in September 2020, PolitiFact’s sources included researchers who asserted the SARS-CoV-2 virus could not have been manipulated,” the editor’s note said. “That assertion is now more widely disputed. For that reason, we are removing this fact-check from our database pending a more thorough review.”
The original fact check cited a March 2020 Nature Medicine statement claiming no evidence shows the coronavirus was manipulated in a lab environment. Nicholas Wade, a science reporter at the New York Times, wrote a piece in May calling out the five virologists’ assessment.
Politifact claimed social media posts by users had mentioned Yan’s comments, and that the fact check was an effort to stop the spread of disinformation. An editor’s note now puts forth that Yan’s theory “is more widely disputed.”
“When this fact-check was first published in September 2020, PolitiFact’s sources included researchers who asserted the SARS-CoV-2 virus could not have been manipulated,” the editor’s note said. “That assertion is now more widely disputed. For that reason, we are removing this fact-check from our database pending a more thorough review.”
The original fact check cited a March 2020 Nature Medicine statement claiming no evidence shows the coronavirus was manipulated in a lab environment. Nicholas Wade, a science reporter at the New York Times, wrote a piece in May calling out the five virologists’ assessment.
A New Study Confirms That Reopening Texas '100 Percent' Had No Discernible Impact on COVID-19 Cases or Deaths
More than two months later, the public health disaster predicted by Abbott's critics has not materialized. A new analysis by three economists confirms that his decision had no discernible impact on COVID-19 cases or deaths in Texas.
Dave, San Diego State University economist Joseph Sabia, and SDSU graduate research fellow Samuel Safford looked at smartphone mobility data from SafeGraph and COVID-19 data collected by The New York Times. They compared trends in Texas before and after Abbott's order took effect on March 10 to trends in a composite of data from other states that retained their COVID-19 restrictions but were otherwise similar.
"We find that the Texas reopening had little impact on stay-at-home behavior or on foot traffic at numerous business locations, including restaurants, bars, entertainment venues, retail establishments, business services, personal care services, and grocery stores," Dave et al. write. "We find no evidence that the reopening affected the rate of new COVID-19 cases in the five-week period following the reopening. In addition, we find that state-level COVID-19 mortality rates were unaffected by the March 10 reopening."
More than two months later, the public health disaster predicted by Abbott's critics has not materialized. A new analysis by three economists confirms that his decision had no discernible impact on COVID-19 cases or deaths in Texas.
"We find no evidence that the Texas reopening led to substantial changes in social mobility, including foot traffic at a wide set of business establishments in Texas," Bentley University economist Dhaval Dave and his two co-authors report in a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper. "We find no evidence that the Texas reopening affected the rate of new COVID-19 cases during the five weeks following the reopening." They say their findings "underscore the limits of late-pandemic era COVID-19 reopening policies to alter private behavior."Dave, San Diego State University economist Joseph Sabia, and SDSU graduate research fellow Samuel Safford looked at smartphone mobility data from SafeGraph and COVID-19 data collected by The New York Times. They compared trends in Texas before and after Abbott's order took effect on March 10 to trends in a composite of data from other states that retained their COVID-19 restrictions but were otherwise similar.
"We find that the Texas reopening had little impact on stay-at-home behavior or on foot traffic at numerous business locations, including restaurants, bars, entertainment venues, retail establishments, business services, personal care services, and grocery stores," Dave et al. write. "We find no evidence that the reopening affected the rate of new COVID-19 cases in the five-week period following the reopening. In addition, we find that state-level COVID-19 mortality rates were unaffected by the March 10 reopening."
New Study on Texas Reopening Puts the Nail in the Coffin of Fauci's Credibility
Two and a half months ago, when Texas Governor Greg Abbott axed the state’s mask mandate and other COVID-related restrictions on businesses and people, Joe Biden called the move a “huge mistake” and “Neanderthal thinking.” Dr. Anthony Fauci, who advises Biden, called it “risky” and “potentially dangerous.” Both were proven wrong when weeks later Texas experienced no surge in cases. A dumbfounded Fauci refused to admit he was wrong and claimed that a spike in cases and deaths would show up as a lagging indicator.
But, no spike came. And last Sunday, Texas recorded zero COVID deaths for the first time since the pandemic.
While it’s clear that both Biden and Fauci have been proven wrong already, a new study has found, definitively, that there was no connection between the lifted mandates and people being infected by or dying from COVID-19.
The study, conducted by Bentley University economist Dhaval Dave, San Diego State University economist Joseph Sabia, and San Diego State University graduate research fellow Samuel Safford, used smartphone mobility data from SafeGraph and cases and deaths data compiled by The New York Times to analyze how the virus affected Texas before and after COVID restrictions were lifted on March 10.
Two and a half months ago, when Texas Governor Greg Abbott axed the state’s mask mandate and other COVID-related restrictions on businesses and people, Joe Biden called the move a “huge mistake” and “Neanderthal thinking.” Dr. Anthony Fauci, who advises Biden, called it “risky” and “potentially dangerous.” Both were proven wrong when weeks later Texas experienced no surge in cases. A dumbfounded Fauci refused to admit he was wrong and claimed that a spike in cases and deaths would show up as a lagging indicator.
But, no spike came. And last Sunday, Texas recorded zero COVID deaths for the first time since the pandemic.
While it’s clear that both Biden and Fauci have been proven wrong already, a new study has found, definitively, that there was no connection between the lifted mandates and people being infected by or dying from COVID-19.
The study, conducted by Bentley University economist Dhaval Dave, San Diego State University economist Joseph Sabia, and San Diego State University graduate research fellow Samuel Safford, used smartphone mobility data from SafeGraph and cases and deaths data compiled by The New York Times to analyze how the virus affected Texas before and after COVID restrictions were lifted on March 10.
VINDICATED: Study Admits There Is a Difference Between Hospitalization 'With' and 'For' COVID-19
For 15 months, the data regarding COVID-19 illness, hospitalizations, and deaths have been suspect. This statement does not mean COVID-19 does not exist or that some people who contracted it did not suffer from severe illness and die from it. However, the prepositions, with, for, and of are critical qualifiers in tracking the actual impacts of COVID-19. A new study from California admits as much.
From the Intelligencer:
Color me shocked. At the beginning of the pandemic, the government and insurers put several policies in place that made sense to determine disease prevalence, which included widespread testing. Hospitals correctly did preemptive testing to determine the correct infection control protocols to use with individual patients. However, other mandates paired this with perverse financial incentives that provided additional funding for COVID-19 care. The original COVID-19 relief package created a 20% premium that included probable cases and laboratory-confirmed cases for Medicare patients. Several large health insurers also waived copays and coinsurance for care related to COVID-19.
[clip]
Let me explain. If a 50-year-old male is admitted to the hospital with chest pain, the staff will test him for COVID-19 per hospital policy. If his test is positive, even with no COVID symptoms, COVID-19 will, in all likelihood, be added to his diagnosis. Yet, if he has a heart catheterization and a blockage in a coronary artery is detected and corrected, the reimbursement will still kick in. Even if he never had a clinical symptom of COVID-19.
For 15 months, the data regarding COVID-19 illness, hospitalizations, and deaths have been suspect. This statement does not mean COVID-19 does not exist or that some people who contracted it did not suffer from severe illness and die from it. However, the prepositions, with, for, and of are critical qualifiers in tracking the actual impacts of COVID-19. A new study from California admits as much.
From the Intelligencer:
Color me shocked. At the beginning of the pandemic, the government and insurers put several policies in place that made sense to determine disease prevalence, which included widespread testing. Hospitals correctly did preemptive testing to determine the correct infection control protocols to use with individual patients. However, other mandates paired this with perverse financial incentives that provided additional funding for COVID-19 care. The original COVID-19 relief package created a 20% premium that included probable cases and laboratory-confirmed cases for Medicare patients. Several large health insurers also waived copays and coinsurance for care related to COVID-19.
[clip]
Let me explain. If a 50-year-old male is admitted to the hospital with chest pain, the staff will test him for COVID-19 per hospital policy. If his test is positive, even with no COVID symptoms, COVID-19 will, in all likelihood, be added to his diagnosis. Yet, if he has a heart catheterization and a blockage in a coronary artery is detected and corrected, the reimbursement will still kick in. Even if he never had a clinical symptom of COVID-19.
Sen. Rand Paul Does Not Plan To Get COVID-19 Vaccine, Blasts ‘Big Brother’ Health Mandates
“Until they show me evidence that people who have already had the infection are dying in large numbers or being hospitalized or getting very sick, I just made my own personal decision that I’m not getting vaccinated because I’ve already had the disease and I have natural immunity,” said Paul, who received his M.D. from Duke University in 1988.
“In a free country, you would think people would honor the idea that each individual would get to make the medical decision, that it wouldn’t be a big brother coming to tell me what I have to do,” Paul continued.
“Are they also going to tell me I can’t have a cheeseburger for lunch? Are they going to tell me that I have to eat carrots only and cut my calories?” the libertarian Republican asked rhetorically. “All that would probably be good for me, but I don’t think big brother ought to tell me to do it.”
“Until they show me evidence that people who have already had the infection are dying in large numbers or being hospitalized or getting very sick, I just made my own personal decision that I’m not getting vaccinated because I’ve already had the disease and I have natural immunity,” said Paul, who received his M.D. from Duke University in 1988.
“In a free country, you would think people would honor the idea that each individual would get to make the medical decision, that it wouldn’t be a big brother coming to tell me what I have to do,” Paul continued.
“Are they also going to tell me I can’t have a cheeseburger for lunch? Are they going to tell me that I have to eat carrots only and cut my calories?” the libertarian Republican asked rhetorically. “All that would probably be good for me, but I don’t think big brother ought to tell me to do it.”
Facebook Blocks Doctor’s Message on COVID’s Low Infant Mortality Rate
“Part of the reason I have (for the most part) left Facebook is they delete my post/responses that are factual, which I triple check,” she wrote. “I was responding to a question about what the number of pediatric deaths were due to COVID in April. I don’t feel like directly citing numbers from CDC and AAP should be deleted as spam, but maybe that is just me. I have moved to Twitter FYI.”
Dr. Tracy Høeg recently testified in a school safety hearing in New York that school-aged children were more likely to get COVID in their local community than at school.
Social media giants like Facebook have acted as arbiters of truth for COVID-related information, suppressing content that does not fit their doomsday narrative.
Congressman Roger Marshall M.D. (R-KS), a licensed physician, was previously censored by Facebook for discussing CDC information about the virus.
“A Facebook post published on Sunday afternoon by U.S. Congressman Roger Marshall, M.D. discussing updated COVID-19 death data released by the CDC was removed Monday night by Facebook without notice or explanation,” KNSS reported at the time. Marshall explained later on Facebook that his earlier post had “discussed the new data published by the CDC showing that only 6% of deaths were due solely to COVID-19, while the remaining 94% of deaths had two or more underlying health conditions.”
“Part of the reason I have (for the most part) left Facebook is they delete my post/responses that are factual, which I triple check,” she wrote. “I was responding to a question about what the number of pediatric deaths were due to COVID in April. I don’t feel like directly citing numbers from CDC and AAP should be deleted as spam, but maybe that is just me. I have moved to Twitter FYI.”
Dr. Tracy Høeg recently testified in a school safety hearing in New York that school-aged children were more likely to get COVID in their local community than at school.
Social media giants like Facebook have acted as arbiters of truth for COVID-related information, suppressing content that does not fit their doomsday narrative.
Congressman Roger Marshall M.D. (R-KS), a licensed physician, was previously censored by Facebook for discussing CDC information about the virus.
“A Facebook post published on Sunday afternoon by U.S. Congressman Roger Marshall, M.D. discussing updated COVID-19 death data released by the CDC was removed Monday night by Facebook without notice or explanation,” KNSS reported at the time. Marshall explained later on Facebook that his earlier post had “discussed the new data published by the CDC showing that only 6% of deaths were due solely to COVID-19, while the remaining 94% of deaths had two or more underlying health conditions.”
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
Some folks died with the virus, I don't deny that. But it was so overblown and hyped as to be ridiculous.