This document is part of an archive of postings on Dissecting Leftism, a blog hosted by Blogspot who are in turn owned by Google. The index to the archive is available here or here. Indexes to my other blogs can be located here or here. Archives do accompany my original postings but, given the animus towards conservative writing on Google and other internet institutions, their permanence is uncertain. These alternative archives help ensure a more permanent record of what I have written.

This is a backup copy of the original blog






March 31, 2021

Trump Slams Fauci and Birx for Revisionism

“When I saw what happened in New York City,” said Dr. Anthony Fauci during a CNN interview that aired Sunday, “it was like, ‘Oh my goodness.’ And that’s when it became very clear that the decision we made on January the 10th to go all out and develop a vaccine may have been the best decision that I’ve ever made with regard to an intervention as the director of the institute.”

Who knew the diminutive doc was the Decider-in-Chief and the driving force behind Operation Warp Speed — the life-saving decision to strip away traditional barriers to vaccine development and thereby conceive, create, and begin administering multiple coronavirus vaccines in just nine months rather than the usual three to five years?

Why, it’s as if this guy Fauci is trying to take credit from this guy Biden, who’s trying to take credit from the man who actually delivered a vaccine in record time.

That man, of course, would be Donald Trump — and he doesn’t seem inclined to sit idly by while his two underlings attempt to create a version of history more pleasing to the ear of their new boss.

As Fox News reports, “Former President Donald Trump slammed Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx on Monday, accusing the infectious disease experts of ‘trying to reinvent history’ in televised interviews detailing their roles in combating the coronavirus pandemic. Trump spoke out after Fauci and Birx, who both served as key members of his administration’s coronavirus task force, were interviewed for a CNN special titled ‘COVID WAR: The Pandemic Doctors Speak Out.’”

“Based on their interviews,” said Trump in a statement, “I felt it was time to speak up about Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx, two self-promoters trying to reinvent history to cover for their bad instincts and faulty recommendations, which I fortunately almost always overturned. They had bad policy decisions that would have left our country open to China and others, closed to reopening our economy, and years away from an approved vaccine.”

Trump then gave the two self-promoters a master’s course in self-promotion: “We developed American vaccines by an American President in record time, nine months, which is saving the entire world,” he said. “We bought billions of dollars of these vaccines on a calculated bet that they would work, perhaps the most important bet in the history of the world. Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx moved far too slowly, and if it were up to them we’d currently be locked in our basements as our country suffered through a financial depression. Families, and children in particular, would be suffering the mental strains of this disaster like never before.”

Birx, who history might remember as the wearer of colorful scarves during Trump’s Coronavirus Task Force press briefings, said she had a “very difficult” phone call with the president after she spoke candidly about the severity of an outbreak last August. During the CNN interview, she said the COVID-19 death toll should have been much lower once an initial surge had subsided. “There were about 100,000 deaths that came from that original surge,” she said. “All of the rest of them, in my mind, could have been mitigated or decreased substantially.”

To this, Trump fired back: “Dr. Birx is a proven liar with very little credibility left.”

Trump then gave Birx and Fauci something to discuss the next time they have a quiet moment together. “Many of her recommendations were viewed as ‘pseudo-science,’” said the former president, “and Dr. Fauci would always talk negatively about her and, in fact, would ask not to be in the same room with her.”

As for Fauci, Trump says he was “incapable of pressing the FDA” to get a vaccine produced any more quickly. “I was the one to get it done, and even the fake news media knows and reports this,” he said. “Dr. Fauci is also the king of ‘flip-flops’ and moving the goalposts to make himself look as good as possible.”

In a mud-slinger like this, no one tends to come out looking good. But Donald Trump is at least used to it — five years of battling a vicious and deeply dishonest media have seen to that. He’s also entirely within his right to tell his side of the story — especially when it seems history is being rewritten before his eyes.

https://patriotpost.us/articles/78787-trump-slams-fauci-and-birx-for-revisionism-2021-03-30

*************************************

Corporate America Goes Beyond Redlining Conservatism

Regardless of what you think of South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem’s tactical retreat on protecting women’s sports — and there are good arguments both by those arguing the strategic sense of it and by those saying it was a squishy backtrack — one thing has been made clear in recent years: Big Business is willing to move beyond redlining conservatism. In fact, it’s taking a page from an anti-Semitic campaign.

The boycott, divest, and sanction (BDS) movement has long targeted Israel over measures that are intended to prevent that country’s destruction. In essence, companies are threatened with boycotts, banks and financial institutions are urged to divest from Israel, and sanctions are applied against Israel itself to coerce it into surrendering its security.

Now, the same approach is being used against conservatives.

South Dakota was particularly targeted for this by the NCAA, which threatened legal action if Governor Noem signed a “transgender” bill into law. Noem decided to ask the legislature for modifications and to secure at least protection for girls competing in high school, junior high school, or elementary school, while leaving out colleges in hopes of mollifying the NCAA. The legislation died yesterday due to the impasse.

This has happened before. Remember the battles over Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act? Salesforce’s CEO began helping employees who wished to leave the state, and other companies also threatened to boycott the state. Then-Governor Mike Pence conceded ground.

Similar demands are being made of major companies that call Georgia home, like Coca-Cola, Home Depot, and Delta Airlines, as well as Major League Baseball and the PGA Tour, over Georgia’s new election integrity law. Activists are trying to get MLB’s All-Star Game and the Masters golf tournament moved out of the Peach State to protest the fact that Georgia’s legislature actually cares about fighting voter fraud. President Joe Biden has falsely called the law “Jim Crow in the 21st century,” and nothing sticks like the “racist” label — especially with ignorant consumers of mainstream media lies.

And that brings us to a very harsh reality for grassroots Patriots to confront: Many voters who don’t have our focus on current events tend to vote on the economy. If the economy is (deliberately) cratered, or when economic opportunities are not coming, they tend to vote out the party (i.e., Republicans) they perceive as being responsible for it. This is true whether it’s the Left fighting fracking or when a company pulls a major event over conservative policy.

In 2019, Salesforce announced that it would revoke licenses for users of its software if they sold certain legal firearms and accessories that anti-Second Amendment extremists want banned. On top of that is Operation Choke Point, a form of sanctions for companies that don’t boycott and divest promptly.

The immensely frustrating fact of the matter is that with the dominance of Big Tech and so many major corporations now taking one particular side on hot-button political issues, grassroots Patriots will have to fight smarter than ever. Part of that will be building our own versions of these enterprises, but part of it will also be making corporate America face consequences if companies continue to play political favorites or go along with redlining and this new iteration of BDS.

https://patriotpost.us/articles/78763-corporate-america-goes-beyond-redlining-conservatism-2021-03-30

****************************************

The States Must Resist the Federal Takeover of Elections

Although federal courts certainly played their part, the main malefactors in the sham that was the 2020 presidential election were “the several States.” Through their court mandates, their gubernatorial malfeasance, and, especially their new election laws, the states created the changes by which an election could be stolen and democracy could be subverted. The changes that determined the outcome of the election were primarily in the key battleground states. But now the feds want to get in on the action and impose the 2020 changes to election law of the battleground states on the entire nation.

It’s often noted that the states created the federal government. But in doing so, the states did not surrender their own sovereignty. The federal government under the new Democrat majority in Congress now seeks to federalize elections and to abolish state election laws. That would end the sovereignty of the states. The states need to resist and even preempt this un-American power grab.

On March 3 in a nearly party-line vote of 220-210, the U.S. House passed H.R. 1, the so-called For the People Act. A more appropriate title for this anti-democratic bill would be the “For the Incumbents Act” or the “For the Political Class Act,” for the People don’t figure in this vile bill at all.

The text of “H.R.1 -- For the People Act of 2021” is quite long and few readers will want to wade through it all. The bill’s ideas are unsophisticated, even backward. And that’s especially the case with regard to voter identification and to voter registration. The word “identification” appears 34 times in the bill. The bill would outlaw any state requirement to present voter ID to vote. To counteract this insane provision, the states need to enact much stricter voter ID laws.

Of course, Stacey Abrams will wail that demanding ID is voter suppression and denies access to the ballot box and is racist. Okay, then the states should use as their voter ID an ID that everyone already has -- the SSN.

Members of state legislatures may think they know better and may want to devise their own voter IDs. But they should resist that impulse, for the full nine-digit SSN has built-in capabilities that no new ID could match. For instance, if all the states required the use of the SSN to vote, it becomes possible to easily find those who have voted in more than one state, and then back out their votes.

The word “registration” appears 369 times in H.R. 1. “Rolls,” as in voter rolls, appears twice, but “registry” and its plural don’t appear at all. If the states were to require the SSN to vote, they’d have no need of separate voter registries that they would have to laboriously maintain. That’s because the government, both state and federal, already has our data. They know where we live, and whether we’re eligible to vote. So it’s wasted effort to register voters. Besides, voter registries in these United States are notoriously inaccurate. Democrats push registration because they don’t want elections to depend on accurate databases.

For years now, I’ve been urging the use of the SSN and existing federal databases in elections. I still believe that the complete computerization of voting is the best way to go but consider this: the mail-in voting that was ramped up for 2020 could be made to work properly if, and only if, a unique national ID, like the SSN, were attached to each mail-in ballot. With the SSN on one’s ballot, there’s no need for separate voter registries, as the ballot could be authenticated against already existing government files.

Because the Supreme Court refused to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania due to a supposed “lack of standing,” the states need to get out in front of H.R. 1 and make sure they have standing that is undeniable. One way to do that is for the states to pass laws, right now, that set up a showdown with the feds. Georgia just did that on March 25 when Governor Kemp signed SB 202 into law. There are some good changes in the law, but it doesn’t require the use of the full SSN, only its last four digits. If I could mandate but one change to election law, it would be to require the inclusion of the full SSN on the ballot. With that change, verification of the vote becomes possible.

The “genius” (for Democrats) of the 2020 changes to election law is that they made verification of vote counts even more unobtainable and unknowable. With the corrupt use of mail-in ballots, election results in America became entirely unchallengeable. We must take the word of the authorities that the vote counts are accurate, and they needn’t demonstrate nor prove what the true vote is.

After Trump delivered the best economy in years and multiple vaccines for the Wuhan virus, if Biden really won the election, then this kid would have to say that we’re a nation of ingrates and deserve whatever we get. I tend to believe that the average American has not sunk that low. It seems much more plausible that the Democrats and their criminal operatives stole the election.

But it is possible that Joe Biden won the 2020 election; that is, that he received more legal votes than did President Trump. It’s possible, but not probable. And if Trump received more legal votes than Biden in the key battleground states, then Biden is an illegitimate president and we’re a nation of theft victims. But there’s no way to prove what the legitimate vote count is.

If H.R. 1 makes it through the Senate and our dried-up husk of a president signs it, the Supreme Court “should” find it unconstitutional. But who knows, they may let it slide, just like they let ObamaCare’s individual mandate slide. So the states need to bolster their “standing.” And they need to have systems in place that are much better than what H.R. 1 institutes.

It was “the several States” that brought America the most radical government in history, and the states need to fix that. Even if H.R. 1 were to fail in the Senate or be found unconstitutional by the Court, the election systems in the states are still scandalous and need to be reengineered with genuine election reforms.

It was battleground states in particular that gave us the frailest dimmest oldest president in our lifetimes. Those states must fix the problems they created by setting up election systems that ensure the integrity of the vote. The states need to anticipate and counter the coming encroachments of the feds by enacting new election laws. (They might also consider impeaching judges, like Pennsylvania’s Max Baer, and secretaries of state, like Georgia’s Brad Raffensperger.)

Essentially, H.R. 1 institutionalizes election theft. Some may wonder why such theft needs to be institutionalized. After all, Democrats have been doing a good job of stealing elections without new legislation. Maybe the Dems just want election theft to be easier and surer.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/03/the_states_must_resist_the_federal_takeover_of_elections.html

****************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS -- Daily)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

Posted by JR at 4:28 PM 2 comments

Tuesday, March 30, 2021

Good news: Pfizer and Moderna's vaccines are 90% effective at preventing COVID-19 infection after two doses and 80% effective after one shot, real-world study of health care workers finds

Two doses of either Moderna's or Pfizer-BioNTech's coronavirus vaccine are highly effective at preventing infection, a new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) real-world study published on Monday finds.

Researchers looked at vaccination rates among nearly 4,000 healthcare employees, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers from mid-December 2020 to mid-March 2021.

Results showed the risk of infection among fully vaccinated workers was reduced by 90 percent two or more weeks after the final dose - the amount of time it takes to produce antibodies.

What's more, the risk decreased by 80 percent among people who had only received their initial dose of the vaccine.

'This study shows that our national vaccination efforts are working. The authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines provided early, substantial real-world protection against infection for our nation's health care personnel, first responders, and other frontline essential workers,' said CDC Director Dr Rochelle Walensky in a statement.

'These findings should offer hope to the millions of Americans receiving COVID-19 vaccines each day and to those who will have the opportunity to roll up their sleeves and get vaccinated in the weeks ahead. The authorized vaccines are the key tool that will help bring an end to this devastating pandemic.'

It comes as Moderna announced on Monday that it has shipped its 100 millionth dose, out of a 300-million-dose order, to the U.S. government.

At the same time, 10 states plan to open eligibility of vaccines to all adults this week, in line with President Joe Biden's goal of making every adult eligible for a shot by May 1.

So far, just Arkansas and Wyoming -have not yet confirmed plans to expand eligibility ahead of or by the deadline, likely due to clinicians still prioritizing high-risk groups and differences that vary state-by-state in supply and demand of the shots.

For the CDC's study, researchers looked at the vaccination status of 3,950 frontline workers in six states from December 14, 2020 to March 13, 2021.

During that time period, 62.8 percent of workers, or 2,479, received both doses of either the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine, and 12.1 percent, 477 workers, received one dose.

The remaining 25.1 percent of frontline or essential employees were unvaccinated.

Participants were surveyed for symptoms of COVID-19 including cough, fever, chills, shortness of breath and loss of taste or smell through weekly text messages, email or in-person appointments.

The workers received nasal swabs each week, regardless of whether or not they had symptoms, and had an additional swab collected if they reported feeling ill.

Over the course of the study, 172 COVID-19 infections were identified. Of those, 161 were among workers who had not been vaccinated yet.

By comparison, just eight of the partially immunized participants were infected as were three of the fully immunized participants.

This means fully vaccinated workers were 53.6 times less likely to test positive for COVID-19 than those who were not vaccinated.

Even one dose offered substantial protection with partially immunized workers 26.8 times less likely to contract the disease that unvaccinated workers.

According to the CDC, this shows that under real-world conditions, Moderna's and Pfizer's vaccines are 80 percent effective after one dose and 90 percent effective after two doses.

'The findings complement and expand upon these preceding reports by demonstrating that the vaccines can also reduce the risk for infection regardless of COVID-19–associated illness symptom status,' the authors wrote.

'Reducing the risk for transmissible infection..is especially important among health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers given their potential to transmit the virus through frequent close contact with patients and the public.'

On Monday, Moderna announced it had shipped 100 million doses of its COVID-19 vaccine to the U.S. government.

The company says it expects to meet its agreement with the administration and deliver its second batch of 100 million doses by the end of May and the third batch of 100 million by the end of July.

'I would like to thank the millions of people who have put their confidence in Moderna's science and our COVID-19 vaccine,' said Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel in a statement.

'We are encouraged by the fact that more than 67 million doses have been administered in the U.S. and we are humbled to know that we are helping address this worldwide pandemic with our vaccine.

Moderna said its vaccine shipments has risen five-fold - from more than 16 million doses in the fourth quarter of 2020 to 88 million doses in the first quarter of 2021 - since its inoculation received emergency authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in December.

This week, the U.S. government ramped up its shipments of COVID-19 vaccines, about 27 million per week, after about a month of sluggish weekly deliveries, so states can finish vaccinating high-risk groups and make the shots available to all.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9414615/Health-workers-90-likely-catch-coronavirus-fully-vaccinated-CDC-data-show.html

******************************************

The Lockdowns Were One Big Fat Mistake

Like nearly all U.S. states, Georgia imposed a stay-at-home order in March 2020 in response to demands from public health officials claiming a stay-at-home order would lessen total deaths from COVID-19.

But unlike most states, Georgia ended its stay-at-home order after only five weeks, and proceeded to lower other restrictions quickly.

The legacy media responded with furious opposition. For example, an article in The Atlantic declared the end of Georgia’s lockdown to be an “experiment in human sacrifice.” The Guardian approvingly quoted one Georgian who insisted the end of the stay-at-home order was “reckless, premature and dangerous.”

A few weeks later, other states began to end their stay-at-home orders and to end other restrictions as well. Florida was the largest among these states.

Shortly thereafter the Daily Beast declared that the scaling back of restrictions in Georgia and Florida was “terrifyingly premature,” and quoted one expert who insisted, “If you lift the restriction too soon, a second wave will come, and the damage will be substantial both medically and economically. We don’t want to throw away the sacrifices we have made for weeks now.”

All this hyperbole about human sacrifice and recklessness leads us to conclude that states which ended lockdowns quickly must have experienced far worse numbers of deaths from covid than states which maintained lockdowns longer. Indeed, when it came to lockdowns, we were told, the longer the better. Ideally, lockdowns shouldn’t be loosened up at all until everyone can be vaccinated.

But things didn’t turn out that way. Experts have scrambled to come up with explanations for why this is the case, but the fact remains some of the most strict states (i.e., New York and Massachusetts) have covid deaths at far worse rates than the “reckless” states like Georgia and Florida.

Moreover, with little to show for their lockdowns in terms of “public health,” these states with extreme lockdowns also have some of the worst unemployment rates. This occurred in spite of the fact that experts insisted that a failure to impose lockdowns would doom a state’s economy to later economic disaster.

State-to-State Comparisons Aren’t Helping the Prolockdown Narrative

A year after stay-at-home orders began, even the usual media outlets are being forced to recognize the outcomes aren’t what was predicted. The Associated Press reported earlier this week:

California and Florida both have a COVID-19 case rate of around 8,900 per 100,000 residents since the pandemic began, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And both rank in the middle among states for COVID-19 death rates—Florida was 27th as of Friday; California was 28th.

Connecticut and South Dakota are another example. Both rank among the 10 worst states for COVID-19 death rates. Yet Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, a Democrat, imposed numerous statewide restrictions over the past year after an early surge in deaths, while South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, a Republican, issued no mandates as virus deaths soared in the fall….

Like Florida, Missouri had no statewide mask mandate, ended business restrictions last June and has a cumulative COVID-19 death rate similar to California’s.

Even the LA Times was forced to admit this reality, although they insisted that when you consider the higher levels of poverty and “overcrowding” in California—translation: California is a filthy breeding ground for disease—California should have had far worse rates than Florida for covid deaths. Thus, the LA Times concludes, “California better controlled the virus.”

The LA Times goes on to point to the fact Florida’s covid death rate, while similar, is nonetheless 6 percent higher than California’s, and this translates to three thousand deaths that presumably wouldn’t have happened if Florida had adopted lockdown rules similar to California.

But the numbers don’t stack up so well in favor of lockdowns if we use the LA Times‘s method to make other comparisons. For example, New York’s total deaths-per-million rate is 67 percent higher than Florida’s. Translated into raw numbers, that means if Florida were like New York, Florida would have experienced 54,000 deaths instead of the 33,000 that the CDC now attributes to covid in Florida. (New Jersey’s outcomes are even worse than New York’s.)

Similarly, if Florida were like Massachusetts in its outcomes, Florida would have experienced 54 percent more deaths.

If the LA Times is going to claim overcrowding should translate into more death in California, it should also note that Florida fares worse than California in terms of median age and incidence of obesity. Since advanced age and obesity are major factors in covid hospitalizations and deaths, we might conclude it is Florida, and not California, that is primed for especially bad covid numbers.

(According to the CDC, Florida and New York are evenly matched in terms of obesity, Florida has more obesity than Massachusetts, and Florida has the highest median age of them all.)

And what about Georgia, that experiment in human sacrifice? Well, the CDC reports Georgia’s total deaths-per-million rate at 1,720. That’s worse than California’s rate of 1,400, but Georgia is still far and away better than New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, which have rates of 2,530, 2,690, and 2,400, respectively.

What about Economic Performance?

Meanwhile, it is likely that the economies of Florida and Georgia have suffered less. Although the Daily Beast assured us that the “damage will be substantial both medically and economically” if a state ends lockdowns “too soon,” we now find that the unemployment rates in Florida and Georgia are 4.8 and 5.1, respectively.

In California, the picture is quite different, where the unemployment rate now sits at 9 percent. New York doesn’t fare much better, with an unemployment rate of 8.8 percent. New Jersey clocks in at 7.9 percent.

In other words, the dire predictions surrounding states that first canceled stay-at-home orders have been spectacularly wrong. Many lockdown enthusiasts will now do what the LA Times did: quibble over small differences between Florida and California to show that California did a little bit better. New York, of course, will just be completely ignored.

As one doctor at UC San Francisco admitted: “One might’ve expected that the Floridas of the world would’ve done tremendously worse than the Californias of the world… ” Places like Florida and Georgia were supposed to be overwhelmed by an absolute tsunami of death if they were “reckless” in ending COVID restrictions. That didn’t happen.

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/the-lockdowns-were-one-big-fat-mistake/

****************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS -- Daily)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

Posted by JR at 7:21 PM 0 comments

Monday, March 29, 2021

Covid and cruelty to the aged "for their own good"

Bad as the whole coronavirus charade certainly is, it's hard to find a parallel for the sheer perversity of the propagandists' abuse of the aged. The "experts" are never more self-righteous than when they thunder at us that the smallest deviation from their New Normal prescriptions amounts to killing off our elders. But no one has ever treated the old with more cynical cruelty - or with less justification.

Think of the title of an article published by one Rabbi Shai Held in the Atlantic - one of the most relentless purveyors of coronavirus propaganda - a year ago:

The Staggering, Heartless Cruelty Toward the Elderly."

When I first saw those words, I thought the Atlantic editors had suddenly seen the light and wanted their readers to know about the evils of the harsh nursing home confinements recently ordered by governors-turned-dictators in states like New York and New Jersey.

But no. The Atlantic was only showcasing a spiteful sermon from the rabbi about some obnoxious people - Trump supporters or similar unworthies, I assume - who, it was said, were claiming that COVID19 wasn't really so bad if it only killed old people, who after all were going to die soon anyway.

I don't know of any real people who said such things - not that facts would have mattered to the Atlantic. What I do know - and what the Atlantic's Rabbi Held never mentioned - is that officials like Governor Andrew Cuomo, to the applause of the propagandists, forced old people into crowded nursing homes where they were isolated from friends and relatives, forbidden to leave, told they were surrounded by a deadly disease they could not escape, and otherwise either neglected or "helped" by terrified attendants dressed in space suits - a grotesque scenario that could only have added to their sense of danger and hopelessness.

Not surprisingly, many of those inmates died.

Now that's cruelty.

I'm still hearing stories of people who have not been allowed to visit elderly relatives for months on end; many of us have friends or acquaintances who were prevented from saying goodbye to a dying friend or cousin or grandparent or uncle. This is taken almost for granted nowadays.

Some of the stories I hear are even worse. One man reports being told that his aged mother, a patient last spring at a crowded New York hospital, would not be treated for her COVID19 infection as a matter of "hospital policy" because she had signed a "do not resuscitate" order: since the hospital staff didn't know how to treat COVID19, a nurse told him, they were treating her illness as terminal.

In other words, they would let the old woman die even if they believed that giving her oxygen could save her life.

A policy like that - if indeed it existed - violated New York law. And when propagandists point to the high death rates at those New York hospitals in March and April as "proof" of the dangers of the coronavirus, I can only wonder how many of the patients they have in mind were killed not by an infection but by medical malpractice.

And what about reports - this time not from patients' relatives but from a medical professional with first-hand experience - that another New York "hospital policy" involved excessive use of ventilators, likely resulting in damage to the patients' lungs and possibly hastening their deaths?

The propagandists never mention this; such things, too, are taken for granted.

And these people have the nerve to complain about "cruelty toward the elderly"? If you ask me, they should be giving lessons on the subject.

I'll say it again: I know that lots of younger people are being tortured too. If you want evidence of how bad things really are - and from the horse's mouth - take a look at this sadistic effusion in the Atlantic's February 4 issue, from a woman who watched her husband suffer:

At about 2am on Thursday morning, I woke to find my husband shivering beside me. For hours, he had been tossing in bed, exhausted but unable to sleep, nursing chills, a fever, and an agonizingly sore left arm. His teeth chattered. His forehead was freckled with sweat.

A cautionary tale about the ravages of the "deadly virus"? That's what it would have been if the poor man had tested positive for COVID19 six months earlier. But now her spouse's torment is the cue for a flood of joyous propaganda:

[A]s I lay next to him, cinching blanket after blanket around his arms, I felt an immense sense of relief. All this misery was a sign that the immune cells in his body had been riled up by the second shot of a COVID-19 vaccine, and were well on their way to guarding him from future disease.

Ah, the innocence of ideological purity! For the Atlantic apparatchik, her husband's "misery" meant "an immense sense of relief," just as being burned alive in a bombed building in 1941 moved a British Communist Party member to bless Joe Stalin (as related years later by her friend Teddy Prager):

Isn't it nice to know that indoctrination still works? Long live Pfizer! Long live experimental drugs and human guinea pigs! Hurray for Joe Biden! Who cares what happens to my husband, so long as the corporate bosses and mask-maniacs and police-state enthusiasts get everything they want?

So yes, every detail of this sinister farce is ugly. But the lockdown-lovers have always claimed to be driven by particular solicitude for the aged. And so it is especially disgusting to watch them lie to old ladies in order to make them submit to dangerous drugs, after terrorizing them for a solid year with fictions intended to leave them more vulnerable to the next round of fraud.

And let's not mince words: fraud is the right name for what they've done to my mother (and so many others). The evidence of all-cause mortality figures in the US (and elsewhere) demonstrates clearly enough that COVID19 has had no significant impact on medical death rates, at least since last summer.

On top of that, a study conducted by several prestigious scientists, chaired by the estimable John Ioannidis, recently concluded that the drastic lockdowns imposed in 2020 did not stem the spread of the virus any better than far milder measures would have done. There is no COVID19 emergency - and if there ever was, which is doubtful, the hysterical official response did more harm than good.

And yet most of the United States still languishes - illegally - under quasi-dictatorial rule, with the acquiescence of mainstream media, which apparently never thought ordinary people should be allowed to control their own lives in the first place. One result of this coup (the only accurate word for it) was the election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, engineered in significant part through dishonest COVID19 reporting, and spurred by mail-in voting procedures that almost certainly would not have been approved by the legislative processes required by the relevant state constitutions.

But don't expect any outrage about this political chicanery from the people who regularly denounce illiberal government in places like China or Venezuela. Representative democracy was largely scrapped in the US a year ago, so it just doesn't matter that the presidential voting system was illegally altered in order to promote a Democratic victory - just as it doesn't matter that the mainstream media produced a torrent of worthless claims about Trump's "mishandling" of the virus in order to make voters blame him for 200,000 deaths as they cast their ballots.

Mention these facts and you are a "conspiracy theorist." Pretend not to know them and you are "following the science."

And what if you happen to care about the welfare of elderly people - or of children, whose vulnerability has always been supposed to entitle them to special consideration? Well, if you take your cues from coronavirus propaganda, there's only one right way to treat both groups: cynically exploit them so as to spread the fear porn as thickly as possible.

Consider, for example, a bizarre January "news" story in which children in California were described making tearful apologies to their grandparents as the latter died, allegedly from COVID19, in off-limits hospital rooms.

The "experts" and the reporter just knew those kids must have infected their elders after attending a Thanksgiving or Christmas party. True, there's little real evidence that children function as contagious carriers of COVID19, let alone that any have actually passed the infection to an elderly relative. But why let facts get in the way of cruelty? The kids had to learn a lesson: enjoying an innocent holiday celebration meant killing off Granny.

No one in mainstream media challenged that piece of cynical sadism, as far as I know - just as no one challenged the claims of California "health" officials during the same period that the state was experiencing death tolls from COVID19 of over 400 per day. (In fact, for the week ending January 9, the putative daily death tolls for the state edged closer to 500.)

But was that even true?

According to the all-cause mortality figures shown on the CDC website, during the weeks ending January 2 and January 9 there was a total of 8,958 deaths in California, as compared with a total of 11,761 deaths during the same period a year earlier, before any "pandemic" was declared.

In other words, during the same period when California "experts" were screaming about 400-500 extra deaths each day from a disease that presumably wasn't killing anyone the previous January, the total number of deaths actually decreased by an average rate of 200 per day as compared with the same period a year earlier.

To square California's claimed coronavirus deaths with those facts, we would probably have to suppose that heart disease, cancer, traffic deaths, diabetes and so on were all so drastically reduced in California that their daily death tolls diminished by more than 600 per day since the previous year.

Yes, miracles do happen, as Forrest Gump reminded us. But the more reasonable interpretation is that the COVID19 horror story California "health" officials were telling us in January was a fiction made out of numbers-juggling. Which is pretty much what the whole "deadly plague" story has been from the start - a combination of alarmist and unscientific "projections," unreliable and over-used tests, arbitrary diagnoses, fear-mongering and politically-driven cause-of-death classifications, which were then fanned to hysteria by power-hungry politicians and a compliant "news" media, not to mention corporate behemoths that stood to gain from the panic.

Our country is being torn apart by measures that the public and its elected representatives have never been permitted to debate, let alone to approve

Can I preserve the principles of civil rights in an era when the very notion of freedom is scoffed at from the headlines of every "liberal" newspaper in the West? I don't know. But I can do my best to ensure that it won't happen with my consent, that I won't be an accomplice in my own victimization

The crimes against us all may continue. I will not contribute to them.

https://off-guardian.org/2021/03/25/old-mortality-how-the-corona-coup-tortures-the-elderly-and-everybody-else/

********************************************

FAT as a Covid factor

As it turns out, we don’t hear much about the dirty little secret that obesity easily killed as many people as mask avoidance — perhaps more. The Washington Examiner’s Brad Polumbo did a deep dive into the issue of weight and Covid deaths and found some shocking correlations.

COVID-19 is much more deadly for the elderly and those with preexisting conditions that weaken the immune system. One of those conditions is obesity. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Adults with excess weight are at even greater risk during the COVID-19 pandemic.” The CDC said that of the roughly 900,000 adult COVID-19 hospitalizations from the start of the outbreak to Nov. 18, 30% were attributed to obesity.

Meanwhile, a new study examining over 150,000 adults across 20 hospitals confirmed that obese people are much more likely to be hospitalized or to die from the virus. Severely obese COVID-19 patients were 61% more likely to die and 33% more likely to face hospitalization than their peers at healthy weights.

This isn’t really “news” in the sense that the CDC had been warning obese people since the beginning of the pandemic that they were at higher risk of serious illness and death. So why did so many obese people ignore the warning?

This alarming pre-pandemic crisis and recent acceleration should be setting off enormous alarm bells. But instead, liberal-leaning media outlets and cultural influencers have glorified obesity and downplayed its health risks.

For example, Cosmopolitan ran a series of magazine covers featuring significantly overweight women under the heading, “This is healthy!”

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2021/03/28/the-politically-incorrect-secret-that-may-have-led-to-thousands-of-covid-deaths-n1435529

****************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS -- Daily)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

Posted by JR at 7:10 PM 0 comments

Sunday, March 28, 2021

Non-invasive suport for COVID breathing difficulties

The treatment of COVID patients can create its own difficulties and problems. A treatment that is now avaiable reduces some of those difficulties: Helment ventilation. The study below shows that it can be used with no loss of efficacy

Effect of Helmet Noninvasive Ventilation vs High-Flow Nasal Oxygen on Days Free of Respiratory Support in Patients With COVID-19 and Moderate to Severe Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure

Domenico Luca Grieco et al.

Question: Among patients admitted to the intensive care unit with COVID-19–induced moderate to severe hypoxemic respiratory failure, does early continuous treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation increase the number of days free of respiratory support at 28 days as compared with high-flow nasal oxygen?

Findings: In this randomized trial that included 109 patients, the median number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days was 20 days in the group that received helmet noninvasive ventilation and 18 days in the group that received high-flow nasal oxygen, a difference that was not statistically significant.

Meaning: Among critically ill patients with moderate to severe hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19, helmet noninvasive ventilation, compared with high-flow nasal oxygen, resulted in no significant difference in the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days.

Abstract

Importance: High-flow nasal oxygen is recommended as initial treatment for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and is widely applied in patients with COVID-19.

Objective: To assess whether helmet noninvasive ventilation can increase the days free of respiratory support in patients with COVID-19 compared with high-flow nasal oxygen alone.

Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized clinical trial in 4 intensive care units (ICUs) in Italy between October and December 2020, end of follow-up February 11, 2021, including 109 patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemic respiratory failure (ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ≤200).

Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to receive continuous treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation (positive end-expiratory pressure, 10-12 cm H2O; pressure support, 10-12 cm H2O) for at least 48 hours eventually followed by high-flow nasal oxygen (n = 54) or high-flow oxygen alone (60 L/min) (n = 55).

Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days after enrollment. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who required endotracheal intubation within 28 days from study enrollment, the number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 28, the number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 60, in-ICU mortality, in-hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, 60-day mortality, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay.

Results: Among 110 patients who were randomized, 109 (99%) completed the trial (median age, 65 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 55-70]; 21 women [19%]). The median days free of respiratory support within 28 days after randomization were 20 (IQR, 0-25) in the helmet group and 18 (IQR, 0-22) in the high-flow nasal oxygen group, a difference that was not statistically significant (mean difference, 2 days [95% CI, −2 to 6]; P = .26). Of 9 prespecified secondary outcomes reported, 7 showed no significant difference. The rate of endotracheal intubation was significantly lower in the helmet group than in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (30% vs 51%; difference, −21% [95% CI, −38% to −3%]; P = .03). The median number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation within 28 days was significantly higher in the helmet group than in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (28 [IQR, 13-28] vs 25 [IQR 4-28]; mean difference, 3 days [95% CI, 0-7]; P = .04). The rate of in-hospital mortality was 24% in the helmet group and 25% in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (absolute difference, −1% [95% CI, −17% to 15%]; P > .99).

Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemia, treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation, compared with high-flow nasal oxygen, resulted in no significant difference in the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days. Further research is warranted to determine effects on other outcomes, including the need for endotracheal intubation.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778088?utm_source=silverchair&utm_campaign=jama_network&utm_content=covid_weekly_highlights&utm_medium=email

******************************************

Media Cartel Bill Is Bait and Switch to Strangle Conservative Outlets

The Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JPCA) is a bait-and-switch attempt that claims to help conservative news sources but would instead purge them from the marketplace of ideas, and Congress should reject it for the freedom-killer it is.

JCPA would give media companies—broadcast and print—an exemption from federal antitrust laws, so they can operate in a coordinated fashion to negotiate prices that social media companies like Facebook would have to pay them to carry their content. It would ensure that these tech billionaires would have to direct some of their riches into content providers.

But that’s a Big Boys’ game where the major players could decide who to let into their club. Smaller outlets would be left out in the cold, and the market would suffer.

This is because almost all of the Big Boys are liberal. For print, there’s The New York Times and The Washington Post. For video content providers, you have the networks, CNN, and MSNBC. The twin star performers owned by News Corp—Fox News Channel and the Wall Street Journal—are some of the only ones to the right of the 50-yard line.

The bill’s supporters say it would help small, conservative outlets like the one you’re reading now. No chance. I talk almost daily with friends on Capitol Hill, and I heard from them the names of a couple of hard-charging right-wing outlets who were supposed to be the beneficiaries of this legislation. But then I talked with the CEO of one of those companies and found out that no one had approached him on this bill before it was rolled out. (And for that matter, he opposes it.)

Aside from having done thousands of interviews over the past half-century, I used to be part owner of some radio stations and know how the media industry works. The reality is this: Media companies prefer cartels and monopolies, just like many other businesses.

This provides them a chance to have one without the lean and hungry conservative happy warriors. Offer a bill with the sales pitch that it will protect those citizen journalists, then have the big dogs circle the wagons on terms that the social giants must meet for huge corporations, but then keep those citizen journalists outside the circle.

That’s what this is—a classic bait and switch. News Corp would be fine under the JCPA and with it all of that company’s conservative voices. But there are as many moderates at Fox News and the Wall Street Journal as there are conservatives and more than a few liberals. Facebook couldn’t turn those outlets away, but that company might be the only right-of-center media company at that level. It would effectively give Fox and the Journal a monopoly on news that is not hard-left, which means that “conservative” would be whatever the Murdoch family says it means. People who get all their news from social media—and there’s an increasingly high number of those—would never hear voices like the ones who they are accustomed to reading at this outlet.

So JCPA would allow the liberal big media company to have a cartel with only one non-liberal company. All the plucky, intrepid conservative outlets could form their own cartel, but it would make up such a small slice of the media pie that social media could ignore them altogether.

If Facebook has to negotiate on a rate to carry news from outlets that are stridently conservative, they would just let the conservative outlets name a price—any price—agree to that price per piece, then rarely or never take any of their pieces. In theory, everything is okay because they have an agreement, but the big tech titans would just never pick up any content under the agreement.

https://townhall.com/columnists/kenblackwell/2021/03/24/media-cartel-bill-is-bait-and-switch-to-strangle-conservative-outlets-n2586809

********************************************

IN BRIEF

"Absolute power grab": Democrats' election overhaul extends far beyond ballot box (Washington Times)

Benefiting from chaos: Insurance companies, reaping shareholder benefits from protests, get in line with Black Lives Matter (Free Beacon)

Who actually wears the pants: White House elevates VP with "Biden-Harris Administration" directive in public communications (Washington Times)

Friendly fire: Democrat breaks with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on push to overturn Iowa election (Examiner)

GOP mounts defense against DC statehood as bill gets House hearing (Examiner)

Sidney Powell, who totally missed the forest for the trees, seeks dismissal of Dominion lawsuit (The Hill)

U.S. Treasury sanctions two top Chinese officials for "serious human rights abuses" of Uyghur Muslims (Daily Caller)

What a novel idea: Army pulls the pin on "gender-neutral" combat fitness test, creates separate tiers for men and women (Washington Times)

America last: Americans wait for COVID vaccines as U.S. commits millions of doses for neighboring countries (Fox News)

The data shows lockdowns end more lives than they save (NY Post)

Morgan Stanley requests employees fulfill "diversity" quota in job application process (Daily Wire)

Deloitte tells employees "microaggressions" are considered a punishable offense (Daily Wire)

Forty-five black intellectuals demand Smith College apologize to workers wrongly accused of "racial profiling" (National Review)

Policy: Earmarks represent corruption, waste, and The Swamp. Keep the ban in place. (Daily Signal)

On second thought... Majority of voters now want to finish Trump's wall as crisis intensifies (Washington Times)

Administration expelled just 13% of nearly 13,000 family members in past week (Axios)

Non compos mentis: Biden still hasn't nominated commissioner for agency that oversees the border (Examiner)

Montana governor understandably threatens legal action if feds fly migrants from southern border (Examiner)

BLM anarchists mob store in Rochester, New York, trapping 100 customers inside (Daily Wire)

Church of England may impose ethnic quota for clergy (Disrn)

Pandemic unemployment benefits fraud could top $200 billion (Fox Business)

Policy: The everything bubble: How a debt-driven economy creates more frequent crises (Mises Institute)

Double standards: Press Secretary Jen Psaki's sister gets cushy government job despite Biden's "no family members" pledge (National Pulse)

Once held hostage by teachers unions, West Virginia just passed the nation's broadest Education Savings Account program (The Federalist)

As predicted, a significant 5.6 percentage point increase in homeschooling rates in Fall 2020 (Census.gov)

Virginia, with second-most executions, outlaws death penalty (AP)

Workers file 684,000 jobless claims, fewest since the pandemic began (NY Post)

Illinois state senator who sponsored "no cash bail" law upset that man who threatened him with a gun was released on $,1500 "affordable bail" (TTAG)

Kamala Harris to discuss "empowering women" with womanizer Bill Clinton (White House Dossier)

Policy: Abolish the corporate income tax (City Journal)

Bump stocks not "machine guns" and not subject to ATF ban, federal appeals court rules (Washington Times)

Arkansas dignifies women, bans biological men from female sports (UPI)

Washington state to automatically restore voting rights for people on parole and probation (Axios)

San Francisco school board, which wasn't satisfied with her attempts to make amends, strips VP's title after anti-Asian tweets surface (Fox News)

Irony: Abe Lincoln statue vandalized by Black Lives Matter activist in Boise, Idaho (Daily Wire)

USC reaches $852 million sex abuse settlement involving former doctor and 710 female victims (UPI)

High school cancels teacher after she accurately disputes cause of George Floyd death during class (Disrn)

Parler says it repeatedly warned FBI about violence planned for January 6 (Daily Caller)

****************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS -- Daily)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

March 20, 2021

COVID: How the Loss of the Outer Circle Has Changed Community

What has happened to our extended network of workplace peers and what you can do about it

As we approach a year since the initial lockdowns, we are beginning to register and process the effects of pandemic-induced lifestyle changes. Most analyses of the digital workplace either cite the feeling of being “Zoomed out” or celebrate the benefits of working from home. These points are valid, but I fear we may be missing the forest for the trees.

A recent article in The Atlantic examined the way relationships have changed in the wake of the pandemic, particularly how different types of relationships have adapted to an online world. In the last 12 months we have worked hard to stay connected with our close, inner circle of friends and loved ones; but many of us have lost the outer circle, the peripheral relationships. The Atlantic article describes these relationships as “the guy who’s always at the gym at the same time as you, the barista who starts making your usual order while you’re still at the back of the line, the co-worker from another department with whom you make small talk on the elevator.”

Zooming in (pun intended) on the peripheral relationships in our workplaces encourages us to think about how engagement has changed in those workplaces. Early in the pandemic, the Davenport Institute hosted a webinar with Engaging Local Government Leaders on “work from home” best practices. We explored tips on intentionally maintaining a balance of social and professional interaction given the loss of break room conversations. Some of those engagement mechanisms included socially distanced walking meetings and virtual book clubs. While those are helpful, they are limited to the inner circle in the workplace i.e. the immediate team.

But what about everyone else?

A focus on the inner circle in every type of relationship has adversely affected not only engagement within the workplace but also community building outside the workplace. I am close to my supervisor and direct reports, but I can count on one hand the relationships I have fostered across departments which have grown into friendships.

Organic social interactions in the breakroom or hallway provide a respite in an otherwise busy work environment. Those interactions are often the time gaps that allow us to get to know our colleagues beyond their title and responsibilities. There is no digital equivalent, but there are ways in which we can seek to regain peripheral relationships while working from home.

To reestablish the outer circle, we must first recreate the environments which foster the peripheral relationships. For example, arriving to Zoom calls early is the digital equivalent of walking into a meeting room early and chatting about the weekend. If the meeting group is small enough, allowing team members to stay unmuted creates a digital openness to chime in with thoughts without the awkwardness of unmuting then waiting to be called upon. Zoom background themes for meetings could service as the jumping off point for casual conversation on favorite foods or dream vacations.

While it is impossible to fully recreate digitally what was lost during the shift to online, there is still hope for rebuilding some of the outer circle. The first step is to acknowledge that there was an outer circle and that it is now missing. Next, we must seek ways to recreate the environments which fostered those relationships and allow ourselves a social break from the litany of emails and Zoom meetings. Who knows, we may even make new work friends while working from home.

https://catalyst.independent.org/2021/03/09/how-the-loss-of-the-outer-circle-has-changed-community/

******************************************

Russia, not China, tried to influence 2020 election, says US intel community

The Russian punching bag again

Russia’s government tried to seed the 2020 US presidential campaign with “misleading or unsubstantiated allegations” against then-candidate Joe Biden through allies of former President Trump and his administration, US intelligence officials said on Tuesday.

The assessment was made in a 15-page report into election interference published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. It underscores allegations that Trump’s allies were playing into Moscow’s hands by amplifying claims made against Biden by Russian-linked Ukrainian figures in the run up to the November 3 election.

Biden defeated Trump and took office on January 20.

“We assess that Russian President Putin authorised, and a range of Russian government organizations conducted, influence operations aimed at denigrating President Biden’s candidaccy and the Democratic Party, supporting former President Trump, undermining public confidence in the electoral process, and exacerbating sociopolitical divisions in the US,” the report stated.

US intelligence agencies found other attempts to sway voters, including a “multi-pronged covert influence campaign” by Iran intended to undercut Trump’s support. The report also punctures a counter-narrative pushed by Trump’s allies that China was interfering on Biden’s behalf, concluding that Beijing “did not deploy interference efforts.”

“China sought stability in its relationship with the United States and did not view either election outcome as being advantageous enough for China to risk blowback if caught,” the report said.

US officials said they also saw efforts by Cuba, Venezuela and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah to influence the election, although “in general, we assess that they were smaller in scale than those conducted by Russia and Iran.”

US intelligence agencies and former Special Counsel Robert Mueller previously concluded that Russia also interfered in the 2016 US election to boost Trump’s candidacy with a campaign of propaganda aimed at harming his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton.

The Russian, Chinese and Cuban Embassies in Washington did not immediately return messages seeking comment. The Iranian mission to the United Nations and the Venezuelan Ministry of Information also did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Moscow, Beijing and Tehran routinely deny allegations of cyberespionage and subterfuge.

The new report said Putin knew of and “probably directed” the election interference efforts. As an example, Putin “had purview over the activities of Andriy Derkach,” a Ukrainian lawmaker who played a prominent role in the effort and has ties to Russian intelligence, the report said.

“We assess Russian leaders preferred that former President Trump win re-election despite perceiving some of his administration’s policies as anti-Russia. We have high confidence in this assessment,” the report stated.

A key role was also played by a second man with Russian intelligence ties, Konstantin Kilimnik, according to the report. Kilimnik and Derkach met with and gave materials to Trump-linked people to push for formal investigations, and Derkach released four audio recordings to try to implicated Biden in corruption, it said.

That refers to conversations that right-wing figures in the United States cited as evidence that Biden tried to protect his son Hunter from a probe in Ukraine.

Kilimnik was an associate of Paul Manafort, who served as Trump’s 2016 campaign chairman. Trump last year pardoned Manafort for a criminal conviction that stemmed from Mueller’s investigation.

Russian agents also tried to “phish” employees of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, “likely in an attempt to gather information related to President Biden’s family,” it said. Hunter Biden had served on Burisma’s board.

As in the 2016 election, the Russian so-called troll factory formerly known as the Internet Research Agency pushed disparaging stories on social media about Biden and Democrats and complained about censorship by the tech companies, the report said. It also sought to exacerbate US divisions on racial justice issues, the report said.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/russia-not-china-tried-to-influence-2020-election-says-us-intel-community-20210317-p57bd1.html

****************************************

IN BRIEF

ChiCom Virus begets new high in perceptions of China as U.S.'s greatest enemy — as it should (Gallup)

"China-backed Confucius Institute rebrands to avoid scrutiny." —Free Beacon

DHS says illegal crossings are on pace to hit 20-year high (Daily Caller), but President Joe "Open Border" Biden says he has no plans to travel to the southern border (Fox News)

These deaths are on Biden's hands: Eight illegals killed in another horrific car crash near Mexican border (Disrn)

FBI: Christmas bomber in Nashville was driven by paranoia and acted alone (Disrn)

Blue states move to tax PPP loans, collect millions from small businesses that were (and still are) unfairly hamstrung by shutdown-happy Democrats (Just the News)

Quid pro quo: Of the top 20 states getting "COVID" bailout money, 13 voted for Biden (FEE)

Retail sales suffer big chill in February amid stormy weather (NPR)

Eight killed in metro Atlanta spa shooting spree (AJC)

And oh, by the way, two New York black teens set mentally ill white man on fire (Daily Wire)

Grammy ratings hit lowest of low: Only 8.8 million tune in vs. 19 million last year (Daily Wire)

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam restores voting rights for 69,000 Democrat-leaning ex-felons (Axios)

"Hiking has a diversity problem. These BIPOC groups are working to fix it." —Los Angeles Times

Policy: America and Brexit Britain: Time for an economic alliance? (Heritage Foundation)

Policy: The U.S.-Chinese rivalry is a battle over values (Foreign Affairs)

President Unity blocks press access at the border, constructs false narratives (Washington Times)

Trump vindicated: Judge rules Michigan secretary of state violated election laws (PJ Media)

Addendum: "Months after Trump complaints, some courts are finding irregularities in 2020 elections." —Just the News

Georgia deputy secretary of state outed as source of fake Trump quotes in WaPo story (Bongino.com)

Twenty-one states sue Biden to overturn the ridiculous canceling of Keystone XL pipeline (Daily Wire)

RIP, Tea Party: House Republicans drop decade-long opposition to earmarks (Examiner)

It sure looks like Joe Biden lied about his tax plan (National Review)

Political theater: House passes bill to award Congressional Gold Medals to Capitol police (Roll Call)

CNN hemorrhaging viewers since Trump left office, down nearly 50% in key measurables (Fox News)

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam signs law to expand abortion coverage "without limits" on taxpayer dime (Disrn)

Judges pacify Planned Parenthood, block Indiana's parental consent requirement for abortion (Disrn)

Preemption winning streak continues for gun advocates: Judge strikes down Boulder's AR-15 ban (Free Beacon)

Texas to forgive $29 million in electricity bills after historic winter storm (Disrn)

"Mistakes made": DHS chief admits release of untested illegal immigrants into communities (Washington Times)

Biden says May 1 deadline to pull troops from Afghanistan will be "tough" to meet (AMN)

Ford plans to move new vehicle construction from Ohio to Mexico (The Hill)

IRS announces extension of filing deadline to May 17 (The Hill)

Americans are spending their Joe "Buy a Shotgun" Biden stimulus on guns (Forbes)

Policy: What the U.S. must do to beat China (National Review)

Policy: Would Biden's tax hike really spare the middle class? Nope (AEI)

Unity! Lefty lawmaker acknowledges Democrats will exploit procedural tactic to pass massive infrastructure bill without Republicans (Daily Caller)

Radical leftist Deb Haaland confirmed 51-40 as interior secretary (ABC News)

Trump's exit from the world stage led to a network ratings bloodletting (Daily Caller)

"Incredible potential to taint the jury pool": Defense in Derek Chauvin trial asks judge to delay the trial following $27 million settlement (AP)

Columbia University joins 75-some schools hosting segregated graduation ceremonies (Daily Wire)

Policy: Border crisis: Incompetence or part of the president's plan? (Daily Signal)

Policy: How to end Biden's fake climate apocalypse (American Spectator)

****************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

Posted by JR at 8:22 PM 0 comments

Misinformation about COVID-19 vaccinations

With more than 85 million people across the globe now fully vaccinated against COVID-19, suggestions that the jab may be causing death among some populations have quickly spread online, undermining inoculation efforts.

Claims that a number of elderly people died as a result of the jab in Norway, for instance, have been debunked by the country's health officials, who said the deaths were likely to be coincidental.

Vaccines not more dangerous to Israelis than COVID-19

With nearly half of its population fully vaccinated, Israel has fast become a world leader in the effort to inoculate its citizens against COVID-19.

But on social media and misinformation-spreading news websites, claims that the vaccine may be more dangerous than the disease itself have also gained traction.

One such "news" story, sent to Fact Check by a concerned reader, suggests that the Israeli health ministry had warned that the Pfizer vaccine had killed more people than the disease itself.

"New analysis from the Israeli Health Ministry concluded Pfizer's COVID vaccine killed 'about 40 times more (elderly) people than the disease itself would have killed' during a recent five-week vaccination period," reads an article published by Children's Health Defense, a site which has been accused of promoting "pseudo-science".

The story further claims that the Pfizer vaccine led to the death of "260 times more younger people than would have died from the virus".

An investigation by fact checkers at Health Feedback, however, found that data published by the Israeli health ministry "actually points to the vaccine reducing the likelihood of dying from COVID-19, in both the young and the old".

"The data showed that the majority of COVID-19 deaths in vaccinated people occurred in those who had received only one dose," Health Feedback reported.

"This isn't as unexpected as the post claimed, as these people hadn't fully developed immunity and were still as vulnerable to COVID-19 as unvaccinated people."

The findings may not be surprising to those familiar with Children's Health Defense, which was given a low trustworthy rating by Media Bias/Fact Check, a website dedicated to cataloguing media bias and deceptive news practices.

"Overall, we rate the Children's Health Defense a strong conspiracy and quackery level advocacy group that frequently promotes unsupported claims," the website concluded.

In the UK, reports that more than 400 people have died following a COVID-19 jab are missing some crucial context, fact checkers at Reuters and Full Fact have noted.

Under the UK Government's "Yellow Card" scheme, information on suspected side effects and adverse reactions to medicines is collected and monitored by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), including those related to COVID-19 vaccines.

According to the latest Yellow Card report, a total of 508 people have died following a COVID-19 vaccine in the UK. But that doesn't mean the vaccine caused their deaths.

According to the MHRA, the reported adverse events following a COVID-19 vaccine are not always a proven side effect of the jab, and some events "may have happened anyway, regardless of vaccination".

"A high proportion of people vaccinated in the vaccination campaign so far are very elderly, many of whom will also have pre-existing medical conditions," the agency notes in its report.

"Older age and chronic underlying illnesses make it more likely that coincidental adverse events will occur, especially given the millions of people vaccinated."

Full Fact also noted that the MHRA has asked for any suspicions about adverse effects to be reported, "even if the person reporting it is not sure that it was caused by the vaccine".

"This means that many suspected [adverse reactions] reported 'do not have any relation to the vaccine or medicine and it is often coincidental that they both occurred around the same time'," Full Fact said.

In a similar misunderstanding of correlation and causation, a claim that a Japanese woman died of a brain haemorrhage in the days after receiving a Pfizer vaccine has been debunked by AFP Fact Check.

According to the fact checkers, posts spread online showed a portion of a news report on the woman's death, but failed to include the section of the report in which experts clarified that no link had been established between the woman's death and the vaccine.

As pointed out by AFP Fact Check, the missing section of the news report reads: "[A Japanese health official] clarified that the vaccine was not linked to the brain haemorrhage of the senior citizen who died, because this is a common cause of death for people within the 40 to 60 age group."

An official Japanese Government report also "does not implicate Pfizer-BioNTech's Covid-19 vaccine in the death", the fact checkers added.

World famous boxer not vaccine victim

When boxing great Marvelous Marvin Hagler died this week, aged 66, rumours swirled that a COVID-19 vaccine had caused his death.

But that wasn't the case, according to Hagler's widow, Kay G Hagler. "I was the only person close to him until the last minute, and I am the only person that know [sic] how things went not even his family know all the details," Ms Hagler wrote on Facebook. "For sure [it] wasn't the vaccine that caused his death".

Did 80% of the crew of Australian warship fall ill after COVID jabs?

A Facebook post claiming 80 per cent of the crew of the HMAS Sydney suffered "severe illness" following COVID-19 vaccinations has been rubbished by the Department of Defence.

The post, published by a Facebook group serving the Australian veteran community, also suggested that eight crew members had been admitted to intensive care after receiving the jab.

In a statement published in response to questions put forward by Fact Check, the Department of Defence confirmed that the crew had voluntarily received the vaccine, and were encouraged to report to medical personnel if they subsequently felt unwell.

"Several members of HMAS Sydney's crew did present to hospital after hours with mild side effects," the department said. "They were assessed in the emergency department before being released — they were not admitted to hospital. A number of other members also reported mild side effect symptoms that did not require medical care. All symptoms experienced were within the broad range of routine side effects associated with receiving any vaccination."

According to the department, the ship had departed for the US on March 11 with a full crew. "No members of the Ship's company failed to deploy as a result of taking the COVID-19 vaccine.

From Washington, D.C.

Soon after signing the latest COVID-19 relief legislation last week, US President Joe Biden made his first prime time TV address to the nation, while fact checkers watched on closely.

Speaking about COVID-19 vaccines, Mr Biden claimed that two months prior, the country "didn't have nearly enough vaccine supply to vaccinate all, or even near all, of the American public" but soon would.

FactCheck.org found this claim to be missing some crucial context.

"While the Biden administration has increased vaccine orders from the companies with authorised vaccines, the Trump administration had contracts in place for plenty of vaccines for all Americans — provided other vaccines gained authorisations," the fact checkers said.

"And Biden's predecessor also had options to increase orders from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, the first two vaccines to get Food and Drug Administration authorisation."

FactCheck.org also noted that Mr Biden's claim to be on track to deliver on his promise to administer 100 million vaccines in his first 100 days in office was helped along by the former administration.

"The US — even before Biden took office — was virtually already on pace to administer that many additional vaccine doses in his first 100 days."

CNN Facts First, meanwhile, found that while Mr Biden's claim that the US had administered more COVID-19 vaccines than any other country was correct, other nations had inoculated a greater proportion of their populations.

"Fourteen countries including Chile, Israel and the United Kingdom have vaccinated more people per capita," the fact checkers noted.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-19/coronacheck-vaccine-misinformation-debunked/13258256

*******************************************

Mask Mandates Do Not Save Lives

Although some studies have concluded that masks help stop the spread of COVID-19, usually they have failed to replicate real-world situations. A common approach is to evaluate the effectiveness of mask material at stopping the expulsion or intake of the aerosols presumed to be the airborne carriers of the virus. Useful information, perhaps, but at this stage, what we need to know is whether the widespread use of masks is measurably reducing the risk of death from the disease. To continue requiring the use of masks makes sense only if there is compelling data that death rates are lower for people who wear masks than it is for people who do not.

We have no way of measuring whether or how much and how appropriately individuals wear masks, but state mandates that people wear them are predicated on the notion that more people will do so if they are threatened with a fine or punishment. Thus, it makes sense to demand that states with mask mandates have lower COVID-19 death rates than states that don't. If states with mask mandates are not experiencing lower rates than states without them, the citizenry should insist that the burdensome policy of requiring masks be abandoned.

Logic or speculation alone cannot provide a reliable answer to the question of mask effectiveness. Neither can the judgments and proclamations of politicians or even public health experts. What we need is data.

The Data

The Centers for Disease Control maintains a website that reports the total number of people who have died from COVID-19. Updated daily, the table provides the figures for each state and for the country as a whole. The state figures for virus deaths were extracted from this source on or about February 16.

U.S. News and World Report published an article identifying which states have and have not mandated masks. For those states with a mask mandate, the article tells when the mandate was put into effect.

Those three sources provided the raw data for everything that follows. At the end of this article, I will link to a table containing all the data that were extracted from those sources to answer the question of mask effectiveness.

The Study

The question is, "Do states with mask mandates have lower COVID-19 death rates than states with no mandate?" If they do, the enforced wearing of masks may have been a reasonable approach to limiting deaths from COVID-19. Otherwise, the rationale for imposing mask mandates disintegrates. In a similar fashion, states that never imposed a mask mandate can readily justify their behavior only if their COVID-19 death rates do not exceed those of the mask-mandated states.

Only ten states have had no mask mandate of any sort; the other forty imposed mask mandates that required one to be worn at all indoor venues and in all outdoor situations that challenge the six-foot distancing expectation.

Using the data sources above, figures for the total population and the total number of COVID-19 deaths were extracted for each of the fifty states. A COVID-19 death rate was calculated for each state by dividing its number of COVID-19 deaths by its population and then multiplying the result by 10,000. The result was a COVID-19 death rate indicating the number of deaths per 10,000 people. By sorting these individual state rates into two groups — masks mandatory versus masks voluntary — I could calculate the average COVID-19 death rate for each group.

States with a mask mandate: 13.0 deaths per 10,000 population.

States with no mask mandate: 12.6 deaths per 10,000 population.

Since the average COVID-19 death rate is actually lower for the voluntary mask states than it is for the mandated mask states, it is incumbent on advocates for the mask mandate to either reveal the data upon which they arrived at their conclusion or else stop making the claim that masks help keep people safe.

A variant on the theme of mask-mandated safety is the notion that states that adopted a mask mandate early on have lower death rates than the states that did so late. Since the basis of this contention is that a greater length of time under the rule of mask has been an effective way of assuring low death rates, let us compare the performance of the ten earliest mask mandate states to the performance of the ten states that have never required a mask.

The US News & World Report article provided the information on the start dates for mask mandates.

Once again, the notion that masking up keeps us safe receives no support from the data. In fact, the "bottom ten" outperform the "top ten" by a small but noteworthy margin (12.6 deaths per 10,000 versus 13.3 deaths per 10,000). This hints at the possibility that masks actually elevate the death rate. Would anybody care to investigate?

The impotence of mask mandates is particularly sobering since they usually proceed in lockstep with the other mandated actions intended to control the virus: hand-washing, social distancing, and lockdowns. Since all four control tactics are chasing the same goal (stop the spread of the virus), these data revealing the ineffectiveness of masks may suggest that the other three control tactics are less effective than hoped.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/03/mask_mandates_do_not_save_lives.html

****************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

Posted by JR at 12:25 AM 0 comments

Thursday, March 18, 2021

A Study Shows VERY FEW Capitol Hill Rioters Were QAnon Red-Staters With Ties to 'Right-Wing' Groups

A survey by the University of Chicago finds that most Capitol Hill rioters had no ties to any fringe right-wing groups and were merely engaged people outraged by what they believed was a rigged election.

While colorful weirdos with names such as QAnon Shaman and Baked Alaska stole the headlines, people who were arrested by federal officials during and after the riot were a “broader core of people” with a healthy skepticism about the veracity of the November 2020 election, according to the study.

There was plenty of reason for the skepticism, considering the collusion between Big Tech, unions, lawfare, and Democrats’ combined efforts to sway the election. Those efforts were at the very least unethical.

As Time Magazine enthused in an article entitled, “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election,” “there was a conspiracy unfolding behind the [election] scenes” of an “informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans” to “save” the election from Donald Trump.

The handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election–an extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted. For more than a year, a loosely organized coalition of operatives scrambled to shore up America’s institutions as they came under simultaneous attack from a remorseless pandemic and an autocratically inclined President.

[…]Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears"

Rather than being ill-informed, it appears that the Capitol Building rioters may have been better informed than most on these moves to sway the election.

In a “working paper” that is considered to be a “novel approach” to “estimating community-level participation in mass protest events,” Asst. Prof. Austin Wright of the Harris School of Public Policy and David Van Dijcke of the University of Michigan found a surprising number of the people arrested at the Capitol Hill riot who were business owners and other professionals obviously upset over election fraud.

The paper found that those arrested were “more likely to have traveled to the Capitol from Trump-voting “islands,” where residents are surrounded by neighborhoods with higher numbers of Biden supporters.” More than half came from counties that Joe Biden carried.

Though the researchers include the fact that the overwhelming number of people live in Democrat areas, they also highlighted the fact “that proximity to Proud Boy chapters and local levels of engagement with misinformation posted on Parler, the exiled social media platform popular with the far right, are robustly linked to participation in the Capitol rally.”

However, researcher Austin Wright said living in those leftist areas “played a significant role.”

Social isolation and the perception of being threatened by neighboring areas that largely hold opposing political views also played a significant role in who was there.

The researchers also looked at cell phone data such as where in the country Capitol rioters called. Most were in the eastern, central, and southern parts of the country.

Could the cancel culture and being surrounded by people with Trump Derangement Syndrome and other anti-conservatives have helped trigger the attack?

They claimed some of the rioters were on the social media app Parler, though efforts to discover other social media apps used by the people arrested were not noted.

The survey found that approximately 10% percent of the Capitol rioters had a connection with Proud Boys, which they describe as a “hate group,” and Oath Keepers.

Nearly 90% had no ties or right-wing affiliations whatsoever.

And they found out that 85% of the people arrested were business owners or held down white-collar jobs.

WTTW TV reported that researchers hadn’t even needed a “business owner” category before when looking into protest groups. Robert Pape, a political science professor at the University of Chicago, oversaw the study and said the caliber of people at the riot was surprising.

“Normally, we don’t even have a category for ‘business owner’ when we study political violence, so this is a very big sign that we’re dealing with a new political movement with violence at its core that can’t be reduced to the usual suspects.”

President Trump also appealed to a wide variety of Americans from all socio-economic backgrounds. The fact that the rioters were not red-meat, right-wing fanatics threw researchers for a loop. It also forced some reflection by researchers about the people who believe there was election fraud, according to the study.

What we are dealing with here is not merely a mix of right-wing organizations, but a broader mass movement with violence at its core. We need to do more to understand who we are dealing with in the new movement. Targeting pre-2021 far right organizations alone will not solve the problem.

Perhaps they should consider that the 2020 election was seen by half the country as rigged. Election integrity efforts, not name-calling, lawfare, and canceling others who hold politically opposing views, will be key in winning back confidence in the elections process. If Democrats pass HR 1, all bets will be off.

https://pjmedia.com/uncategorized/victoria-taft/2021/03/15/a-study-shows-very-few-capitol-hill-rioters-were-qanon-red-staters-with-ties-to-right-wing-groups-n1430314

******************************************

Joe Biden’s biggest headache seen on US-Mexico border

The mainstream media are beginning to recognize the immigration disaster under Biden. Below is a Reuters dispatch

Almost two months into his presidency, Joe Biden has plenty to feel pleased about. Coronavirus cases in the US have plummeted since the start of the year, the pace of vaccinations has increased dramatically and last week he signed a giant $2.5 trillion economic recovery package into law.

But one issue is fast becoming a major vulnerability for the US President, in terms of both policy and politics: immigration. A surge in migrants trying to cross from Mexico into the US at the southern border has given Republicans an opening to go on the attack against the new administration.

A Honduran man seeking asylum in the United States wears a shirt that reads, “Biden please let us in,” as he stands among tents that line an entrance to the border crossing in Tijuana, Mexico.

According to Biden’s Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, US officials soon expect to encounter more more individuals at the south-west border than they have in the past 20 years.

US Border Patrol agents apprehended nearly 100,000 migrants at the US-Mexico border in February, and that number is expected to balloon in March. An estimated 5000 people are now being apprehended at the border each day.

The number of apprehensions was already increasing steadily during the final months of the Trump presidency, but has accelerated since Biden’s inauguration. Such a surge was entirely predictable.

After all, Trump was famous for his hardline immigration policies, including his signature pledge to build a wall on the border and his controversial family separation policies. Biden came to power promising a more “fair, orderly and humane” approach, and quickly steps to soften Trump’s tougher policies.

On day one of his presidency, Biden suspended Trump’s so-called “remain in Mexico” rule which requires asylum-seekers trying to enter the US from the southern border to wait in Mexico for their American court hearings.

Crucially, Biden also tweaked emergency restrictions introduced by Trump at the start of the coronavirus pandemic. Under Biden’s changes, unaccompanied minors can now enter the US and, after a short period in detention, live in the community while their immigration claims are processed.

Biden administration officials have insisted that the border is not open, and urged migrants not to try to enter the US right now. But that message isn’t cutting through.

Apprehensions of unaccompanied minors rose by 63 per cent from January to February while family arrivals soared by 168 per cent. Some of the unaccompanied minors apprehended at the border have been as young as six.

Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has made clear he is concerned about the surge and that he believes it has been driven by the change from Trump to Biden.

Children play as people who are seeking asylum in the United States are gathered outside the El Chaparral border crossing in Tijuana, Mexico.

“They see him as the migrant president, and so many feel they’re going to reach the United States,” Lopez Obrador said earlier this month after a meeting with Biden.

“We need to work together to regulate the flow, because this business can’t be tackled from one day to the next.”

Some migrants have even shown up at the border wearing T-shirts, styled in the manner of Biden’s election campaign merchandise, reading: “Biden, please let us in!”

Big increases in the number unaccompanied children pose particular difficulties for immigration officials. Under US law, unaccompanied children are only supposed to remain in immigration detention for three days but that timeframe has proven impossible to stick to with the current influx.

The need to enforce social distancing rules has also made it hard for officials to cope with the surge in arrivals. In recent days, the administration has opened new detention facilities in Texas and enlisted the Federal Emergency Management Agency to help shelter migrant children.

Democrats are happiest when the public is focussed on issues such as education and healthcare. As a rule, it’s good news for conservatives when immigration is in the headlines.

That’s why a slew of Republicans have hot-footed it to the border region in Texas to highlight the issue in recent days.

“It’s more than a crisis, this is a human heartbreak,” Republican House leader Kevin McCarthy said during a visit this week. “This crisis is created by the presidential policies of this new administration. There’s no other way to claim it than a Biden border crisis.”

A YouGov poll released this week found that 52 per cent of Americans approve of Biden’s handling of immigration - significantly below his approval ratings on the pandemic or the economy.

As well as distracting from his achievements, the surge in unauthorised arrivals at the border will limit Biden’s ability to overhaul America’s immigration laws.

Biden wants to provide a pathway to citizenship for the millions of undocumented immigrants living in the US. That would be difficult to achieve at any time, let alone when the migration system is widely perceived to be out of control.

It’s one thing to promise an immigration system that is “fair, orderly and humane”. It’s far more difficult to deliver all three at once, as Biden is quickly learning.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/joe-biden-s-biggest-headache-seen-on-us-mexico-border-20210317-p57bdl.html

************************************************

Trump Vindicated as Judge Rules Michigan Secretary of State Violated Election Laws

A judge in Michigan has vindicated President Trump by ruling that Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, broke state law when she unilaterally changed election rules concerning absentee balloting in the 2020 election. This ruling legitimizes a key claim made by the Trump legal team in its challenges to the 2020 election.

A major change imposed by Benson was loosening the signature verification requirement for absentee ballots. Michigan Court of Claims Chief Judge Christopher Murray ruled that this change violated Michigan Administrative Procedures Act.

The court made the following conclusion:

…nowhere in this state’s election law has the Legislature indicated that signatures are to be presumed valid, nor did the Legislature require that signatures are to be accepted so long as there are any redeeming qualities in the application or return envelope as compared with the signature on file. Policy determinations like the one at issue — which places the thumb on the scale in favor of a signature’s validity — should be made pursuant to properly promulgated rules under the APA or by the Legislature.

Over 3.1 million Michiganders voted by absentee ballot in November. Biden “won” the state by just over 154,000 votes, according to the state-certified results.

Michigan was not the only state where Democrat state officials unilaterally changed election laws, so this ruling certainly raises legitimate doubts whether Biden truly won the election without invalid votes.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/03/17/trump-vindicated-as-federal-judge-rules-michigan-secretary-of-state-violated-election-laws-n1433162

****************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

Posted by JR at 7:23 PM 0 comments

Wednesday, March 17, 2021

No indication AstraZeneca vaccine causes blood clots, says regulator

A number of European nations, including Germany, France, Italy and Sweden, have suspended use of the Oxford/AstraZeneca covid‑19 vaccine over blood clot concerns.

The World Health Organization and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) have both emphasised that there is currently no evidence linking the vaccine to blood clots and recommend that countries continue using it. Emer Cooke, director of the EMA, reiterated in an online press conference today that the agency remains firmly convinced that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh any risks.

Both organisations are performing a thorough analysis of all the available data and the EMA will be making a statement with its conclusions on Thursday 18 March.

Among 17 million people who have received the vaccine in the EU and the UK, 15 cases of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and 22 cases of pulmonary embolism have been reported as of 8 March, AstraZeneca said in a statement on 14 March. DVT is a blood clot in a vein, which has the potential to travel to the lungs, causing a blockage, or what is known as a pulmonary embolism.

“Many thousands of people develop blood clots annually in the EU for different reasons,” the EMA said in a statement. The number of blood clotting incidents in vaccinated people “seems not to be higher than that seen in the general population”.

In Germany, the Paul Ehrlich Institute, which advises the government on covid-19, said it had recommended the temporary suspension of the vaccine following a “noticeable increase” in cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), a blood clot in a major brain vessel, soon after vaccinations.

Germany’s health minister, Jens Spahn, said at a press conference on 15 March that there had been seven reported cases that may be related to CVST out of 1.6 million vaccinations in Germany. Estimates of how many incidences of CVST you might expect in the general population over a year vary from two to five cases per million people to more than 15 cases per million, depending on the study.

“There is absolutely no data that supports [the German government’s] decision,” says César Muñoz-Fontela at the Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine in Germany. He says that older people and people with pre-existing health conditions, who are more at risk of blood clots generally, have been prioritised for the vaccine, which may have skewed the apparent side effects. He would like to see a comparison with a control group that has the same characteristics as the people so far vaccinated.

The International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis recommends that all eligible adults continue to receive their covid-19 vaccinations. “At this time, the small number of reported thrombotic events relative to the millions of administered COVID-19 vaccinations does not suggest a direct link,” it said in a statement.

“In weighing up the merits of a medical intervention, it’s really important to consider both sides of the argument: how risky is it for someone to have it versus how risky is it for them not to,” says Lucy Walker at University College London. “An increased risk of thrombosis is one of the known complications of [coronavirus] infection. The vaccines we have are incredibly good at preventing the illness caused by this virus. They will therefore prevent people from having thrombosis associated with the infection itself.”

The decision to halt use of the vaccine could have wider consequences, Walker adds. One is that it could lower vaccine uptake in general by increasing vaccine anxiety. To get the upper hand with the coronavirus, we also need to vaccinate people as quickly as possible to suppress the evolution of dangerous variants. “To have stocks of a safe, effective vaccine not being used, through an abundance of caution, potentially hinders this mission,” she says.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2271478-no-indication-astrazeneca-vaccine-causes-blood-clots-says-regulator/

******************************************

Italy and France fold over AstraZeneca jabs: Mario Draghi and Emmanuel Macron vow to 'quickly resume' using vaccine

The leaders of Italy and France today committed to 'quickly' resume inoculations of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine once the European regulator gives the all-clear.

Italian PM Mario Draghi and French President Emmanuel Macron appeared to roll the pitch for an imminent climbdown.

On a call the two leaders agreed they were ready to resume using the jab 'quickly' if the European Medicines Agency (EMA) gives the green light on Thursday.

'The preliminary statement today from EMA was positive,' a statement from Draghi's office said.

They are among a host of EU nations to have suspended use of the jab after some people it was administered to suffered blood clotting problems.

Boris Johnson, the UK's medical regulator the MHRA and the World Health Organisation have insisted the vaccine is safe and continues to roll it out at pace.

It comes as a top European Commission official urged EU governments to stop sitting on their vaccine stockpiles as several countries suspended use of the AstraZeneca vaccine amid blood-clotting fears.

Stella Kyriakides, the health commissioner, said the bloc was in a 'race against time' to rollout out of the vaccine or face several more spikes in infections.

The EU has already seen a disastrous rollout of the vaccine across the continent, with just 8 per cent of adult receiving a jab compared to a third in the UK.

There have been supply problems with both the AstraZeneca and Pfizer jabs, but it was revealed earlier that several countries including Germany are sitting on stockpiles.

'Even with the immense and regrettable challenges around production capacity and deliveries, there are reports of unused reservoirs of vaccines across the EU, said Kyriakides following talks with European health ministers.

'We are racing against time and the rollout of vaccination is more than ever key to decrease the number of infected people as much as possible.'

While Italy has used all of its Pfizer jabs, the country still has 250,000 AstraZeneca vaccines that it banned from going to Australia in storage.

According to The Times, there are some 14.2 million jabs (60 per cent) delivered to EU governments that are yet to be used.

Her comments came shortly after the European Union’s medicines regulator said it was still 'firmly convinced' of the benefits of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.

Fourteen European countries including 12 EU members have now suspended their use of the shots altogether - with Sweden joining the list today - while another five have black-listed specific batches and a handful of governments outside Europe have also pulled the emergency brake.

EMA safety experts say a 'very small number of people' have come down with blood disorders but there is 'no indication' that these were caused by the jab, which has already been given to 11 million people in the UK.

'We are still firmly convinced that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine in preventing Covid-19 with its associated risk of hospitalisation and death outweigh the risk of these side effects,' said EMA chief Emer Cooke.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson, UK regulator the MHRA and the WHO have all insisted that the vaccine is safe and that there is no evidence of a link to the sporadic blood clots.

This evening, Health Secretary Matt Hancock reiterated the AstraZeneca was safe and urged people to get it when offered.

'The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is safe, we know that over 10million people have had it in this country. That’s what the British regulator says but also the World Health Organisation and even the European regulator,' he said.

'We keep the effects of these vaccines under review at all times and we know the AstraZeneca vaccine is saving lives right now. So if you get the call, get the jab.'

Italy earlier admitted that its suspension of AstraZeneca jabs was a 'political' move while French doctors accused Emmanuel Macron of 'giving in to panic' and a German lawmaker said the ban could cause a 'catastrophe'.

Germany sought to justify its move by saying that one particular kind of blood clot, a 'sinus vein thrombosis', had occurred seven times among the 1.6million people vaccinated when only around one case would be expected. By contrast, only four such cases have been identified in the UK out of 11million doses administered.

Nicola Magrini, the head of Italian medicines regulator AIFA, said politicians had come under pressure to call off the jabs after Germany and France made similar moves in what one Tory MP described as a 'Brexit sulk'.

In Italy's case, the suspension means around 200,000 fewer vaccinations this week, government sources said, expressing confidence that they could make up for the setback.

'We got to the point of a suspension because several European countries, including Germany and France, preferred to interrupt vaccinations... to put them on hold in order to carry out checks. The choice is a political one,' Magrini said in an interview with La Repubblica.

President Macron has previously undermined the efficacy of the jab, declaring it 'quasi-ineffective' for the over-65s - a position he also later rowed back from.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9368883/Italy-France-fold-AstraZeneca-jabs.html

*************************************

Paralyzed by Fear? Johns Hopkins Doctor Notices Something Peculiar About the COVID Vaccine Guidelines

Dr. Marty Makary of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine was bold in his projection that we’ll have herd immunity by April. This has been disputed by those who are nowhere near his level of expertise when it comes to public health, but I get the pushback since it shreds the Democratic Party’s COVID lockdown regime. In an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, Makary says that we’re underestimating natural immunity and with the pace of vaccinations, we’ll reach that critical benchmark towards reclaiming normality by tax season.

“About 1 in 600 Americans has died of Covid-19, which translates to a population fatality rate of about 0.15%. The Covid-19 infection fatality rate is about 0.23%,” Dr. Makary wrote. With those figures, he estimates that two-thirds of the country has already had the infection. We’re rapidly approaching 100 million vaccinations. It’s not an insane projection, but one he says other health experts are afraid to push for fear of impacting the rate of vaccinations. That’s not their job, he argued. Good health news should be disseminated, not buried. There was pushback, and there will be more when he recently wrote about the vaccine protocols.

The good doctor cited an Israeli study that shows those given the Pfizer vaccine are virtually “bulletproof” four weeks after the first dose. That’s the keyword right there. So, we can be returning to normal if the CDC wasn’t so busy peddling exaggerated threats about the virus and being stricken with fear, which Makary noted with their latest guidelines. Is it ‘follow the science’ or ‘be afraid, be very afraid'?

Get the shot, wait a month, and start rebuilding our lives. That’s fair. That seems to be based on the science, which the CDC might be ignoring. You be the judge (via WSJ):

"Parts of the new guidelines are absurdly restrictive. For example, the CDC didn’t withdraw its advice to avoid air travel after vaccination. A year of prevaccine experience has demonstrated that airplanes aren’t a source of spread. A study conducted for the defense department found that commercial planes have HEPA filtration and airflow that exceed the standards of a hospital operating room.

[…]

An unpublished study conducted by the Israeli Health Ministry and Pfizer showed that vaccination reduced transmission by 89% to 94% and almost totally prevented hospitalization and death, according to press reports. Immunity kicks in fully about four weeks after the first vaccine dose, and then you are essentially bulletproof. With the added safety of wearing a mask indoors for a few more weeks or months—a practical necessity in public places even if not a medical one, since you can’t tell on sight if someone’s immune—there is little a vaccinated person should be discouraged from doing.

On a positive note, the CDC did say that fully vaccinated people who are asymptomatic don’t need to be tested. But that obvious recommendation should have come two months ago, before wasting so many tests on people who have high levels of circulating antibodies from vaccination.

In its guidance the CDC says the risks of infection in vaccinated people “cannot be completely eliminated.” True, we don’t have conclusive data that guarantees vaccination reduces risk to zero. We never will. We are operating in the realm of medical discretion based on the best available data, as practicing physicians have always done. The CDC highlights the vaccines’ stunning success but is ridiculously cautious about its implications. Public-health officials focus myopically on transmission risk while all but ignoring the broader health crisis stemming from isolation. The CDC acknowledges “potential” risks of isolation, but doesn’t go into details.

It’s time to liberate vaccinated people to restore their relationships and rebuild their lives. That would encourage vaccination by giving hesitant people a vivid incentive to have the shots.

Throughout the pandemic, authorities have missed the mark on precautions. Hospitals blocked family members from being with their loved ones as they gasped for air, gagging on a ventilator tube—what some patients describe as the worst feeling in the world. In addition to the power of holding a hand, family members coordinate care and serve as a valuable safety net, a partnership that was badly needed when many hospitals had staffing shortages. Separating family members was excessive and cruel, driven by narrow thinking that focused singularly on reducing viral transmission risk, heedless of the harm to the quality of human life."

He added the mental health issues that have exploded due to the lockdown regime that teachers’ unions, Democrats, and the liberal media ignore. Kids are committing suicide. Anxiety and depression have also spiked among students. Loneliness and isolation are going to be the real ‘long haul’ symptom of this pandemic, which could be alleviated partially if our experts actually gave us advice that wasn’t so covered in crap.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2021/03/15/paralyzed-by-fear-johns-hopkins-doctor-notices-something-peculiar-about-the-cdc-n2586291

************************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

Posted by JR at 5:23 PM 0 comments

Tuesday, March 16, 2021

Even the NYT has noticed the better COVID results in Florida

They say:

"Florida’s death rate is no worse than the national average, and better than that of some other states that imposed more restrictions, despite its large numbers of retirees, young partyers and tourists. Caseloads and hospitalizations across most of the state are down. The tens of thousands of people who died were in some ways the result of an unspoken grand bargain — the price paid for keeping as many people as possible employed, educated and, some Floridians would argue, sane.

“There’s no better place to have spent the pandemic than Miami,” said Patricia García, a freelance writer who moved from New York in 2017. Her 5-year-old daughter has been in school since August. She put her 1-year-old son in day care in July.

Ms. García, a 34-year-old Democrat, said she found herself unexpectedly defending Mr. DeSantis’s policies to her friends up north.

“People here, they’ve been able to work. The kids have been able to go to school,” she said. “We have this reputation in Florida of being all Florida Man and crazyland. But I’d much rather be in Florida than California, New York or Chicago.”

NYT reporter Patricia Mazzei did her best to frame the report with lots of worry over Florida’s neanderthal reopening, but there’s really no getting around the facts that Florida reopened sooner, had fewer restrictions to begin with, and still has a death rate lower than Luv Gov Cuomo’s New York.

https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2021/03/15/insanity-wrap-165-even-the-new-york-times-cant-hide-the-truth-about-florida-and-covid-n1432521

***************************************

$27 Million for George Floyd's Family Isn't Justice

The city of Minneapolis has effectively convicted Derek Chauvin before the trial starts.

We wondered last week whether former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin could expect a fair trial. After the city settled Friday with the family of George Floyd for an astonishing $27 million in a civil rights wrongful death lawsuit, we know the answer: It should be declared a mistrial.

In the aforementioned story, our Douglas Andrews recounted the evidence that Floyd died of something other than Chauvin’s knee — something of his own doing, like an overdose of fentanyl. Yet because Floyd’s death lit the fuse for urban violence that destroyed much of Minneapolis (likely prompting Target to abandon its headquarters there), and because that “mostly peaceful” violence then spread nationwide, the city is effectively convicting Chauvin while fleecing taxpayers to give Floyd’s family what is essentially the winning ticket in the legal lottery.

Perhaps that’s a strident characterization, but what else can you call such an outlandish reward for the tragic and untimely death of a petty criminal, wrongful or not?

“It’s going to be a long journey to justice. This is but one step on the journey to justice,” said family attorney Benjamin Crump. “This makes a statement that George Floyd deserved better than what we witnessed on May 25, 2020, that George Floyd’s life matters, and that by extension, Black lives matter.”

Black lives do matter. George Floyd’s life mattered. But his death ignited a national fiasco of political posturing as morally bankrupt as almost anything we’ve seen.

Back in 2015, the early days of Black Lives Matter as an organizational force, Baltimore settled with the family of Freddie Gray, another petty criminal who died in police custody, for $6.4 million. That was shortly after Eric Garner’s family received $5.9 million from New York City. Last September, Breonna Taylor’s family received $12 million from Louisville for her death, the one-year anniversary of which was Saturday.

In 2015, we noted that settlements like this are typically based on earnings capabilities over the lifetime of the deceased. So where did these cities get such sums? And why are cities settling before the police officers involved even go to trial — heck, before the jury is even selected?

The answer is that this is effectively a form of reparations.

That’s been a buzzword in leftist circles for decades, and they mean it to be a massive transfer of wealth from those who did not perpetrate the crime of slavery to those who were not victims of it. Practically, reparations have been paid in the form of “Great Society” welfare — for more than 50 years. And in some ways, reparations are even a part of the Not COVID Relief bill just signed by President Joe Biden.

Justice has never been an easy thing for humans to mete out. Sadly, this settlement only furthers that sad legacy.

https://patriotpost.us/articles/78415-27-dollars-million-for-george-floyds-family-isnt-justice-2021-03-15

******************************************

Jordan Peterson: The Archetypal Male

“If you think tough men are dangerous, wait until you see what weak men are capable of.” - Jordan Petersen

Fascist. Toxic. Is he left or is he right? To postmodernists, he’s a formidable foe. To ideologues, he’s a mystery. To atheists, he’s a problem. Canadian professor and political commentator Jordan Peterson might be the most significant mind of our day, yet even with high tech mass exposure, most coverage gets him wrong.

At the University of Toronto, Professor Peterson’s rise to fame came with his “here I stand” moment that challenged the change in Canadian law for the mandatory use of gender pronouns. His controversial opinions sparked a flame that attracted considerable attention to his sizable library of lectures on the Internet, everything from Piaget to Pinocchio.

Petersen promotes the hero archetype, or manliness, defined by ancient stories

He derives his project from a deep concern with the direction of Western history, informed by a vast knowledge of philosophy and religion. Where his arguments do take a hard stand is when calling out ideas that contradict nature or dismiss human need. Ideas made destructive by the toxic forces of postmodernism and Marxism.

YouTube gave him a platform from which to reach a generation of males desperate to speak truth back to the growing anti-male, anti-West, anti-family bias. For many, Peterson was a welcomed father figure, who filled a sizable hole left by the culture’s move toward the radical left. His book, "12 Rules for Life" restored their pride with a simple tenet, “Clean your room.”

Peterson passes through America’s divided mind because he operates in multiple worlds at once, organized by what he refers to as “the logos” — truth spoken into creation. The same word is used for Christ in the Gospel of John. Maps of Meaning reflect a triumvirate mind with an uncommon sophistication absent in political thought.

Peterson also travels a path between philosophical nihilism and religious fundamentalism, his penetrating mind a lens focused through Carl Jung’s prism of archetypal story. The story allows for non-partisan, universal, life lesson appeal to all human audiences.

Confusion is caused when the listeners require ideological purity and cordon off spheres in the divided brain: no overlap between conservative and liberal views, or critical thought (academic) and faith, or progress and the fixed natural order. For narrow thinkers his independent mind wreaks havoc.

With the aid of postmodernism, Peterson, the well-trained professor, detects modern cultural ills rampant in the academy today. Not for its challenge or even its suspicion, but for the fact that in the name of deconstructed ideology it joins with Marxism to do just that. Peterson argues the system won’t stand.

Where postmodernism has a helpful role in added perspective, but without the fortitude of positive philosophy, it becomes another political tool to rewrite history, distort gender relations, and break down traditional life, traveled by generations of lived Judeo-Christian souls.

Peterson identifies Marx as a source of the threat, perhaps as equal to the influence of Nietzsche on the Nazis.

In certain hands, Marx becomes political division replacing individual virtue or redemption with suspicion and political power, intending to destroy the role of the male.

Nietzsche warned that the end of Christianity would leave open a door to the very nihilism of which Peterson warns his audience. Postmodernism would tear down the sacred system, and Marxism would serve as the new religion. Peterson warns while we know when the right goes too far, we do not know when the left has reached extremes.

Peterson is a transformational figure, able to separate the contingent from the constant in history. In other words, when reflecting on the West’s philosophical and religious roots or great literature, he knows how not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

He seeks a way to transform the power of logos into a new perspective, able to withstand the radical left. Not escapist religion, as Marx promotes, but the redemption of our present world, one life at a time. Peterson cautions, before you can change the world, you must change yourself. Take responsibility, speak the truth, train your mind, and in doing so you will save the world!

In other words, strive to be the archetypal male.

https://townhall.com/columnists/robertorlando/2021/03/14/jordan-peterson-the-archetypal-male-n2586116

********************************************

IN BRIEF

Judge rules Texas can remove abortion mill Planned Parenthood from Medicaid program (The Hill)

San Francisco's "tent village" program now cost taxpayers more per night than a hotel stay (Disrn)

COVID-19 killed nearly 400,000 people in the U.S. in 2020, making it the third-leading cause of death (Politico)

Novavax reports its COVID vaccine is 96% efficacious (Time)

"Guardian of this city": Tampa police officer dies after steering into path of reckless driver to save others (Disrn)

Policy: Governors, just say no to federal bailouts (Heritage Foundation)

Policy: Biden's climate report is based on personal values, not science (RealClearPolicy)

America was forewarned: Spendthrift Biden planning first major tax hike in nearly 30 years (Disrn)

President Biden deploying FEMA to the overrun border that was self-inflicted (Washington Post)

Cognitive dissonance: Portland mayor looks to refund police as homicides spike (Fox News)

Art of the deal: Trump's 200-plus judicial appointees give Republicans hope to revoke Biden's flood of unconstitutional executive orders (Washington Times)

Federal "COVID" spending just hit $41,870 per taxpayer (FEE)

Double standards: Nancy Pelosi says it's okay to overturn an election if a Republican wins (Post Millennial)

We're Shocked — Shocked! U.S. Army reconsiders "gender-neutral physical test" after most women fail to keep up with men (Daily Wire)

Democrats represent 26 of 27 richest congressional districts (Daily Caller)

40% of small business owners can't fill job openings thanks to Democrat unemployment handouts (FEE)

Road to recovery: American daily travel now exceeding pre-pandemic levels (Disrn) while airports see most air travelers since March 2020 (UPI)

More than 1,000 Baltimore school officials make $100,000 a year as students continue to fail (Daily Wire)

Friendly fire: Democrats Chuck Schumer and Kristen Gillibrand (but not Biden) call for Governor Andrew Cuomo's resignation (The Federalist), though Cuomo remains defiant, saying he won't resign even as 7th accuser comes forward (Disrn)

Target is abandoning its Minneapolis headquarters (FEE)

Policy: Critical Race Theory aims to upend the civic order (Heritage Foundation)

************************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

Posted by JR at 9:07 PM 0 comments

Monday, March 15, 2021

COVID cases: South Africa’s mysterious coronavirus turnaround

Just weeks ago it seemed as if a nation was on the brink of chaos as a new strain tore through its population. Then something wild happened.

It has been a matter of weeks since South Africa was on the verge of a disaster.

Experts had predicted chaos as a new variant of the coronavirus tore through the country of 60 million people at the start of the year, and doctors were bracing for the worst.

The strain — which appeared to be reinfecting people who had recovered from a previous bout of COVID-19 and raised serious questions about an impending vaccination rollout — was infecting nearly 22,000 people a day by the middle of January.

In a sign that health agencies were missing cases, one in three tests taken in January were coming back positive.

Adding to the uncertainty about how the nation would cope, thousands of holiday-makers returned home from their Christmas breaks leading to fears of a number of superspreading events being thrown into the mix.

At the second wave’s peak, on January 19, there were 839 deaths linked to the disease in a single day.

But then, something remarkable happened. The number of new daily cases fell off a cliff and the number of deaths linked to the virus naturally followed.

On the latest count overnight, South Africa recorded just over 1000 new cases and 65 deaths.

The incredible drop in cases and deaths is even more remarkable because it happened without a large-scale vaccination campaign or a strict lockdown.

Now, fewer than 5 per cent of tests are finding traces of the virus and the government has lifted most of its remaining restrictions.

The reason for the monumental turnaround is not clear.

Other nations have seen cases suddenly drop without lockdowns too, but experts are beginning to piece together the reasons for this.

In India, for example, experts have suggested that many parts of the nation have reached herd immunity or that Indians may even have some pre-existing protection from the virus.

With the situation in South Africa, experts have basically thrown their hands in the air and admitted they do not know what has happened.

“Anybody who professes certainty (about why infections started dropping) is lying,” Harry Moultrie, a senior medical epidemiologist at South Africa’s National Institute for Communicable Diseases, told The Wall Street Journal. “There is so much uncertainty in all of this.”

One trait that South Africa shares with other nations that have seen mysterious drop-offs in cases is the limit to its testing capabilities, meaning there is likely to have been a lot more cases than the official figures suggest.

It also took measures to stop the spread, with the government making masks mandatory, closing beaches, enforcing a nightly curfew, stopping large social gatherings and even banning the sale of alcohol.

However, families were allowed to gather for Christmas and New Year, and the restrictions came after tens of thousands of South Africans working in big cities like Johannesburg had already travelled to see family in provinces where COVID-19 case numbers were growing.

The fears of superspreading events occurring as South Africans piled onto tightly-packed buses to return home after their holiday never materialised, and experts are still trying to figure out why.

Herd immunity is one suggestion, despite only about 1.5 million South Africans, around 2.5 per cent of the population testing positive.

The true number is likely to be much higher due to limits to the nation’s testing capacity, but experts have cast doubt over whether it is high enough to point to herd immunity as a reason for such a sudden and uniform drop in cases on a national scale.

Dr Moultrie told The Wall Street Journal scientists were looking at the role of certain networks, or individuals with many social or work contacts, in driving and eventually slowing down localised outbreaks in South Africa.

Another issue experts are looking at globally is whether people are voluntarily making changes to their lifestyles that will reduce the spread of the virus, without the need for government enforcement.

While, experts try to piece the puzzle together in South Africa, the government has declared that the nation’s second wave is over.

President Cyril Ramaphosa said at the end of last month that an evening curfew will remain in place between midnight and 4am, gatherings will be permitted subject to limitations on size and health protocols, and alcohol will be back on sale.

It has opened five international airports, but some land border posts remain closed.

While it remains to be seen what impact this will have on case numbers in the coming weeks, it is clear that the pandemic is far from over on a global scale.

Coronavirus cases are beginning to rise again worldwide, with a number of countries seeing their new infections surging in recent days and weeks.

In particular, Europe is seeing cases soar, with a third wave advancing swiftly across much of the continent.

The total of worldwide cases have been slowly climbing in recent weeks, bringing up the seven-day average.

On February 20, global new cases dropped to their lowest number since the middle of October with 398,366 new cases recorded and a seven-day average of 360,664.

However, on the last count on March 13 new cases had climbed to 492,351 and the seven-day average to 442,494.

Many nations that were badly hit over the northern hemisphere winter like the US for example saw cases sharply drop through February, bur the drop has levelled off since the start of March with a seven-day average of around 61,400 new cases a day.

However, there are many countries where cases are increasing, contributing to the upward curve of daily new cases worldwide.

The infection rate in the EU is now at its highest level since the beginning of February, with the spread of new variants of the COVID-19 virus being blamed for much of the recent increase.

Several countries are now set to impose strict new lockdown measures in the next few days.

Italy is set to reimpose restrictions across most of the country on Monday — a year after it became the first European nation to face a major outbreak.

There, authorities recorded more than 27,000 new cases and 380 deaths on Friday

Schools, restaurants, shops and museums will close with Health Minister Roberto Speranza saying he hoped the measures and vaccination program would allow restrictions to be relaxed in the second half of spring.

France meanwhile has recorded more than 26,000 new cases on the last count overnight. While the figure is a drop from 29,759 the day before, the situation in the nation’s hospitals is worsening.

Those in intensive care units edged higher by 57 to 4127, while emergency resuscitation units were running at nearly 82 per cent capacity, the highest since late November.

The French government has so far resisted pressure from health experts to impose a new, third lockdown in the face of rising case numbers.

Instead it has imposed a 6pm nationwide curfew and weekend lockdowns in two regions struggling to contain outbreaks while big shopping centres have been required to close.

In Poland, 17,260 new daily coronavirus cases were reported on Wednesday, the highest daily figure since November. New pandemic restrictions are likely to be announced this week.

In Germany, 12,674 new infections were reported on Saturday, a rise of 3117 from the previous week, as the head of the country’s infectious disease agency acknowledged that the country was now in the grip of a third wave.

According to John Hopkins University data, the worst affected nations per capita are in eastern and central Europe.

The Czech Republic is being hit the hardest with 1411 cases per one million people.

The country’s case rates have put a massive strain on its public health system – on March 5, the Czech government announced publicly that it had asked Germany, Switzerland and Poland to take in dozens of COVID-19 patients, in order to ease the burden on Czech hospitals that were running out of bed space.

The other worst affected nations include Estonia, Hungary, San Marino and Montenegro.

https://www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/global/covid-cases-south-africas-mysterious-coronavirus-turnaround/news-story/37a576067f5d825b5bc141c90e5fb989

*******************************************

Capital and Labor Both Suffer under Minimum Wage Mandates

President Biden and the Democratic Party have pushed hard to more than double the national minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $15 per hour over the next four years. This aggressive intervention in the functioning of labor markets has been heavily criticized, including in two recent Mises Wire articles. Resorting to both theoretical arguments and results of empirical studies, Robert Murphy and Martin Jones show in a convincing way that such a drastic increase in the minimum wage is bound to have a negative impact on employment and in particular on low-skilled workers. Yet their case focuses primarily on the short-term job losses stemming from such an ill-suited policy. One should not overlook that the minimum wage hike is likely to impair capital accumulation, productivity growth, and future wages as well. It means that this supposedly welfare-increasing measure is actually going to hamper not only employment, but the improvement of standards of living in general.

As Ludwig von Mises wrote in Human Action, wages are set on a free market in accordance with the marginal productivity of the labor services provided. As the types of labor supplied and their performance are very specific, there is no uniform wage rate throughout the economy. In that respect, setting a universal wage rate for the whole economy, even if it is a minimum threshold, doesn’t make sense either. Moreover, once the government or trade unions succeed in imposing a wage level above the marginal productivity of labor, institutional unemployment results. It is hard to imagine how a mandated national minimum wage of $15 per hour would remain below the marginal productivity of all current employees in the US and would not produce additional unemployment. As a matter of fact, the proposed increase would make the US minimum wage the highest among OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries and probably in the world, both in absolute terms and relative to the median wage in the economy. The closer the minimum wage is to the median one, the larger is the probability that lower-productivity workers cannot be hired at an artificially imposed minimum wage level, and will be swallowed by the ranks of the unemployed. The risk of a large increase in unemployment is quite high given that a nonnegligible 19 percent of the wage-earning workforce currently makes less than $15/hour.

Several US states have already imposed higher minimum wages than the national one of $7.25 an hour. Yet none of the state top-ups has reached $15 an hour as of 2021, which means that the negative impact on employment will be felt in the entire country. Nevertheless, states where average wages are lower and which have not gold-plated the national minimum wage yet will be affected most. A cursory look at wage statistics shows large differences between annual median wages among US states. An increase of the minimum wage to $15/hour would be equivalent to an annual minimum wage of about $31,200 (OECD data), representing about 90 percent or more of the 2019 annual median wage in about twelve US states: Florida, Oklahoma, Kentucky, New Mexico, Idaho, Alabama, South Dakota, South Carolina, Louisiana, West Virginia, Arkansas, and Mississippi. This ratio is very high compared to the OECD average of about 55 percent. Seven of the US states have not even gone beyond the mandated national $7.25 per hour minimum wage so far, illustrating how disastrous the effects of this one-size-fits-all measure could be.

Dozens of empirical studies have shown that hiking minimum wages undermines employment opportunities among low-skilled workers and increases unemployment, in particular when the increase is massive like the one proposed by the Democrats. A study by the Congressional Budget Office quoted by both Murphy and Jones estimates that employment would be reduced by 1.4 million by the minimum wage increase while the number of people in poverty would decline by a nine hundred thousand. Yet the negative economic impact would not end with the labor market effects. According to the same study, a higher minimum wage would also “slightly reduce real GDP, primarily because of reduced employment,” redistribute family income, and increase the budget deficit by a cumulative $54 billion over 2021–31. Significant income redistribution would take place from wealthier families that suffer a decline in business income estimated at $333 billion over 2021֪–31 or face higher prices for goods and services to the families of workers that either benefit from higher wages or have lost employment because of the minimum wage hike.

It should not be overlooked that, in addition to the direct rise in institutional unemployment, second-round effects in terms of lower output and real national income and a new redistribution thereof to the benefit of households with a lower propensity to save are likely to impact negatively savings and investment. Although one cannot predict how US families will shape their savings and investment patterns in the future, statistics show that over the last three decades only the two top income quintiles recorded positive saving rates consistently. The average savings of the two bottom income quintiles have been stubbornly negative while the gap between the top and bottom income groups’ savings has actually widened

If past saving trends continue, the contemplated minimum wage hike is likely to depress further the relatively low savings propensity of US households. The latter save only about 8 percent of their disposable income, part of a long-term declining trend since the early 1970s (OECD data). Moreover, this lasting decline has gone hand in hand with a persistent slowdown in private investment, capital accumulation, and labor productivity. It is obvious that the US economy should be spared another government intervention in the form of a massive minimum wage hike which can only reinforce these trends and undercut the rise in standards of living. Moreover, if minimum wages actually depress savings and hamper capital accumulation how could businesses respond to a mandated increase in wages by substituting more machinery for labor, as claimed by certain pundits? With impaired investment and capital stock, this would only be possible in specific cases and not for the overall economy. As a matter of fact, the causality runs in the opposite direction: capital accumulation and technological improvement support higher wages whereas mandatory minimum wages undermine them.

Conclusion

The lasting negative impact of minimum wages not only on employment, but also on standards of living in general, can only be fully grasped by taking into account also their long-term effects on output, capital accumulation and labor productivity. Mises1 understood very well this phenomenon when he claimed that “No one has ever succeeded in the effort to demonstrate that unionism could improve the conditions and raise the standard of living of all those eager to earn wages.”

Like in the case of unionism, the alleged benefits of mandated minimum wages are restricted to a minority of workers who see their wages rise in the short term. For the rest of the society, which must finance this immediate income redistribution and also face lower prospects for higher standards of living in the future, minimum wages are of no benefit at all.

https://mises.org/wire/capital-and-labor-both-suffer-under-minimum-wage-mandates

************************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

Posted by JR at 9:18 PM 0 comments

Sunday, March 14, 2021

Saliva Tests Comparable With Nasal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Detection

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, polymerase chain reaction testing with nasopharyngeal swabs has been the standard diagnostic approach, but the method is uncomfortable and requires a trained health professional. Now, 2 meta-analyses have concluded that self-administered saliva tests are on par with nose and throat swabs for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

The first analysis, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, examined 37 studies with 7332 paired samples. It found that saliva tests’ sensitivity was 3.4 percentage points lower than that of nasopharyngeal swabs.

The second article included 16 studies involving 5922 patients. It determined the tests’ sensitivity and specificity to be almost identical. Considering saliva tests’ ease of use, comfort, and good performance, “testing centers should strongly consider adopting saliva as their first sample choice, especially in community mass screening programs,” the article’s authors, from Montreal’s McGill University and the US National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777219?utm_source=silverchair&utm_campaign=jama_network&utm_content=covid_weekly_highlights&utm_medium=email

************************************

What Was In Ashli Babbitt’s Backpack When She Was Shot Dead by a Capitol Hill Police Officer Will Shock You

A clear case of manslaughter

On January 6th, 2021, Ashli Babbitt, a 14 year Air Force Veteran, was shot and killed by a Capitol Police Officer. The Capitol Police continue to hide details of her shooting death from the American public.

It was the only shooting incident at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

The Officer who shot Ashli Babbit reportedly said Ashli’s backpack factored into him killing her. But what was actually inside Ashli’s backpack? So does wearing a backpack give an officer an excuse to shoot you dead now?

In a public statement made by the Police Officers’ Attorney, Mark Schamel, he states the backpack Ashli was wearing compounded the Officers fears.

In the same statement, he directly contradicts himself by saying he could not see the three uniformed officers, only a hallway full of people. He also couldn’t see how far the hallway extended. If he could see Ashli Babbitt was wearing a backpack, he could see the three uniformed officers within the direct vicinity of her.

So what is the truth?

The Officer clearly states Ashli’s backpack compounded his fears and led to his decision to shoot and kill Ashli Babbitt. Due to the slight chance that there might be a bomb or a weapon of some sort, he chose to be the judge, jury, and executioner based upon a what-if scenario.

So what did Ashli Babbitt have in her backpack? Was it a bomb or a weapon of mass destruction? Maybe a chemical weapon or high-capacity firearm?

It was a wool sweater and a scarf.

Ashli Babbitt was killed for carrying a wool sweater and a scarf.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/03/ashli-babbitts-backpack-shot-dead-capitol-hill-police-officer-will-shock/

*******************************

Caring More About the Punishing the Rich Than Either the Economy or the Constitution

Elizabeth Warren has again proposed a federal wealth tax.

The reality that the Supreme Court could declare a federal wealth tax to be unconstitutional is apparently irrelevant to Senator Warren. The possibility of a deep negative economic consequence to the United States as the result of a wealth tax is apparently irrelevant to Senator Warren. The probability that the stock market would be slaughtered by wealthy investors all simultaneously selling stocks and bonds is apparently irrelevant to Senator Warren. The probability that the only buyers of stocks and bonds after a wealth tax would be foreign governments is apparently irrelevant to Senator Warren.

For a wealth tax to be constitutional, two of the six conservative Supreme Court judges and all three of the liberal judges would be required to determine that a wealth tax is not a direct tax. These Supreme Court judges would need to conclude that more than a century of precedent need be obviated. These justices would need to conclude (a) that the 125 year old Pollak decision was incorrect, (b) Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts was incorrect in what he wrote in NFIB v Sebelius in 2012 and (c) that most of the Supreme Court tax decisions over the past 100 years requiring what is referred to as a recognition event for income to be taxable are all moot. This is a tall order for a Court that reveres stare decisis, the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent.

While there are progressive lawyers and progressive academics who insist that a wealth tax would be constitutional and that the Supreme Court would provide its stamp of approval, there are equally qualified lawyers and academics who believe that a wealth tax would not be constitutional.

Why Senator Warren is not pursuing a wealth tax as a constitutional amendment is a question she has not addressed. Likely, this is because she does not believe the country would support a constitutional amendment to impose a wealth tax. There should be a message in that line of reasoning.

If there is only a 20 percent chance that Senator Warren’s tax plan would be unconstitutional, implementation of a federal wealth tax and creation of programs that would be supported by the wealth tax would be a fool’s errand. (This author believes there is a near 100 percent chance that the current Supreme Court would find a national wealth tax to be unconstitutional.) Congress could not in good conscious implement any continuing new programs after passage of a wealth tax, lest the funds no longer be available in year three or four after a negative decision by the Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court ruled against Senator Warren’s wealth tax, the Treasury would be forced to return every wealth tax dollar previously collected (with interest) along with eliminating every new program funded with the wealth tax unless other taxes were raised significantly.

Senator Warren’s wealth tax provides for a 2 percent tax on net assets between $50 million and $1 billion and a 3% tax on net assets above $1 billion. Her projections show that $252 billion in federal taxes would be raised in year one. She is wrong by a factor of about 100 percent.

A wealth tax would be accompanied by the sale of assets by taxpayers in order to raise the capital to pay the wealth tax. Should the Senator’s wealth estimations hold true, along with her proposed increase in capital gains taxes, the combination of her new wealth tax accompanied by her new capital gains tax be a tax of 4% to $1 billion and 6 percent for and remaining assets. This would put the total wealth and income taxes raised by Senator Warren’s wealth tax to $500 billion per year.

Nothing Elizabeth Warren can pass in Congress will change the underlying basics of supply and demand. The estimates being made with respect to the funds that would be raised from a wealth tax are wildly optimistic. There would appear to be an assumption that the sale of $500 billion of assets every year to pay the wealth tax along with the necessary income taxes would not be accompanied by a reduction in the price of the assets to be sold.

It is axiomatic that the value of investment assets would decline dramatically if an annual wealth tax was imposed on the wealthy. New investment would decline if not cease. When everyone is a seller, prices go down. Faced with a ten-year $5 trillion tax bill over ten years, the wealthy would not be buying stocks and the value of pension plans would collapse along with the revenues collected.

As pointed out by the Tax Foundation, the only possible buyers would be foreign governments who would be purchasing at bargain basement prices. Who would think that selling America to foreign nations is a great way to move forward toward the middle of this century?

The more famous quote is that a rising tide raises all ships. Senator Warren’s wealth tax would create the reverse which is equally true: A falling tide lowers all ships.

https://townhall.com/columnists/hankadler/2021/03/13/caring-more-about-the-punishing-the-rich-than-either-the-economy-or-the-constitution-n2586200

**************************************

Washington Must Face the Coming Medicare Crisis

Official Washington, D.C., just got another early warning. The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed the Medicare trustees’ 2020 report that the Medicare trust fund—the Part A account that funds the hospitalization and related services—faces insolvency in 2026.

Insolvency means that Medicare wouldn’t be able to fully reimburse hospitals, nursing homes, and home health agencies for promised benefits. In 2026, Medicare payments would be immediately cut by 10%, and the payment cuts would continue each year thereafter.

Medicare patients would be hit hard. You cannot cut provider payments for medical services without impacting the beneficiaries of those services.

The COVID-19 pandemic briefly highlighted Medicare’s vulnerability to economic setbacks when the Congressional Budget Office last September projected trust fund insolvency even earlier: 2024.

Statewide lockdowns shocked the economy, spiking widespread business closures and driving high unemployment. These disruptions reduced Medicare’s job-based federal payroll taxes, threatening insolvency earlier than anticipated.

Insolvency two years earlier or later makes little difference. Washington policymakers must soon make some big decisions and cannot escape responsibility for what will happen to the program, its beneficiaries, or the taxpayers.

There is nothing new here. Year in and year out, the Medicare trustees have repeatedly warned Congress and the White House that the Medicare trust fund meets neither short- nor long-term financial standards. It has been routinely running tens of billions of dollars in annual deficits, and is expected to generate red ink well into the future.

A demographic imbalance is increasing the pressure. The trustees report that over the last 35 years, Medicare enrollment doubled, and is projected to grow by 50% over the next 35 years. Meanwhile, the number of workers supporting Medicare beneficiaries is shrinking.

In 2008, there were four workers per beneficiary, but in 2019, that declined to three workers per beneficiary. By 2030, there will be only two and a half workers supporting each Medicare beneficiary.

What to do? If Congress and the White House really wanted to eliminate Medicare trust fund deficits altogether—a big if—the trustees say that Washington could either raise the standard payroll tax from 2.9% to 3.66%, immediately, or reduce Medicare trust fund expenditures by 16%. That is unlikely.

The Medicare trustees nonetheless posit these stark options simply to “illustrate the magnitude” of the changes needed to eliminate deficits and insolvency. They recognize, however, that such immediate changes would be unpalatable, and measures are likely to be more gradual. Even so, the longer Washington waits, the more painful the solutions become.

Any hike in the federal payroll taxes to stave off the impending insolvency would be an untimely blow for small businesses, their workers, and their families following the government lockdowns, the recent economic contraction, and massive job losses.

The other option—cutting Medicare payments to Part A providers even more—carries risks of its own.

The Affordable Care Act already authorizes big future Medicare payment reductions to hospitals, nursing homes, and home health agencies. Within the next 20 years, government actuaries report, Affordable Care Act provider payment reductions will guarantee financial losses and jeopardize Medicare beneficiaries’ access to quality care.

More recently, these institutions suffered a serious financial blow from government edicts to cancel scheduled care in response to the pandemic.

Even though hospital revenues have begun to rebound, and Congress provided hospitals with emergency payments, some hospitals are still struggling financially. This would not be a propitious time to hit them with another cut in Medicare reimbursement rates.

Finally, Congress could turn on the general revenue spending spigot to cover the trust fund losses. That would drop the pretense that Medicare Part A can continue as a “social insurance” program paid for by Medicare beneficiaries during their working lives. But that would pour more gasoline on Washington’s raging fiscal fires, generating even higher deficits and dangerous debt—now estimated at over $27 trillion—beyond that incurred by recent pandemic spending.

Painless solutions are nonexistent. But targeted solutions are available. Congress could enact a temporary Part A premium—the equivalent of a surcharge—to cover the Medicare trust fund’s projected deficit, and eliminate it when the fund is rebalanced.

But addressing the hospitalization trust fund crisis is only the beginning of serious Medicare reform. Washington policymakers must also phase in more substantial changes, including raising the age of eligibility to 67 in harmony with Social Security and indexing it to life expectancy, and further expanding “means testing” to reduce the burdens on middle-income taxpayers and beneficiaries.

The big change would be to build on the successes of Medicare Advantage, Medicare’s system of competing private health plans, and enact a comprehensive defined-contribution program and harness the powerful forces of consumer choice and market competition. That would not only improve the quality of care, but also control costs for beneficiaries and taxpayers alike.

That is a big job, and it must start sooner rather than later. It will take a combination of brains, guts, and bipartisan cooperation. It’s called statesmanship.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/03/09/washington-must-face-the-coming-medicare-crisis

************************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

March 20, 2021

COVID: How the Loss of the Outer Circle Has Changed Community

What has happened to our extended network of workplace peers and what you can do about it

As we approach a year since the initial lockdowns, we are beginning to register and process the effects of pandemic-induced lifestyle changes. Most analyses of the digital workplace either cite the feeling of being “Zoomed out” or celebrate the benefits of working from home. These points are valid, but I fear we may be missing the forest for the trees.

A recent article in The Atlantic examined the way relationships have changed in the wake of the pandemic, particularly how different types of relationships have adapted to an online world. In the last 12 months we have worked hard to stay connected with our close, inner circle of friends and loved ones; but many of us have lost the outer circle, the peripheral relationships. The Atlantic article describes these relationships as “the guy who’s always at the gym at the same time as you, the barista who starts making your usual order while you’re still at the back of the line, the co-worker from another department with whom you make small talk on the elevator.”

Zooming in (pun intended) on the peripheral relationships in our workplaces encourages us to think about how engagement has changed in those workplaces. Early in the pandemic, the Davenport Institute hosted a webinar with Engaging Local Government Leaders on “work from home” best practices. We explored tips on intentionally maintaining a balance of social and professional interaction given the loss of break room conversations. Some of those engagement mechanisms included socially distanced walking meetings and virtual book clubs. While those are helpful, they are limited to the inner circle in the workplace i.e. the immediate team.

But what about everyone else?

A focus on the inner circle in every type of relationship has adversely affected not only engagement within the workplace but also community building outside the workplace. I am close to my supervisor and direct reports, but I can count on one hand the relationships I have fostered across departments which have grown into friendships.

Organic social interactions in the breakroom or hallway provide a respite in an otherwise busy work environment. Those interactions are often the time gaps that allow us to get to know our colleagues beyond their title and responsibilities. There is no digital equivalent, but there are ways in which we can seek to regain peripheral relationships while working from home.

To reestablish the outer circle, we must first recreate the environments which foster the peripheral relationships. For example, arriving to Zoom calls early is the digital equivalent of walking into a meeting room early and chatting about the weekend. If the meeting group is small enough, allowing team members to stay unmuted creates a digital openness to chime in with thoughts without the awkwardness of unmuting then waiting to be called upon. Zoom background themes for meetings could service as the jumping off point for casual conversation on favorite foods or dream vacations.

While it is impossible to fully recreate digitally what was lost during the shift to online, there is still hope for rebuilding some of the outer circle. The first step is to acknowledge that there was an outer circle and that it is now missing. Next, we must seek ways to recreate the environments which fostered those relationships and allow ourselves a social break from the litany of emails and Zoom meetings. Who knows, we may even make new work friends while working from home.

https://catalyst.independent.org/2021/03/09/how-the-loss-of-the-outer-circle-has-changed-community/

******************************************

Russia, not China, tried to influence 2020 election, says US intel community

The Russian punching bag again

Russia’s government tried to seed the 2020 US presidential campaign with “misleading or unsubstantiated allegations” against then-candidate Joe Biden through allies of former President Trump and his administration, US intelligence officials said on Tuesday.

The assessment was made in a 15-page report into election interference published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. It underscores allegations that Trump’s allies were playing into Moscow’s hands by amplifying claims made against Biden by Russian-linked Ukrainian figures in the run up to the November 3 election.

Biden defeated Trump and took office on January 20.

“We assess that Russian President Putin authorised, and a range of Russian government organizations conducted, influence operations aimed at denigrating President Biden’s candidaccy and the Democratic Party, supporting former President Trump, undermining public confidence in the electoral process, and exacerbating sociopolitical divisions in the US,” the report stated.

US intelligence agencies found other attempts to sway voters, including a “multi-pronged covert influence campaign” by Iran intended to undercut Trump’s support. The report also punctures a counter-narrative pushed by Trump’s allies that China was interfering on Biden’s behalf, concluding that Beijing “did not deploy interference efforts.”

“China sought stability in its relationship with the United States and did not view either election outcome as being advantageous enough for China to risk blowback if caught,” the report said.

US officials said they also saw efforts by Cuba, Venezuela and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah to influence the election, although “in general, we assess that they were smaller in scale than those conducted by Russia and Iran.”

US intelligence agencies and former Special Counsel Robert Mueller previously concluded that Russia also interfered in the 2016 US election to boost Trump’s candidacy with a campaign of propaganda aimed at harming his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton.

The Russian, Chinese and Cuban Embassies in Washington did not immediately return messages seeking comment. The Iranian mission to the United Nations and the Venezuelan Ministry of Information also did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Moscow, Beijing and Tehran routinely deny allegations of cyberespionage and subterfuge.

The new report said Putin knew of and “probably directed” the election interference efforts. As an example, Putin “had purview over the activities of Andriy Derkach,” a Ukrainian lawmaker who played a prominent role in the effort and has ties to Russian intelligence, the report said.

“We assess Russian leaders preferred that former President Trump win re-election despite perceiving some of his administration’s policies as anti-Russia. We have high confidence in this assessment,” the report stated.

A key role was also played by a second man with Russian intelligence ties, Konstantin Kilimnik, according to the report. Kilimnik and Derkach met with and gave materials to Trump-linked people to push for formal investigations, and Derkach released four audio recordings to try to implicated Biden in corruption, it said.

That refers to conversations that right-wing figures in the United States cited as evidence that Biden tried to protect his son Hunter from a probe in Ukraine.

Kilimnik was an associate of Paul Manafort, who served as Trump’s 2016 campaign chairman. Trump last year pardoned Manafort for a criminal conviction that stemmed from Mueller’s investigation.

Russian agents also tried to “phish” employees of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, “likely in an attempt to gather information related to President Biden’s family,” it said. Hunter Biden had served on Burisma’s board.

As in the 2016 election, the Russian so-called troll factory formerly known as the Internet Research Agency pushed disparaging stories on social media about Biden and Democrats and complained about censorship by the tech companies, the report said. It also sought to exacerbate US divisions on racial justice issues, the report said.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/russia-not-china-tried-to-influence-2020-election-says-us-intel-community-20210317-p57bd1.html

****************************************

IN BRIEF

ChiCom Virus begets new high in perceptions of China as U.S.'s greatest enemy — as it should (Gallup)

"China-backed Confucius Institute rebrands to avoid scrutiny." —Free Beacon

DHS says illegal crossings are on pace to hit 20-year high (Daily Caller), but President Joe "Open Border" Biden says he has no plans to travel to the southern border (Fox News)

These deaths are on Biden's hands: Eight illegals killed in another horrific car crash near Mexican border (Disrn)

FBI: Christmas bomber in Nashville was driven by paranoia and acted alone (Disrn)

Blue states move to tax PPP loans, collect millions from small businesses that were (and still are) unfairly hamstrung by shutdown-happy Democrats (Just the News)

Quid pro quo: Of the top 20 states getting "COVID" bailout money, 13 voted for Biden (FEE)

Retail sales suffer big chill in February amid stormy weather (NPR)

Eight killed in metro Atlanta spa shooting spree (AJC)

And oh, by the way, two New York black teens set mentally ill white man on fire (Daily Wire)

Grammy ratings hit lowest of low: Only 8.8 million tune in vs. 19 million last year (Daily Wire)

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam restores voting rights for 69,000 Democrat-leaning ex-felons (Axios)

"Hiking has a diversity problem. These BIPOC groups are working to fix it." —Los Angeles Times

Policy: America and Brexit Britain: Time for an economic alliance? (Heritage Foundation)

Policy: The U.S.-Chinese rivalry is a battle over values (Foreign Affairs)

President Unity blocks press access at the border, constructs false narratives (Washington Times)

Trump vindicated: Judge rules Michigan secretary of state violated election laws (PJ Media)

Addendum: "Months after Trump complaints, some courts are finding irregularities in 2020 elections." —Just the News

Georgia deputy secretary of state outed as source of fake Trump quotes in WaPo story (Bongino.com)

Twenty-one states sue Biden to overturn the ridiculous canceling of Keystone XL pipeline (Daily Wire)

RIP, Tea Party: House Republicans drop decade-long opposition to earmarks (Examiner)

It sure looks like Joe Biden lied about his tax plan (National Review)

Political theater: House passes bill to award Congressional Gold Medals to Capitol police (Roll Call)

CNN hemorrhaging viewers since Trump left office, down nearly 50% in key measurables (Fox News)

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam signs law to expand abortion coverage "without limits" on taxpayer dime (Disrn)

Judges pacify Planned Parenthood, block Indiana's parental consent requirement for abortion (Disrn)

Preemption winning streak continues for gun advocates: Judge strikes down Boulder's AR-15 ban (Free Beacon)

Texas to forgive $29 million in electricity bills after historic winter storm (Disrn)

"Mistakes made": DHS chief admits release of untested illegal immigrants into communities (Washington Times)

Biden says May 1 deadline to pull troops from Afghanistan will be "tough" to meet (AMN)

Ford plans to move new vehicle construction from Ohio to Mexico (The Hill)

IRS announces extension of filing deadline to May 17 (The Hill)

Americans are spending their Joe "Buy a Shotgun" Biden stimulus on guns (Forbes)

Policy: What the U.S. must do to beat China (National Review)

Policy: Would Biden's tax hike really spare the middle class? Nope (AEI)

Unity! Lefty lawmaker acknowledges Democrats will exploit procedural tactic to pass massive infrastructure bill without Republicans (Daily Caller)

Radical leftist Deb Haaland confirmed 51-40 as interior secretary (ABC News)

Trump's exit from the world stage led to a network ratings bloodletting (Daily Caller)

"Incredible potential to taint the jury pool": Defense in Derek Chauvin trial asks judge to delay the trial following $27 million settlement (AP)

Columbia University joins 75-some schools hosting segregated graduation ceremonies (Daily Wire)

Policy: Border crisis: Incompetence or part of the president's plan? (Daily Signal)

Policy: How to end Biden's fake climate apocalypse (American Spectator)

****************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

Posted by JR at 8:22 PM 0 comments

Misinformation about COVID-19 vaccinations

With more than 85 million people across the globe now fully vaccinated against COVID-19, suggestions that the jab may be causing death among some populations have quickly spread online, undermining inoculation efforts.

Claims that a number of elderly people died as a result of the jab in Norway, for instance, have been debunked by the country's health officials, who said the deaths were likely to be coincidental.

Vaccines not more dangerous to Israelis than COVID-19

With nearly half of its population fully vaccinated, Israel has fast become a world leader in the effort to inoculate its citizens against COVID-19.

But on social media and misinformation-spreading news websites, claims that the vaccine may be more dangerous than the disease itself have also gained traction.

One such "news" story, sent to Fact Check by a concerned reader, suggests that the Israeli health ministry had warned that the Pfizer vaccine had killed more people than the disease itself.

"New analysis from the Israeli Health Ministry concluded Pfizer's COVID vaccine killed 'about 40 times more (elderly) people than the disease itself would have killed' during a recent five-week vaccination period," reads an article published by Children's Health Defense, a site which has been accused of promoting "pseudo-science".

The story further claims that the Pfizer vaccine led to the death of "260 times more younger people than would have died from the virus".

An investigation by fact checkers at Health Feedback, however, found that data published by the Israeli health ministry "actually points to the vaccine reducing the likelihood of dying from COVID-19, in both the young and the old".

"The data showed that the majority of COVID-19 deaths in vaccinated people occurred in those who had received only one dose," Health Feedback reported.

"This isn't as unexpected as the post claimed, as these people hadn't fully developed immunity and were still as vulnerable to COVID-19 as unvaccinated people."

The findings may not be surprising to those familiar with Children's Health Defense, which was given a low trustworthy rating by Media Bias/Fact Check, a website dedicated to cataloguing media bias and deceptive news practices.

"Overall, we rate the Children's Health Defense a strong conspiracy and quackery level advocacy group that frequently promotes unsupported claims," the website concluded.

In the UK, reports that more than 400 people have died following a COVID-19 jab are missing some crucial context, fact checkers at Reuters and Full Fact have noted.

Under the UK Government's "Yellow Card" scheme, information on suspected side effects and adverse reactions to medicines is collected and monitored by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), including those related to COVID-19 vaccines.

According to the latest Yellow Card report, a total of 508 people have died following a COVID-19 vaccine in the UK. But that doesn't mean the vaccine caused their deaths.

According to the MHRA, the reported adverse events following a COVID-19 vaccine are not always a proven side effect of the jab, and some events "may have happened anyway, regardless of vaccination".

"A high proportion of people vaccinated in the vaccination campaign so far are very elderly, many of whom will also have pre-existing medical conditions," the agency notes in its report.

"Older age and chronic underlying illnesses make it more likely that coincidental adverse events will occur, especially given the millions of people vaccinated."

Full Fact also noted that the MHRA has asked for any suspicions about adverse effects to be reported, "even if the person reporting it is not sure that it was caused by the vaccine".

"This means that many suspected [adverse reactions] reported 'do not have any relation to the vaccine or medicine and it is often coincidental that they both occurred around the same time'," Full Fact said.

In a similar misunderstanding of correlation and causation, a claim that a Japanese woman died of a brain haemorrhage in the days after receiving a Pfizer vaccine has been debunked by AFP Fact Check.

According to the fact checkers, posts spread online showed a portion of a news report on the woman's death, but failed to include the section of the report in which experts clarified that no link had been established between the woman's death and the vaccine.

As pointed out by AFP Fact Check, the missing section of the news report reads: "[A Japanese health official] clarified that the vaccine was not linked to the brain haemorrhage of the senior citizen who died, because this is a common cause of death for people within the 40 to 60 age group."

An official Japanese Government report also "does not implicate Pfizer-BioNTech's Covid-19 vaccine in the death", the fact checkers added.

World famous boxer not vaccine victim

When boxing great Marvelous Marvin Hagler died this week, aged 66, rumours swirled that a COVID-19 vaccine had caused his death.

But that wasn't the case, according to Hagler's widow, Kay G Hagler. "I was the only person close to him until the last minute, and I am the only person that know [sic] how things went not even his family know all the details," Ms Hagler wrote on Facebook. "For sure [it] wasn't the vaccine that caused his death".

Did 80% of the crew of Australian warship fall ill after COVID jabs?

A Facebook post claiming 80 per cent of the crew of the HMAS Sydney suffered "severe illness" following COVID-19 vaccinations has been rubbished by the Department of Defence.

The post, published by a Facebook group serving the Australian veteran community, also suggested that eight crew members had been admitted to intensive care after receiving the jab.

In a statement published in response to questions put forward by Fact Check, the Department of Defence confirmed that the crew had voluntarily received the vaccine, and were encouraged to report to medical personnel if they subsequently felt unwell.

"Several members of HMAS Sydney's crew did present to hospital after hours with mild side effects," the department said. "They were assessed in the emergency department before being released — they were not admitted to hospital. A number of other members also reported mild side effect symptoms that did not require medical care. All symptoms experienced were within the broad range of routine side effects associated with receiving any vaccination."

According to the department, the ship had departed for the US on March 11 with a full crew. "No members of the Ship's company failed to deploy as a result of taking the COVID-19 vaccine.

From Washington, D.C.

Soon after signing the latest COVID-19 relief legislation last week, US President Joe Biden made his first prime time TV address to the nation, while fact checkers watched on closely.

Speaking about COVID-19 vaccines, Mr Biden claimed that two months prior, the country "didn't have nearly enough vaccine supply to vaccinate all, or even near all, of the American public" but soon would.

FactCheck.org found this claim to be missing some crucial context.

"While the Biden administration has increased vaccine orders from the companies with authorised vaccines, the Trump administration had contracts in place for plenty of vaccines for all Americans — provided other vaccines gained authorisations," the fact checkers said.

"And Biden's predecessor also had options to increase orders from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, the first two vaccines to get Food and Drug Administration authorisation."

FactCheck.org also noted that Mr Biden's claim to be on track to deliver on his promise to administer 100 million vaccines in his first 100 days in office was helped along by the former administration.

"The US — even before Biden took office — was virtually already on pace to administer that many additional vaccine doses in his first 100 days."

CNN Facts First, meanwhile, found that while Mr Biden's claim that the US had administered more COVID-19 vaccines than any other country was correct, other nations had inoculated a greater proportion of their populations.

"Fourteen countries including Chile, Israel and the United Kingdom have vaccinated more people per capita," the fact checkers noted.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-19/coronacheck-vaccine-misinformation-debunked/13258256

*******************************************

Mask Mandates Do Not Save Lives

Although some studies have concluded that masks help stop the spread of COVID-19, usually they have failed to replicate real-world situations. A common approach is to evaluate the effectiveness of mask material at stopping the expulsion or intake of the aerosols presumed to be the airborne carriers of the virus. Useful information, perhaps, but at this stage, what we need to know is whether the widespread use of masks is measurably reducing the risk of death from the disease. To continue requiring the use of masks makes sense only if there is compelling data that death rates are lower for people who wear masks than it is for people who do not.

We have no way of measuring whether or how much and how appropriately individuals wear masks, but state mandates that people wear them are predicated on the notion that more people will do so if they are threatened with a fine or punishment. Thus, it makes sense to demand that states with mask mandates have lower COVID-19 death rates than states that don't. If states with mask mandates are not experiencing lower rates than states without them, the citizenry should insist that the burdensome policy of requiring masks be abandoned.

Logic or speculation alone cannot provide a reliable answer to the question of mask effectiveness. Neither can the judgments and proclamations of politicians or even public health experts. What we need is data.

The Data

The Centers for Disease Control maintains a website that reports the total number of people who have died from COVID-19. Updated daily, the table provides the figures for each state and for the country as a whole. The state figures for virus deaths were extracted from this source on or about February 16.

U.S. News and World Report published an article identifying which states have and have not mandated masks. For those states with a mask mandate, the article tells when the mandate was put into effect.

Those three sources provided the raw data for everything that follows. At the end of this article, I will link to a table containing all the data that were extracted from those sources to answer the question of mask effectiveness.

The Study

The question is, "Do states with mask mandates have lower COVID-19 death rates than states with no mandate?" If they do, the enforced wearing of masks may have been a reasonable approach to limiting deaths from COVID-19. Otherwise, the rationale for imposing mask mandates disintegrates. In a similar fashion, states that never imposed a mask mandate can readily justify their behavior only if their COVID-19 death rates do not exceed those of the mask-mandated states.

Only ten states have had no mask mandate of any sort; the other forty imposed mask mandates that required one to be worn at all indoor venues and in all outdoor situations that challenge the six-foot distancing expectation.

Using the data sources above, figures for the total population and the total number of COVID-19 deaths were extracted for each of the fifty states. A COVID-19 death rate was calculated for each state by dividing its number of COVID-19 deaths by its population and then multiplying the result by 10,000. The result was a COVID-19 death rate indicating the number of deaths per 10,000 people. By sorting these individual state rates into two groups — masks mandatory versus masks voluntary — I could calculate the average COVID-19 death rate for each group.

States with a mask mandate: 13.0 deaths per 10,000 population.

States with no mask mandate: 12.6 deaths per 10,000 population.

Since the average COVID-19 death rate is actually lower for the voluntary mask states than it is for the mandated mask states, it is incumbent on advocates for the mask mandate to either reveal the data upon which they arrived at their conclusion or else stop making the claim that masks help keep people safe.

A variant on the theme of mask-mandated safety is the notion that states that adopted a mask mandate early on have lower death rates than the states that did so late. Since the basis of this contention is that a greater length of time under the rule of mask has been an effective way of assuring low death rates, let us compare the performance of the ten earliest mask mandate states to the performance of the ten states that have never required a mask.

The US News & World Report article provided the information on the start dates for mask mandates.

Once again, the notion that masking up keeps us safe receives no support from the data. In fact, the "bottom ten" outperform the "top ten" by a small but noteworthy margin (12.6 deaths per 10,000 versus 13.3 deaths per 10,000). This hints at the possibility that masks actually elevate the death rate. Would anybody care to investigate?

The impotence of mask mandates is particularly sobering since they usually proceed in lockstep with the other mandated actions intended to control the virus: hand-washing, social distancing, and lockdowns. Since all four control tactics are chasing the same goal (stop the spread of the virus), these data revealing the ineffectiveness of masks may suggest that the other three control tactics are less effective than hoped.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/03/mask_mandates_do_not_save_lives.html

****************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

Posted by JR at 12:25 AM 0 comments

Thursday, March 18, 2021

A Study Shows VERY FEW Capitol Hill Rioters Were QAnon Red-Staters With Ties to 'Right-Wing' Groups

A survey by the University of Chicago finds that most Capitol Hill rioters had no ties to any fringe right-wing groups and were merely engaged people outraged by what they believed was a rigged election.

While colorful weirdos with names such as QAnon Shaman and Baked Alaska stole the headlines, people who were arrested by federal officials during and after the riot were a “broader core of people” with a healthy skepticism about the veracity of the November 2020 election, according to the study.

There was plenty of reason for the skepticism, considering the collusion between Big Tech, unions, lawfare, and Democrats’ combined efforts to sway the election. Those efforts were at the very least unethical.

As Time Magazine enthused in an article entitled, “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election,” “there was a conspiracy unfolding behind the [election] scenes” of an “informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans” to “save” the election from Donald Trump.

The handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election–an extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted. For more than a year, a loosely organized coalition of operatives scrambled to shore up America’s institutions as they came under simultaneous attack from a remorseless pandemic and an autocratically inclined President.

[…]Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears"

Rather than being ill-informed, it appears that the Capitol Building rioters may have been better informed than most on these moves to sway the election.

In a “working paper” that is considered to be a “novel approach” to “estimating community-level participation in mass protest events,” Asst. Prof. Austin Wright of the Harris School of Public Policy and David Van Dijcke of the University of Michigan found a surprising number of the people arrested at the Capitol Hill riot who were business owners and other professionals obviously upset over election fraud.

The paper found that those arrested were “more likely to have traveled to the Capitol from Trump-voting “islands,” where residents are surrounded by neighborhoods with higher numbers of Biden supporters.” More than half came from counties that Joe Biden carried.

Though the researchers include the fact that the overwhelming number of people live in Democrat areas, they also highlighted the fact “that proximity to Proud Boy chapters and local levels of engagement with misinformation posted on Parler, the exiled social media platform popular with the far right, are robustly linked to participation in the Capitol rally.”

However, researcher Austin Wright said living in those leftist areas “played a significant role.”

Social isolation and the perception of being threatened by neighboring areas that largely hold opposing political views also played a significant role in who was there.

The researchers also looked at cell phone data such as where in the country Capitol rioters called. Most were in the eastern, central, and southern parts of the country.

Could the cancel culture and being surrounded by people with Trump Derangement Syndrome and other anti-conservatives have helped trigger the attack?

They claimed some of the rioters were on the social media app Parler, though efforts to discover other social media apps used by the people arrested were not noted.

The survey found that approximately 10% percent of the Capitol rioters had a connection with Proud Boys, which they describe as a “hate group,” and Oath Keepers.

Nearly 90% had no ties or right-wing affiliations whatsoever.

And they found out that 85% of the people arrested were business owners or held down white-collar jobs.

WTTW TV reported that researchers hadn’t even needed a “business owner” category before when looking into protest groups. Robert Pape, a political science professor at the University of Chicago, oversaw the study and said the caliber of people at the riot was surprising.

“Normally, we don’t even have a category for ‘business owner’ when we study political violence, so this is a very big sign that we’re dealing with a new political movement with violence at its core that can’t be reduced to the usual suspects.”

President Trump also appealed to a wide variety of Americans from all socio-economic backgrounds. The fact that the rioters were not red-meat, right-wing fanatics threw researchers for a loop. It also forced some reflection by researchers about the people who believe there was election fraud, according to the study.

What we are dealing with here is not merely a mix of right-wing organizations, but a broader mass movement with violence at its core. We need to do more to understand who we are dealing with in the new movement. Targeting pre-2021 far right organizations alone will not solve the problem.

Perhaps they should consider that the 2020 election was seen by half the country as rigged. Election integrity efforts, not name-calling, lawfare, and canceling others who hold politically opposing views, will be key in winning back confidence in the elections process. If Democrats pass HR 1, all bets will be off.

https://pjmedia.com/uncategorized/victoria-taft/2021/03/15/a-study-shows-very-few-capitol-hill-rioters-were-qanon-red-staters-with-ties-to-right-wing-groups-n1430314

******************************************

Joe Biden’s biggest headache seen on US-Mexico border

The mainstream media are beginning to recognize the immigration disaster under Biden. Below is a Reuters dispatch

Almost two months into his presidency, Joe Biden has plenty to feel pleased about. Coronavirus cases in the US have plummeted since the start of the year, the pace of vaccinations has increased dramatically and last week he signed a giant $2.5 trillion economic recovery package into law.

But one issue is fast becoming a major vulnerability for the US President, in terms of both policy and politics: immigration. A surge in migrants trying to cross from Mexico into the US at the southern border has given Republicans an opening to go on the attack against the new administration.

A Honduran man seeking asylum in the United States wears a shirt that reads, “Biden please let us in,” as he stands among tents that line an entrance to the border crossing in Tijuana, Mexico.

According to Biden’s Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, US officials soon expect to encounter more more individuals at the south-west border than they have in the past 20 years.

US Border Patrol agents apprehended nearly 100,000 migrants at the US-Mexico border in February, and that number is expected to balloon in March. An estimated 5000 people are now being apprehended at the border each day.

The number of apprehensions was already increasing steadily during the final months of the Trump presidency, but has accelerated since Biden’s inauguration. Such a surge was entirely predictable.

After all, Trump was famous for his hardline immigration policies, including his signature pledge to build a wall on the border and his controversial family separation policies. Biden came to power promising a more “fair, orderly and humane” approach, and quickly steps to soften Trump’s tougher policies.

On day one of his presidency, Biden suspended Trump’s so-called “remain in Mexico” rule which requires asylum-seekers trying to enter the US from the southern border to wait in Mexico for their American court hearings.

Crucially, Biden also tweaked emergency restrictions introduced by Trump at the start of the coronavirus pandemic. Under Biden’s changes, unaccompanied minors can now enter the US and, after a short period in detention, live in the community while their immigration claims are processed.

Biden administration officials have insisted that the border is not open, and urged migrants not to try to enter the US right now. But that message isn’t cutting through.

Apprehensions of unaccompanied minors rose by 63 per cent from January to February while family arrivals soared by 168 per cent. Some of the unaccompanied minors apprehended at the border have been as young as six.

Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has made clear he is concerned about the surge and that he believes it has been driven by the change from Trump to Biden.

Children play as people who are seeking asylum in the United States are gathered outside the El Chaparral border crossing in Tijuana, Mexico.

“They see him as the migrant president, and so many feel they’re going to reach the United States,” Lopez Obrador said earlier this month after a meeting with Biden.

“We need to work together to regulate the flow, because this business can’t be tackled from one day to the next.”

Some migrants have even shown up at the border wearing T-shirts, styled in the manner of Biden’s election campaign merchandise, reading: “Biden, please let us in!”

Big increases in the number unaccompanied children pose particular difficulties for immigration officials. Under US law, unaccompanied children are only supposed to remain in immigration detention for three days but that timeframe has proven impossible to stick to with the current influx.

The need to enforce social distancing rules has also made it hard for officials to cope with the surge in arrivals. In recent days, the administration has opened new detention facilities in Texas and enlisted the Federal Emergency Management Agency to help shelter migrant children.

Democrats are happiest when the public is focussed on issues such as education and healthcare. As a rule, it’s good news for conservatives when immigration is in the headlines.

That’s why a slew of Republicans have hot-footed it to the border region in Texas to highlight the issue in recent days.

“It’s more than a crisis, this is a human heartbreak,” Republican House leader Kevin McCarthy said during a visit this week. “This crisis is created by the presidential policies of this new administration. There’s no other way to claim it than a Biden border crisis.”

A YouGov poll released this week found that 52 per cent of Americans approve of Biden’s handling of immigration - significantly below his approval ratings on the pandemic or the economy.

As well as distracting from his achievements, the surge in unauthorised arrivals at the border will limit Biden’s ability to overhaul America’s immigration laws.

Biden wants to provide a pathway to citizenship for the millions of undocumented immigrants living in the US. That would be difficult to achieve at any time, let alone when the migration system is widely perceived to be out of control.

It’s one thing to promise an immigration system that is “fair, orderly and humane”. It’s far more difficult to deliver all three at once, as Biden is quickly learning.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/joe-biden-s-biggest-headache-seen-on-us-mexico-border-20210317-p57bdl.html

************************************************

Trump Vindicated as Judge Rules Michigan Secretary of State Violated Election Laws

A judge in Michigan has vindicated President Trump by ruling that Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, broke state law when she unilaterally changed election rules concerning absentee balloting in the 2020 election. This ruling legitimizes a key claim made by the Trump legal team in its challenges to the 2020 election.

A major change imposed by Benson was loosening the signature verification requirement for absentee ballots. Michigan Court of Claims Chief Judge Christopher Murray ruled that this change violated Michigan Administrative Procedures Act.

The court made the following conclusion:

…nowhere in this state’s election law has the Legislature indicated that signatures are to be presumed valid, nor did the Legislature require that signatures are to be accepted so long as there are any redeeming qualities in the application or return envelope as compared with the signature on file. Policy determinations like the one at issue — which places the thumb on the scale in favor of a signature’s validity — should be made pursuant to properly promulgated rules under the APA or by the Legislature.

Over 3.1 million Michiganders voted by absentee ballot in November. Biden “won” the state by just over 154,000 votes, according to the state-certified results.

Michigan was not the only state where Democrat state officials unilaterally changed election laws, so this ruling certainly raises legitimate doubts whether Biden truly won the election without invalid votes.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/03/17/trump-vindicated-as-federal-judge-rules-michigan-secretary-of-state-violated-election-laws-n1433162

****************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

Posted by JR at 7:23 PM 0 comments

Wednesday, March 17, 2021

No indication AstraZeneca vaccine causes blood clots, says regulator

A number of European nations, including Germany, France, Italy and Sweden, have suspended use of the Oxford/AstraZeneca covid‑19 vaccine over blood clot concerns.

The World Health Organization and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) have both emphasised that there is currently no evidence linking the vaccine to blood clots and recommend that countries continue using it. Emer Cooke, director of the EMA, reiterated in an online press conference today that the agency remains firmly convinced that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh any risks.

Both organisations are performing a thorough analysis of all the available data and the EMA will be making a statement with its conclusions on Thursday 18 March.

Among 17 million people who have received the vaccine in the EU and the UK, 15 cases of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and 22 cases of pulmonary embolism have been reported as of 8 March, AstraZeneca said in a statement on 14 March. DVT is a blood clot in a vein, which has the potential to travel to the lungs, causing a blockage, or what is known as a pulmonary embolism.

“Many thousands of people develop blood clots annually in the EU for different reasons,” the EMA said in a statement. The number of blood clotting incidents in vaccinated people “seems not to be higher than that seen in the general population”.

In Germany, the Paul Ehrlich Institute, which advises the government on covid-19, said it had recommended the temporary suspension of the vaccine following a “noticeable increase” in cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), a blood clot in a major brain vessel, soon after vaccinations.

Germany’s health minister, Jens Spahn, said at a press conference on 15 March that there had been seven reported cases that may be related to CVST out of 1.6 million vaccinations in Germany. Estimates of how many incidences of CVST you might expect in the general population over a year vary from two to five cases per million people to more than 15 cases per million, depending on the study.

“There is absolutely no data that supports [the German government’s] decision,” says César Muñoz-Fontela at the Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine in Germany. He says that older people and people with pre-existing health conditions, who are more at risk of blood clots generally, have been prioritised for the vaccine, which may have skewed the apparent side effects. He would like to see a comparison with a control group that has the same characteristics as the people so far vaccinated.

The International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis recommends that all eligible adults continue to receive their covid-19 vaccinations. “At this time, the small number of reported thrombotic events relative to the millions of administered COVID-19 vaccinations does not suggest a direct link,” it said in a statement.

“In weighing up the merits of a medical intervention, it’s really important to consider both sides of the argument: how risky is it for someone to have it versus how risky is it for them not to,” says Lucy Walker at University College London. “An increased risk of thrombosis is one of the known complications of [coronavirus] infection. The vaccines we have are incredibly good at preventing the illness caused by this virus. They will therefore prevent people from having thrombosis associated with the infection itself.”

The decision to halt use of the vaccine could have wider consequences, Walker adds. One is that it could lower vaccine uptake in general by increasing vaccine anxiety. To get the upper hand with the coronavirus, we also need to vaccinate people as quickly as possible to suppress the evolution of dangerous variants. “To have stocks of a safe, effective vaccine not being used, through an abundance of caution, potentially hinders this mission,” she says.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2271478-no-indication-astrazeneca-vaccine-causes-blood-clots-says-regulator/

******************************************

Italy and France fold over AstraZeneca jabs: Mario Draghi and Emmanuel Macron vow to 'quickly resume' using vaccine

The leaders of Italy and France today committed to 'quickly' resume inoculations of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine once the European regulator gives the all-clear.

Italian PM Mario Draghi and French President Emmanuel Macron appeared to roll the pitch for an imminent climbdown.

On a call the two leaders agreed they were ready to resume using the jab 'quickly' if the European Medicines Agency (EMA) gives the green light on Thursday.

'The preliminary statement today from EMA was positive,' a statement from Draghi's office said.

They are among a host of EU nations to have suspended use of the jab after some people it was administered to suffered blood clotting problems.

Boris Johnson, the UK's medical regulator the MHRA and the World Health Organisation have insisted the vaccine is safe and continues to roll it out at pace.

It comes as a top European Commission official urged EU governments to stop sitting on their vaccine stockpiles as several countries suspended use of the AstraZeneca vaccine amid blood-clotting fears.

Stella Kyriakides, the health commissioner, said the bloc was in a 'race against time' to rollout out of the vaccine or face several more spikes in infections.

The EU has already seen a disastrous rollout of the vaccine across the continent, with just 8 per cent of adult receiving a jab compared to a third in the UK.

There have been supply problems with both the AstraZeneca and Pfizer jabs, but it was revealed earlier that several countries including Germany are sitting on stockpiles.

'Even with the immense and regrettable challenges around production capacity and deliveries, there are reports of unused reservoirs of vaccines across the EU, said Kyriakides following talks with European health ministers.

'We are racing against time and the rollout of vaccination is more than ever key to decrease the number of infected people as much as possible.'

While Italy has used all of its Pfizer jabs, the country still has 250,000 AstraZeneca vaccines that it banned from going to Australia in storage.

According to The Times, there are some 14.2 million jabs (60 per cent) delivered to EU governments that are yet to be used.

Her comments came shortly after the European Union’s medicines regulator said it was still 'firmly convinced' of the benefits of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.

Fourteen European countries including 12 EU members have now suspended their use of the shots altogether - with Sweden joining the list today - while another five have black-listed specific batches and a handful of governments outside Europe have also pulled the emergency brake.

EMA safety experts say a 'very small number of people' have come down with blood disorders but there is 'no indication' that these were caused by the jab, which has already been given to 11 million people in the UK.

'We are still firmly convinced that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine in preventing Covid-19 with its associated risk of hospitalisation and death outweigh the risk of these side effects,' said EMA chief Emer Cooke.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson, UK regulator the MHRA and the WHO have all insisted that the vaccine is safe and that there is no evidence of a link to the sporadic blood clots.

This evening, Health Secretary Matt Hancock reiterated the AstraZeneca was safe and urged people to get it when offered.

'The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is safe, we know that over 10million people have had it in this country. That’s what the British regulator says but also the World Health Organisation and even the European regulator,' he said.

'We keep the effects of these vaccines under review at all times and we know the AstraZeneca vaccine is saving lives right now. So if you get the call, get the jab.'

Italy earlier admitted that its suspension of AstraZeneca jabs was a 'political' move while French doctors accused Emmanuel Macron of 'giving in to panic' and a German lawmaker said the ban could cause a 'catastrophe'.

Germany sought to justify its move by saying that one particular kind of blood clot, a 'sinus vein thrombosis', had occurred seven times among the 1.6million people vaccinated when only around one case would be expected. By contrast, only four such cases have been identified in the UK out of 11million doses administered.

Nicola Magrini, the head of Italian medicines regulator AIFA, said politicians had come under pressure to call off the jabs after Germany and France made similar moves in what one Tory MP described as a 'Brexit sulk'.

In Italy's case, the suspension means around 200,000 fewer vaccinations this week, government sources said, expressing confidence that they could make up for the setback.

'We got to the point of a suspension because several European countries, including Germany and France, preferred to interrupt vaccinations... to put them on hold in order to carry out checks. The choice is a political one,' Magrini said in an interview with La Repubblica.

President Macron has previously undermined the efficacy of the jab, declaring it 'quasi-ineffective' for the over-65s - a position he also later rowed back from.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9368883/Italy-France-fold-AstraZeneca-jabs.html

*************************************

Paralyzed by Fear? Johns Hopkins Doctor Notices Something Peculiar About the COVID Vaccine Guidelines

Dr. Marty Makary of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine was bold in his projection that we’ll have herd immunity by April. This has been disputed by those who are nowhere near his level of expertise when it comes to public health, but I get the pushback since it shreds the Democratic Party’s COVID lockdown regime. In an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, Makary says that we’re underestimating natural immunity and with the pace of vaccinations, we’ll reach that critical benchmark towards reclaiming normality by tax season.

“About 1 in 600 Americans has died of Covid-19, which translates to a population fatality rate of about 0.15%. The Covid-19 infection fatality rate is about 0.23%,” Dr. Makary wrote. With those figures, he estimates that two-thirds of the country has already had the infection. We’re rapidly approaching 100 million vaccinations. It’s not an insane projection, but one he says other health experts are afraid to push for fear of impacting the rate of vaccinations. That’s not their job, he argued. Good health news should be disseminated, not buried. There was pushback, and there will be more when he recently wrote about the vaccine protocols.

The good doctor cited an Israeli study that shows those given the Pfizer vaccine are virtually “bulletproof” four weeks after the first dose. That’s the keyword right there. So, we can be returning to normal if the CDC wasn’t so busy peddling exaggerated threats about the virus and being stricken with fear, which Makary noted with their latest guidelines. Is it ‘follow the science’ or ‘be afraid, be very afraid'?

Get the shot, wait a month, and start rebuilding our lives. That’s fair. That seems to be based on the science, which the CDC might be ignoring. You be the judge (via WSJ):

"Parts of the new guidelines are absurdly restrictive. For example, the CDC didn’t withdraw its advice to avoid air travel after vaccination. A year of prevaccine experience has demonstrated that airplanes aren’t a source of spread. A study conducted for the defense department found that commercial planes have HEPA filtration and airflow that exceed the standards of a hospital operating room.

[…]

An unpublished study conducted by the Israeli Health Ministry and Pfizer showed that vaccination reduced transmission by 89% to 94% and almost totally prevented hospitalization and death, according to press reports. Immunity kicks in fully about four weeks after the first vaccine dose, and then you are essentially bulletproof. With the added safety of wearing a mask indoors for a few more weeks or months—a practical necessity in public places even if not a medical one, since you can’t tell on sight if someone’s immune—there is little a vaccinated person should be discouraged from doing.

On a positive note, the CDC did say that fully vaccinated people who are asymptomatic don’t need to be tested. But that obvious recommendation should have come two months ago, before wasting so many tests on people who have high levels of circulating antibodies from vaccination.

In its guidance the CDC says the risks of infection in vaccinated people “cannot be completely eliminated.” True, we don’t have conclusive data that guarantees vaccination reduces risk to zero. We never will. We are operating in the realm of medical discretion based on the best available data, as practicing physicians have always done. The CDC highlights the vaccines’ stunning success but is ridiculously cautious about its implications. Public-health officials focus myopically on transmission risk while all but ignoring the broader health crisis stemming from isolation. The CDC acknowledges “potential” risks of isolation, but doesn’t go into details.

It’s time to liberate vaccinated people to restore their relationships and rebuild their lives. That would encourage vaccination by giving hesitant people a vivid incentive to have the shots.

Throughout the pandemic, authorities have missed the mark on precautions. Hospitals blocked family members from being with their loved ones as they gasped for air, gagging on a ventilator tube—what some patients describe as the worst feeling in the world. In addition to the power of holding a hand, family members coordinate care and serve as a valuable safety net, a partnership that was badly needed when many hospitals had staffing shortages. Separating family members was excessive and cruel, driven by narrow thinking that focused singularly on reducing viral transmission risk, heedless of the harm to the quality of human life."

He added the mental health issues that have exploded due to the lockdown regime that teachers’ unions, Democrats, and the liberal media ignore. Kids are committing suicide. Anxiety and depression have also spiked among students. Loneliness and isolation are going to be the real ‘long haul’ symptom of this pandemic, which could be alleviated partially if our experts actually gave us advice that wasn’t so covered in crap.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2021/03/15/paralyzed-by-fear-johns-hopkins-doctor-notices-something-peculiar-about-the-cdc-n2586291

************************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

Posted by JR at 5:23 PM 0 comments

Tuesday, March 16, 2021

Even the NYT has noticed the better COVID results in Florida

They say:

"Florida’s death rate is no worse than the national average, and better than that of some other states that imposed more restrictions, despite its large numbers of retirees, young partyers and tourists. Caseloads and hospitalizations across most of the state are down. The tens of thousands of people who died were in some ways the result of an unspoken grand bargain — the price paid for keeping as many people as possible employed, educated and, some Floridians would argue, sane.

“There’s no better place to have spent the pandemic than Miami,” said Patricia García, a freelance writer who moved from New York in 2017. Her 5-year-old daughter has been in school since August. She put her 1-year-old son in day care in July.

Ms. García, a 34-year-old Democrat, said she found herself unexpectedly defending Mr. DeSantis’s policies to her friends up north.

“People here, they’ve been able to work. The kids have been able to go to school,” she said. “We have this reputation in Florida of being all Florida Man and crazyland. But I’d much rather be in Florida than California, New York or Chicago.”

NYT reporter Patricia Mazzei did her best to frame the report with lots of worry over Florida’s neanderthal reopening, but there’s really no getting around the facts that Florida reopened sooner, had fewer restrictions to begin with, and still has a death rate lower than Luv Gov Cuomo’s New York.

https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2021/03/15/insanity-wrap-165-even-the-new-york-times-cant-hide-the-truth-about-florida-and-covid-n1432521

***************************************

$27 Million for George Floyd's Family Isn't Justice

The city of Minneapolis has effectively convicted Derek Chauvin before the trial starts.

We wondered last week whether former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin could expect a fair trial. After the city settled Friday with the family of George Floyd for an astonishing $27 million in a civil rights wrongful death lawsuit, we know the answer: It should be declared a mistrial.

In the aforementioned story, our Douglas Andrews recounted the evidence that Floyd died of something other than Chauvin’s knee — something of his own doing, like an overdose of fentanyl. Yet because Floyd’s death lit the fuse for urban violence that destroyed much of Minneapolis (likely prompting Target to abandon its headquarters there), and because that “mostly peaceful” violence then spread nationwide, the city is effectively convicting Chauvin while fleecing taxpayers to give Floyd’s family what is essentially the winning ticket in the legal lottery.

Perhaps that’s a strident characterization, but what else can you call such an outlandish reward for the tragic and untimely death of a petty criminal, wrongful or not?

“It’s going to be a long journey to justice. This is but one step on the journey to justice,” said family attorney Benjamin Crump. “This makes a statement that George Floyd deserved better than what we witnessed on May 25, 2020, that George Floyd’s life matters, and that by extension, Black lives matter.”

Black lives do matter. George Floyd’s life mattered. But his death ignited a national fiasco of political posturing as morally bankrupt as almost anything we’ve seen.

Back in 2015, the early days of Black Lives Matter as an organizational force, Baltimore settled with the family of Freddie Gray, another petty criminal who died in police custody, for $6.4 million. That was shortly after Eric Garner’s family received $5.9 million from New York City. Last September, Breonna Taylor’s family received $12 million from Louisville for her death, the one-year anniversary of which was Saturday.

In 2015, we noted that settlements like this are typically based on earnings capabilities over the lifetime of the deceased. So where did these cities get such sums? And why are cities settling before the police officers involved even go to trial — heck, before the jury is even selected?

The answer is that this is effectively a form of reparations.

That’s been a buzzword in leftist circles for decades, and they mean it to be a massive transfer of wealth from those who did not perpetrate the crime of slavery to those who were not victims of it. Practically, reparations have been paid in the form of “Great Society” welfare — for more than 50 years. And in some ways, reparations are even a part of the Not COVID Relief bill just signed by President Joe Biden.

Justice has never been an easy thing for humans to mete out. Sadly, this settlement only furthers that sad legacy.

https://patriotpost.us/articles/78415-27-dollars-million-for-george-floyds-family-isnt-justice-2021-03-15

******************************************

Jordan Peterson: The Archetypal Male

“If you think tough men are dangerous, wait until you see what weak men are capable of.” - Jordan Petersen

Fascist. Toxic. Is he left or is he right? To postmodernists, he’s a formidable foe. To ideologues, he’s a mystery. To atheists, he’s a problem. Canadian professor and political commentator Jordan Peterson might be the most significant mind of our day, yet even with high tech mass exposure, most coverage gets him wrong.

At the University of Toronto, Professor Peterson’s rise to fame came with his “here I stand” moment that challenged the change in Canadian law for the mandatory use of gender pronouns. His controversial opinions sparked a flame that attracted considerable attention to his sizable library of lectures on the Internet, everything from Piaget to Pinocchio.

Petersen promotes the hero archetype, or manliness, defined by ancient stories

He derives his project from a deep concern with the direction of Western history, informed by a vast knowledge of philosophy and religion. Where his arguments do take a hard stand is when calling out ideas that contradict nature or dismiss human need. Ideas made destructive by the toxic forces of postmodernism and Marxism.

YouTube gave him a platform from which to reach a generation of males desperate to speak truth back to the growing anti-male, anti-West, anti-family bias. For many, Peterson was a welcomed father figure, who filled a sizable hole left by the culture’s move toward the radical left. His book, "12 Rules for Life" restored their pride with a simple tenet, “Clean your room.”

Peterson passes through America’s divided mind because he operates in multiple worlds at once, organized by what he refers to as “the logos” — truth spoken into creation. The same word is used for Christ in the Gospel of John. Maps of Meaning reflect a triumvirate mind with an uncommon sophistication absent in political thought.

Peterson also travels a path between philosophical nihilism and religious fundamentalism, his penetrating mind a lens focused through Carl Jung’s prism of archetypal story. The story allows for non-partisan, universal, life lesson appeal to all human audiences.

Confusion is caused when the listeners require ideological purity and cordon off spheres in the divided brain: no overlap between conservative and liberal views, or critical thought (academic) and faith, or progress and the fixed natural order. For narrow thinkers his independent mind wreaks havoc.

With the aid of postmodernism, Peterson, the well-trained professor, detects modern cultural ills rampant in the academy today. Not for its challenge or even its suspicion, but for the fact that in the name of deconstructed ideology it joins with Marxism to do just that. Peterson argues the system won’t stand.

Where postmodernism has a helpful role in added perspective, but without the fortitude of positive philosophy, it becomes another political tool to rewrite history, distort gender relations, and break down traditional life, traveled by generations of lived Judeo-Christian souls.

Peterson identifies Marx as a source of the threat, perhaps as equal to the influence of Nietzsche on the Nazis.

In certain hands, Marx becomes political division replacing individual virtue or redemption with suspicion and political power, intending to destroy the role of the male.

Nietzsche warned that the end of Christianity would leave open a door to the very nihilism of which Peterson warns his audience. Postmodernism would tear down the sacred system, and Marxism would serve as the new religion. Peterson warns while we know when the right goes too far, we do not know when the left has reached extremes.

Peterson is a transformational figure, able to separate the contingent from the constant in history. In other words, when reflecting on the West’s philosophical and religious roots or great literature, he knows how not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

He seeks a way to transform the power of logos into a new perspective, able to withstand the radical left. Not escapist religion, as Marx promotes, but the redemption of our present world, one life at a time. Peterson cautions, before you can change the world, you must change yourself. Take responsibility, speak the truth, train your mind, and in doing so you will save the world!

In other words, strive to be the archetypal male.

https://townhall.com/columnists/robertorlando/2021/03/14/jordan-peterson-the-archetypal-male-n2586116

********************************************

IN BRIEF

Judge rules Texas can remove abortion mill Planned Parenthood from Medicaid program (The Hill)

San Francisco's "tent village" program now cost taxpayers more per night than a hotel stay (Disrn)

COVID-19 killed nearly 400,000 people in the U.S. in 2020, making it the third-leading cause of death (Politico)

Novavax reports its COVID vaccine is 96% efficacious (Time)

"Guardian of this city": Tampa police officer dies after steering into path of reckless driver to save others (Disrn)

Policy: Governors, just say no to federal bailouts (Heritage Foundation)

Policy: Biden's climate report is based on personal values, not science (RealClearPolicy)

America was forewarned: Spendthrift Biden planning first major tax hike in nearly 30 years (Disrn)

President Biden deploying FEMA to the overrun border that was self-inflicted (Washington Post)

Cognitive dissonance: Portland mayor looks to refund police as homicides spike (Fox News)

Art of the deal: Trump's 200-plus judicial appointees give Republicans hope to revoke Biden's flood of unconstitutional executive orders (Washington Times)

Federal "COVID" spending just hit $41,870 per taxpayer (FEE)

Double standards: Nancy Pelosi says it's okay to overturn an election if a Republican wins (Post Millennial)

We're Shocked — Shocked! U.S. Army reconsiders "gender-neutral physical test" after most women fail to keep up with men (Daily Wire)

Democrats represent 26 of 27 richest congressional districts (Daily Caller)

40% of small business owners can't fill job openings thanks to Democrat unemployment handouts (FEE)

Road to recovery: American daily travel now exceeding pre-pandemic levels (Disrn) while airports see most air travelers since March 2020 (UPI)

More than 1,000 Baltimore school officials make $100,000 a year as students continue to fail (Daily Wire)

Friendly fire: Democrats Chuck Schumer and Kristen Gillibrand (but not Biden) call for Governor Andrew Cuomo's resignation (The Federalist), though Cuomo remains defiant, saying he won't resign even as 7th accuser comes forward (Disrn)

Target is abandoning its Minneapolis headquarters (FEE)

Policy: Critical Race Theory aims to upend the civic order (Heritage Foundation)

************************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

Posted by JR at 9:07 PM 0 comments

Monday, March 15, 2021

COVID cases: South Africa’s mysterious coronavirus turnaround

Just weeks ago it seemed as if a nation was on the brink of chaos as a new strain tore through its population. Then something wild happened.

It has been a matter of weeks since South Africa was on the verge of a disaster.

Experts had predicted chaos as a new variant of the coronavirus tore through the country of 60 million people at the start of the year, and doctors were bracing for the worst.

The strain — which appeared to be reinfecting people who had recovered from a previous bout of COVID-19 and raised serious questions about an impending vaccination rollout — was infecting nearly 22,000 people a day by the middle of January.

In a sign that health agencies were missing cases, one in three tests taken in January were coming back positive.

Adding to the uncertainty about how the nation would cope, thousands of holiday-makers returned home from their Christmas breaks leading to fears of a number of superspreading events being thrown into the mix.

At the second wave’s peak, on January 19, there were 839 deaths linked to the disease in a single day.

But then, something remarkable happened. The number of new daily cases fell off a cliff and the number of deaths linked to the virus naturally followed.

On the latest count overnight, South Africa recorded just over 1000 new cases and 65 deaths.

The incredible drop in cases and deaths is even more remarkable because it happened without a large-scale vaccination campaign or a strict lockdown.

Now, fewer than 5 per cent of tests are finding traces of the virus and the government has lifted most of its remaining restrictions.

The reason for the monumental turnaround is not clear.

Other nations have seen cases suddenly drop without lockdowns too, but experts are beginning to piece together the reasons for this.

In India, for example, experts have suggested that many parts of the nation have reached herd immunity or that Indians may even have some pre-existing protection from the virus.

With the situation in South Africa, experts have basically thrown their hands in the air and admitted they do not know what has happened.

“Anybody who professes certainty (about why infections started dropping) is lying,” Harry Moultrie, a senior medical epidemiologist at South Africa’s National Institute for Communicable Diseases, told The Wall Street Journal. “There is so much uncertainty in all of this.”

One trait that South Africa shares with other nations that have seen mysterious drop-offs in cases is the limit to its testing capabilities, meaning there is likely to have been a lot more cases than the official figures suggest.

It also took measures to stop the spread, with the government making masks mandatory, closing beaches, enforcing a nightly curfew, stopping large social gatherings and even banning the sale of alcohol.

However, families were allowed to gather for Christmas and New Year, and the restrictions came after tens of thousands of South Africans working in big cities like Johannesburg had already travelled to see family in provinces where COVID-19 case numbers were growing.

The fears of superspreading events occurring as South Africans piled onto tightly-packed buses to return home after their holiday never materialised, and experts are still trying to figure out why.

Herd immunity is one suggestion, despite only about 1.5 million South Africans, around 2.5 per cent of the population testing positive.

The true number is likely to be much higher due to limits to the nation’s testing capacity, but experts have cast doubt over whether it is high enough to point to herd immunity as a reason for such a sudden and uniform drop in cases on a national scale.

Dr Moultrie told The Wall Street Journal scientists were looking at the role of certain networks, or individuals with many social or work contacts, in driving and eventually slowing down localised outbreaks in South Africa.

Another issue experts are looking at globally is whether people are voluntarily making changes to their lifestyles that will reduce the spread of the virus, without the need for government enforcement.

While, experts try to piece the puzzle together in South Africa, the government has declared that the nation’s second wave is over.

President Cyril Ramaphosa said at the end of last month that an evening curfew will remain in place between midnight and 4am, gatherings will be permitted subject to limitations on size and health protocols, and alcohol will be back on sale.

It has opened five international airports, but some land border posts remain closed.

While it remains to be seen what impact this will have on case numbers in the coming weeks, it is clear that the pandemic is far from over on a global scale.

Coronavirus cases are beginning to rise again worldwide, with a number of countries seeing their new infections surging in recent days and weeks.

In particular, Europe is seeing cases soar, with a third wave advancing swiftly across much of the continent.

The total of worldwide cases have been slowly climbing in recent weeks, bringing up the seven-day average.

On February 20, global new cases dropped to their lowest number since the middle of October with 398,366 new cases recorded and a seven-day average of 360,664.

However, on the last count on March 13 new cases had climbed to 492,351 and the seven-day average to 442,494.

Many nations that were badly hit over the northern hemisphere winter like the US for example saw cases sharply drop through February, bur the drop has levelled off since the start of March with a seven-day average of around 61,400 new cases a day.

However, there are many countries where cases are increasing, contributing to the upward curve of daily new cases worldwide.

The infection rate in the EU is now at its highest level since the beginning of February, with the spread of new variants of the COVID-19 virus being blamed for much of the recent increase.

Several countries are now set to impose strict new lockdown measures in the next few days.

Italy is set to reimpose restrictions across most of the country on Monday — a year after it became the first European nation to face a major outbreak.

There, authorities recorded more than 27,000 new cases and 380 deaths on Friday

Schools, restaurants, shops and museums will close with Health Minister Roberto Speranza saying he hoped the measures and vaccination program would allow restrictions to be relaxed in the second half of spring.

France meanwhile has recorded more than 26,000 new cases on the last count overnight. While the figure is a drop from 29,759 the day before, the situation in the nation’s hospitals is worsening.

Those in intensive care units edged higher by 57 to 4127, while emergency resuscitation units were running at nearly 82 per cent capacity, the highest since late November.

The French government has so far resisted pressure from health experts to impose a new, third lockdown in the face of rising case numbers.

Instead it has imposed a 6pm nationwide curfew and weekend lockdowns in two regions struggling to contain outbreaks while big shopping centres have been required to close.

In Poland, 17,260 new daily coronavirus cases were reported on Wednesday, the highest daily figure since November. New pandemic restrictions are likely to be announced this week.

In Germany, 12,674 new infections were reported on Saturday, a rise of 3117 from the previous week, as the head of the country’s infectious disease agency acknowledged that the country was now in the grip of a third wave.

According to John Hopkins University data, the worst affected nations per capita are in eastern and central Europe.

The Czech Republic is being hit the hardest with 1411 cases per one million people.

The country’s case rates have put a massive strain on its public health system – on March 5, the Czech government announced publicly that it had asked Germany, Switzerland and Poland to take in dozens of COVID-19 patients, in order to ease the burden on Czech hospitals that were running out of bed space.

The other worst affected nations include Estonia, Hungary, San Marino and Montenegro.

https://www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/global/covid-cases-south-africas-mysterious-coronavirus-turnaround/news-story/37a576067f5d825b5bc141c90e5fb989

*******************************************

Capital and Labor Both Suffer under Minimum Wage Mandates

President Biden and the Democratic Party have pushed hard to more than double the national minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $15 per hour over the next four years. This aggressive intervention in the functioning of labor markets has been heavily criticized, including in two recent Mises Wire articles. Resorting to both theoretical arguments and results of empirical studies, Robert Murphy and Martin Jones show in a convincing way that such a drastic increase in the minimum wage is bound to have a negative impact on employment and in particular on low-skilled workers. Yet their case focuses primarily on the short-term job losses stemming from such an ill-suited policy. One should not overlook that the minimum wage hike is likely to impair capital accumulation, productivity growth, and future wages as well. It means that this supposedly welfare-increasing measure is actually going to hamper not only employment, but the improvement of standards of living in general.

As Ludwig von Mises wrote in Human Action, wages are set on a free market in accordance with the marginal productivity of the labor services provided. As the types of labor supplied and their performance are very specific, there is no uniform wage rate throughout the economy. In that respect, setting a universal wage rate for the whole economy, even if it is a minimum threshold, doesn’t make sense either. Moreover, once the government or trade unions succeed in imposing a wage level above the marginal productivity of labor, institutional unemployment results. It is hard to imagine how a mandated national minimum wage of $15 per hour would remain below the marginal productivity of all current employees in the US and would not produce additional unemployment. As a matter of fact, the proposed increase would make the US minimum wage the highest among OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries and probably in the world, both in absolute terms and relative to the median wage in the economy. The closer the minimum wage is to the median one, the larger is the probability that lower-productivity workers cannot be hired at an artificially imposed minimum wage level, and will be swallowed by the ranks of the unemployed. The risk of a large increase in unemployment is quite high given that a nonnegligible 19 percent of the wage-earning workforce currently makes less than $15/hour.

Several US states have already imposed higher minimum wages than the national one of $7.25 an hour. Yet none of the state top-ups has reached $15 an hour as of 2021, which means that the negative impact on employment will be felt in the entire country. Nevertheless, states where average wages are lower and which have not gold-plated the national minimum wage yet will be affected most. A cursory look at wage statistics shows large differences between annual median wages among US states. An increase of the minimum wage to $15/hour would be equivalent to an annual minimum wage of about $31,200 (OECD data), representing about 90 percent or more of the 2019 annual median wage in about twelve US states: Florida, Oklahoma, Kentucky, New Mexico, Idaho, Alabama, South Dakota, South Carolina, Louisiana, West Virginia, Arkansas, and Mississippi. This ratio is very high compared to the OECD average of about 55 percent. Seven of the US states have not even gone beyond the mandated national $7.25 per hour minimum wage so far, illustrating how disastrous the effects of this one-size-fits-all measure could be.

Dozens of empirical studies have shown that hiking minimum wages undermines employment opportunities among low-skilled workers and increases unemployment, in particular when the increase is massive like the one proposed by the Democrats. A study by the Congressional Budget Office quoted by both Murphy and Jones estimates that employment would be reduced by 1.4 million by the minimum wage increase while the number of people in poverty would decline by a nine hundred thousand. Yet the negative economic impact would not end with the labor market effects. According to the same study, a higher minimum wage would also “slightly reduce real GDP, primarily because of reduced employment,” redistribute family income, and increase the budget deficit by a cumulative $54 billion over 2021–31. Significant income redistribution would take place from wealthier families that suffer a decline in business income estimated at $333 billion over 2021֪–31 or face higher prices for goods and services to the families of workers that either benefit from higher wages or have lost employment because of the minimum wage hike.

It should not be overlooked that, in addition to the direct rise in institutional unemployment, second-round effects in terms of lower output and real national income and a new redistribution thereof to the benefit of households with a lower propensity to save are likely to impact negatively savings and investment. Although one cannot predict how US families will shape their savings and investment patterns in the future, statistics show that over the last three decades only the two top income quintiles recorded positive saving rates consistently. The average savings of the two bottom income quintiles have been stubbornly negative while the gap between the top and bottom income groups’ savings has actually widened

If past saving trends continue, the contemplated minimum wage hike is likely to depress further the relatively low savings propensity of US households. The latter save only about 8 percent of their disposable income, part of a long-term declining trend since the early 1970s (OECD data). Moreover, this lasting decline has gone hand in hand with a persistent slowdown in private investment, capital accumulation, and labor productivity. It is obvious that the US economy should be spared another government intervention in the form of a massive minimum wage hike which can only reinforce these trends and undercut the rise in standards of living. Moreover, if minimum wages actually depress savings and hamper capital accumulation how could businesses respond to a mandated increase in wages by substituting more machinery for labor, as claimed by certain pundits? With impaired investment and capital stock, this would only be possible in specific cases and not for the overall economy. As a matter of fact, the causality runs in the opposite direction: capital accumulation and technological improvement support higher wages whereas mandatory minimum wages undermine them.

Conclusion

The lasting negative impact of minimum wages not only on employment, but also on standards of living in general, can only be fully grasped by taking into account also their long-term effects on output, capital accumulation and labor productivity. Mises1 understood very well this phenomenon when he claimed that “No one has ever succeeded in the effort to demonstrate that unionism could improve the conditions and raise the standard of living of all those eager to earn wages.”

Like in the case of unionism, the alleged benefits of mandated minimum wages are restricted to a minority of workers who see their wages rise in the short term. For the rest of the society, which must finance this immediate income redistribution and also face lower prospects for higher standards of living in the future, minimum wages are of no benefit at all.

https://mises.org/wire/capital-and-labor-both-suffer-under-minimum-wage-mandates

************************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

Posted by JR at 9:18 PM 0 comments

Sunday, March 14, 2021

Saliva Tests Comparable With Nasal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Detection

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, polymerase chain reaction testing with nasopharyngeal swabs has been the standard diagnostic approach, but the method is uncomfortable and requires a trained health professional. Now, 2 meta-analyses have concluded that self-administered saliva tests are on par with nose and throat swabs for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

The first analysis, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, examined 37 studies with 7332 paired samples. It found that saliva tests’ sensitivity was 3.4 percentage points lower than that of nasopharyngeal swabs.

The second article included 16 studies involving 5922 patients. It determined the tests’ sensitivity and specificity to be almost identical. Considering saliva tests’ ease of use, comfort, and good performance, “testing centers should strongly consider adopting saliva as their first sample choice, especially in community mass screening programs,” the article’s authors, from Montreal’s McGill University and the US National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777219?utm_source=silverchair&utm_campaign=jama_network&utm_content=covid_weekly_highlights&utm_medium=email

************************************

What Was In Ashli Babbitt’s Backpack When She Was Shot Dead by a Capitol Hill Police Officer Will Shock You

A clear case of manslaughter

On January 6th, 2021, Ashli Babbitt, a 14 year Air Force Veteran, was shot and killed by a Capitol Police Officer. The Capitol Police continue to hide details of her shooting death from the American public.

It was the only shooting incident at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

The Officer who shot Ashli Babbit reportedly said Ashli’s backpack factored into him killing her. But what was actually inside Ashli’s backpack? So does wearing a backpack give an officer an excuse to shoot you dead now?

In a public statement made by the Police Officers’ Attorney, Mark Schamel, he states the backpack Ashli was wearing compounded the Officers fears.

In the same statement, he directly contradicts himself by saying he could not see the three uniformed officers, only a hallway full of people. He also couldn’t see how far the hallway extended. If he could see Ashli Babbitt was wearing a backpack, he could see the three uniformed officers within the direct vicinity of her.

So what is the truth?

The Officer clearly states Ashli’s backpack compounded his fears and led to his decision to shoot and kill Ashli Babbitt. Due to the slight chance that there might be a bomb or a weapon of some sort, he chose to be the judge, jury, and executioner based upon a what-if scenario.

So what did Ashli Babbitt have in her backpack? Was it a bomb or a weapon of mass destruction? Maybe a chemical weapon or high-capacity firearm?

It was a wool sweater and a scarf.

Ashli Babbitt was killed for carrying a wool sweater and a scarf.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/03/ashli-babbitts-backpack-shot-dead-capitol-hill-police-officer-will-shock/

*******************************

Caring More About the Punishing the Rich Than Either the Economy or the Constitution

Elizabeth Warren has again proposed a federal wealth tax.

The reality that the Supreme Court could declare a federal wealth tax to be unconstitutional is apparently irrelevant to Senator Warren. The possibility of a deep negative economic consequence to the United States as the result of a wealth tax is apparently irrelevant to Senator Warren. The probability that the stock market would be slaughtered by wealthy investors all simultaneously selling stocks and bonds is apparently irrelevant to Senator Warren. The probability that the only buyers of stocks and bonds after a wealth tax would be foreign governments is apparently irrelevant to Senator Warren.

For a wealth tax to be constitutional, two of the six conservative Supreme Court judges and all three of the liberal judges would be required to determine that a wealth tax is not a direct tax. These Supreme Court judges would need to conclude that more than a century of precedent need be obviated. These justices would need to conclude (a) that the 125 year old Pollak decision was incorrect, (b) Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts was incorrect in what he wrote in NFIB v Sebelius in 2012 and (c) that most of the Supreme Court tax decisions over the past 100 years requiring what is referred to as a recognition event for income to be taxable are all moot. This is a tall order for a Court that reveres stare decisis, the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent.

While there are progressive lawyers and progressive academics who insist that a wealth tax would be constitutional and that the Supreme Court would provide its stamp of approval, there are equally qualified lawyers and academics who believe that a wealth tax would not be constitutional.

Why Senator Warren is not pursuing a wealth tax as a constitutional amendment is a question she has not addressed. Likely, this is because she does not believe the country would support a constitutional amendment to impose a wealth tax. There should be a message in that line of reasoning.

If there is only a 20 percent chance that Senator Warren’s tax plan would be unconstitutional, implementation of a federal wealth tax and creation of programs that would be supported by the wealth tax would be a fool’s errand. (This author believes there is a near 100 percent chance that the current Supreme Court would find a national wealth tax to be unconstitutional.) Congress could not in good conscious implement any continuing new programs after passage of a wealth tax, lest the funds no longer be available in year three or four after a negative decision by the Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court ruled against Senator Warren’s wealth tax, the Treasury would be forced to return every wealth tax dollar previously collected (with interest) along with eliminating every new program funded with the wealth tax unless other taxes were raised significantly.

Senator Warren’s wealth tax provides for a 2 percent tax on net assets between $50 million and $1 billion and a 3% tax on net assets above $1 billion. Her projections show that $252 billion in federal taxes would be raised in year one. She is wrong by a factor of about 100 percent.

A wealth tax would be accompanied by the sale of assets by taxpayers in order to raise the capital to pay the wealth tax. Should the Senator’s wealth estimations hold true, along with her proposed increase in capital gains taxes, the combination of her new wealth tax accompanied by her new capital gains tax be a tax of 4% to $1 billion and 6 percent for and remaining assets. This would put the total wealth and income taxes raised by Senator Warren’s wealth tax to $500 billion per year.

Nothing Elizabeth Warren can pass in Congress will change the underlying basics of supply and demand. The estimates being made with respect to the funds that would be raised from a wealth tax are wildly optimistic. There would appear to be an assumption that the sale of $500 billion of assets every year to pay the wealth tax along with the necessary income taxes would not be accompanied by a reduction in the price of the assets to be sold.

It is axiomatic that the value of investment assets would decline dramatically if an annual wealth tax was imposed on the wealthy. New investment would decline if not cease. When everyone is a seller, prices go down. Faced with a ten-year $5 trillion tax bill over ten years, the wealthy would not be buying stocks and the value of pension plans would collapse along with the revenues collected.

As pointed out by the Tax Foundation, the only possible buyers would be foreign governments who would be purchasing at bargain basement prices. Who would think that selling America to foreign nations is a great way to move forward toward the middle of this century?

The more famous quote is that a rising tide raises all ships. Senator Warren’s wealth tax would create the reverse which is equally true: A falling tide lowers all ships.

https://townhall.com/columnists/hankadler/2021/03/13/caring-more-about-the-punishing-the-rich-than-either-the-economy-or-the-constitution-n2586200

**************************************

Washington Must Face the Coming Medicare Crisis

Official Washington, D.C., just got another early warning. The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed the Medicare trustees’ 2020 report that the Medicare trust fund—the Part A account that funds the hospitalization and related services—faces insolvency in 2026.

Insolvency means that Medicare wouldn’t be able to fully reimburse hospitals, nursing homes, and home health agencies for promised benefits. In 2026, Medicare payments would be immediately cut by 10%, and the payment cuts would continue each year thereafter.

Medicare patients would be hit hard. You cannot cut provider payments for medical services without impacting the beneficiaries of those services.

The COVID-19 pandemic briefly highlighted Medicare’s vulnerability to economic setbacks when the Congressional Budget Office last September projected trust fund insolvency even earlier: 2024.

Statewide lockdowns shocked the economy, spiking widespread business closures and driving high unemployment. These disruptions reduced Medicare’s job-based federal payroll taxes, threatening insolvency earlier than anticipated.

Insolvency two years earlier or later makes little difference. Washington policymakers must soon make some big decisions and cannot escape responsibility for what will happen to the program, its beneficiaries, or the taxpayers.

There is nothing new here. Year in and year out, the Medicare trustees have repeatedly warned Congress and the White House that the Medicare trust fund meets neither short- nor long-term financial standards. It has been routinely running tens of billions of dollars in annual deficits, and is expected to generate red ink well into the future.

A demographic imbalance is increasing the pressure. The trustees report that over the last 35 years, Medicare enrollment doubled, and is projected to grow by 50% over the next 35 years. Meanwhile, the number of workers supporting Medicare beneficiaries is shrinking.

In 2008, there were four workers per beneficiary, but in 2019, that declined to three workers per beneficiary. By 2030, there will be only two and a half workers supporting each Medicare beneficiary.

What to do? If Congress and the White House really wanted to eliminate Medicare trust fund deficits altogether—a big if—the trustees say that Washington could either raise the standard payroll tax from 2.9% to 3.66%, immediately, or reduce Medicare trust fund expenditures by 16%. That is unlikely.

The Medicare trustees nonetheless posit these stark options simply to “illustrate the magnitude” of the changes needed to eliminate deficits and insolvency. They recognize, however, that such immediate changes would be unpalatable, and measures are likely to be more gradual. Even so, the longer Washington waits, the more painful the solutions become.

Any hike in the federal payroll taxes to stave off the impending insolvency would be an untimely blow for small businesses, their workers, and their families following the government lockdowns, the recent economic contraction, and massive job losses.

The other option—cutting Medicare payments to Part A providers even more—carries risks of its own.

The Affordable Care Act already authorizes big future Medicare payment reductions to hospitals, nursing homes, and home health agencies. Within the next 20 years, government actuaries report, Affordable Care Act provider payment reductions will guarantee financial losses and jeopardize Medicare beneficiaries’ access to quality care.

More recently, these institutions suffered a serious financial blow from government edicts to cancel scheduled care in response to the pandemic.

Even though hospital revenues have begun to rebound, and Congress provided hospitals with emergency payments, some hospitals are still struggling financially. This would not be a propitious time to hit them with another cut in Medicare reimbursement rates.

Finally, Congress could turn on the general revenue spending spigot to cover the trust fund losses. That would drop the pretense that Medicare Part A can continue as a “social insurance” program paid for by Medicare beneficiaries during their working lives. But that would pour more gasoline on Washington’s raging fiscal fires, generating even higher deficits and dangerous debt—now estimated at over $27 trillion—beyond that incurred by recent pandemic spending.

Painless solutions are nonexistent. But targeted solutions are available. Congress could enact a temporary Part A premium—the equivalent of a surcharge—to cover the Medicare trust fund’s projected deficit, and eliminate it when the fund is rebalanced.

But addressing the hospitalization trust fund crisis is only the beginning of serious Medicare reform. Washington policymakers must also phase in more substantial changes, including raising the age of eligibility to 67 in harmony with Social Security and indexing it to life expectancy, and further expanding “means testing” to reduce the burdens on middle-income taxpayers and beneficiaries.

The big change would be to build on the successes of Medicare Advantage, Medicare’s system of competing private health plans, and enact a comprehensive defined-contribution program and harness the powerful forces of consumer choice and market competition. That would not only improve the quality of care, but also control costs for beneficiaries and taxpayers alike.

That is a big job, and it must start sooner rather than later. It will take a combination of brains, guts, and bipartisan cooperation. It’s called statesmanship.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/03/09/washington-must-face-the-coming-medicare-crisis

************************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

March 13, 2021

Halting AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine rollout in EU an 'overreaction', according to experts

European authorities pausing the rollout of the AstraZeneca vaccine after a small number of people developed blood clots is an "overreaction", according to one leading Australian scientist.

More than 11 million people have been vaccinated with the AstraZeneca drug in the UK without evidence of an increase in blood clots

"You can't ignore these events, but I think it's an overreaction," Peter Collignon, an infectious diseases expert from ANU, said.

He said generally there were around 100 cases per 100,000 of blood clots in the general population and that the rate of blood clots from people who had received the AstraZeneca vaccine did not appear to be higher than that.

Professor Collignon said in any mass vaccination program, some people were going to have health issues that were not necessarily a consequence of receiving the vaccine.

"So we are going to see everything from heart attacks, to strokes, to pulmonary embolism, and we need to keep an eye on it but generally, this doesn't seem to be above what you would expect given that millions of doses have been given out," he said.

Professor Collignon said there was no evidence of increased blood clots in the phase 3 trials of the AstraZeneca vaccine.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) said the AstraZeneca vaccine's benefits continue to outweigh its risk.

"There is currently no indication that vaccination has caused these conditions, which are not listed as side effects with this vaccine," the EMA said. "The vaccine can continue to be administered while investigation of cases of thromboembolic events is ongoing," it added.

The EMA said there had been 30 cases of clot-related events among the 5 million Europeans who have received the jab.

One person in Austria died from blood clots and another was hospitalised with a blockage in the lung after receiving doses from a particular batch of the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Denmark suspended the shots for two weeks after a 60-year-old woman, given an AstraZeneca shot from a batch used in Austria, formed a blood clot and died, health authorities said.

Some EU countries subsequently suspended this batch as a precautionary measure, while a full investigation by the EMA was ongoing.

Italy also suspended the use of AstraZeneca when two men died in Sicily, however, those shots were not from the Austrian batch.

Norway, Iceland, Estonia, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Latvia have also stopped inoculations with the vaccine while investigations continue.

RMIT vaccine expert Kylie Quinn said increased clotting had not come up as a potential issue in the UK rollout of the vaccine.

"Biologically, I don't know why there would be a link between clots and this specific vaccine," she said.

Professor Collignon said it was important to monitor the vaccine rollout for any serious side effects, to see if it was above what you would expect to see in the general population.

"Tens of millions of doses of [the AstraZeneca] vaccine have been given around the world, so if there is an association with blood clots, which is doubtful, it is a pretty rare side effect compared to the consequences of getting COVID-19 itself," he said.

Experts said any apparent cluster of side effects needed to be investigated, but it did not mean the cause was the vaccine itself.

Stephen Evans, a professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said the sensible approach was to make sure the "benefit and risk balance is in favour of the vaccine".

"This is a super-cautious approach based on some isolated reports in Europe," he said. "The problem with spontaneous reports of suspected adverse reactions to a vaccine are the enormous difficulty of distinguishing a causal effect from a coincidence.

"This is especially true when we know that COVID-19 disease is very strongly associated with blood clotting and there have been hundreds if not many thousands of deaths caused by blood clotting as a result of COVID-19 disease.

"The first thing to do is to be absolutely certain that the clots did not have some other cause, including COVID-19."

Australia's Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly said there was "no evidence" the AstraZeneca jab caused blood clots.

"The Australian government is aware of reports some European countries have suspended the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine due to some reports of blood clots in people who have been vaccinated," he said.

"Safety is our first priority and in a large vaccine rollout like this, we need to monitor carefully for any unusual events so we will find them.

"This does not mean that every event following a vaccination is caused by the vaccine.

"But we do take them seriously and investigate and that's what Denmark is currently doing."

Professor Kelly noted there had been more than 11 million people vaccinated in the UK without evidence of an increase in blood clots.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison said any overseas developments in vaccine rollouts were monitored by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

"The batches we distribute here in Australia are tested here by the TGA and we have robust processes," he said.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-12/why-the-eu-has-halted-astrazeneca-rollout-due-to-blood-clots/13241462

******************************************

Serious allergic reactions do occur with COVID vaccines

The journal article below. It was rare (2%) and nobody died of it but the immediate availability of healthcare was important

Methods

We prospectively studied Mass General Brigham (MGB) employees who received their first dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (12/16/2020-2/12/2021, with follow-up through 2/18/2021) (eMethods in the Supplement). For 3 days after vaccination, employees completed symptom surveys through a multipronged approach including email, text message, phone, and smartphone application links. Acute allergic reaction symptoms solicited included itching, rash, hives, swelling, and/or respiratory symptoms (eAppendix in the Supplement).

To identify anaphylaxis, allergists/immunologists reviewed the electronic health records of employees (1) reporting 2 or more allergy symptoms, (2) described as having an allergic reaction in MGB safety reports, (3) logged by the on-call MGB allergy/immunology team supporting employee vaccination, and (4) referred to MGB allergy/immunology. Episodes were scored using the Brighton Criteria2 and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases/Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network (NIAID/FAAN) criteria.3 Confirmed anaphylaxis required meeting at least 1 of these 2 sets of criteria.

We described characteristics and outcomes of anaphylaxis cases. We calculated incidence rates and 95% CIs of self-reported acute allergic reactions and confirmed anaphylaxis, using vaccine administrations as the denominator. We compared frequencies using ?2 tests, considering a 2-sided P value of .05 statistically significant. Analyses were conducted in SAS version 9.4. This study was approved by the MGB Human Research Committee with a waiver of informed consent.

Results

Of 64 900 employees who received their first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, 25 929 (40%) received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and 38 971 (60%) received the Moderna vaccine. At least 1 symptom survey was completed by 52 805 (81%).

Acute allergic reactions were reported by 1365 employees overall (2.10% [95% CI, 1.99%-2.22%]), more frequently with the Moderna vaccine compared with Pfizer-BioNTech (2.20% [95% CI, 2.06%-2.35%] vs 1.95% [95% CI, 1.79%-2.13%]; P = .03, Table 1). Anaphylaxis was confirmed in 16 employees (0.025% [95% CI, 0.014%-0.040%]): 7 cases from the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (0.027% [95% CI, 0.011%-0.056%]) and 9 cases from the Moderna vaccine (0.023% [95% CI, 0.011%-0.044%]) (P = .76).

Individuals with anaphylaxis were a mean (SD) age of 41 (13) years, and 15 (94%) were female (Table 2); 10 (63%) had a prior allergy history and 5 (31%) had an anaphylaxis history. Mean time to anaphylaxis onset was 17 minutes (SD, 28; range, 1-120). One patient was admitted to intensive care, 9 (56%) received intramuscular epinephrine, and all recovered. Three employees, with prior anaphylaxis history, did not seek care.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777417

************************************

As the Insurrection Narrative Crumbles, Democrats Cling to it More Desperately Than Ever

Twice in the last six weeks, warnings were issued about imminent, grave threats to public safety posed by the same type of right-wing extremists who rioted at the Capitol on January 6. And both times, these warnings ushered in severe security measures only to prove utterly baseless.

First we had the hysteria over the violence we were told was likely to occur at numerous state capitols on Inauguration Day. “Law enforcement and state officials are on high alert for potentially violent protests in the lead-up to Inauguration Day, with some state capitols boarded up and others temporarily closed ahead of Wednesday's ceremony,” announced CNN. In an even scarier formulation, NPR intoned that “the FBI is warning of protests and potential violence in all 50 state capitals ahead of President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration.”

The resulting clampdowns were as extreme as the dire warnings. Washington, D.C. was militarized more than at any point since the 9/11 attack. The military was highly visible on the streets. And, described The Washington Post, “state capitols nationwide locked down, with windows boarded up, National Guard troops deployed and states of emergency preemptively declared as authorities braced for potential violence Sunday mimicking the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by a mob of pro-Trump rioters.” All of this, said the paper, “reflected the anxious state of the country ahead of planned demonstrations.”

But none of that happened — not even close. The Washington Post acknowledged three weeks later:

Despite warnings of violent plots around Inauguration Day, only a smattering of right-wing protesters appeared at the nation’s statehouses. In Tallahassee, just five armed men wearing the garb of the boogaloo movement — a loose collection of anti-government groups that say the country is heading for civil war — showed up. Police and National Guard personnel mostly ignored them.

All over the country it was the same story. “But at the moment that Biden was taking the oath of office in Washington, the total number of protesters on the Capitol grounds in Topeka stood at five — two men supporting Trump and two men and a boy ridin’ with Biden,” reported The Wichita Eagle (“With Kansas Capitol in lockdown mode, Inauguration Day protest fizzles). “The protests fizzled out after not many people showed up,” reported the local Florida affiliate in Tallahassee. “The large security efforts dwarfed the protests that materialized by Wednesday evening,” said CNN, as “state capitols and other cities remained largely calm.”

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/as-the-insurrection-narrative-crumbles

************************************

IN BRIEF

CDC lets child migrant shelters fill to 100% despite COVID concern (Axios)

South Korea and the U.S. reach accord on troop cost sharing (Korea Herald)

New York lawmakers vote to strip Cuomo of pandemic emergency powers (Axios)

2021 sees a record number of bills targeting trans youth defending the dignity of girls and sports (Axios)

T-Mobile is forcing employees to complete a "White Privilege Checklist" (Not the Bee)

Biden to formally establish new Gender Policy Council (The Hill)

Democrats grease the budget wheels for writing off student debt by Biden decree (WSJ)

Twitter silent as Louis Farrakhan's misleading COVID vaccine claims go unchecked (Fox)

New York State Assembly Republicans launch impeachment effort against Governor Andrew Cuomo (NY Post)

Biden administration signals openness to adding "third gender" option for federal IDs (Examiner)

Policy: Time for Congress to reform civil asset forfeiture (National Review)

Free speech-suppressing Apple denies Parler's request to be reinstated in App Store (Post Millennial)

Mexican officials worried that Biden's immigration policy is incentivizing human smuggling and gang activity (Examiner)

Biden administration to resume undeserved taxpayer aid to Palestinians (Disrn)

Fewer than 1 in 5 support "defund the police" movement (USA Today)

In 70-30 vote, Senate confirms Merrick Garland as attorney general (CNBC)

In 66-34 vote, Senate confirms Michael Regan as EPA chief (Examiner)

Left-leaning poll shows 53-32 favor banning biological males from women's sports (Daily Wire)

************************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

Posted by JR at 7:52 PM 0 comments

Friday, March 12, 2021

An anti-virus drug for OLDIES

This is tremendous news. Antibody drug cuts Covid ‘hospital admissions and deaths by 85%’

A new drug has reduced Covid-19 hospital admissions and deaths among high-risk patients by 85 per cent, the British pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) said this morning.

The monoclonal antibody treatment, called VIR-7831, is for people with mild to moderate illness. An independent panel recommended stopping further enrolment in a late-stage trial after evidence emerged of “profound efficacy”, GSK said.

The drug was developed in partnership with Vir Biotechnology, which is based in California. The two companies said that they would immediately seek an emergency use authorisation in the United States. It is possible that they will also apply for regulatory approval in the UK.

Monoclonal antibodies are laboratory-produced molecules that mimic the antibodies naturally produced by the body when people are infected by the coronavirus.

The evidence included interim analysis of data from 583 patients enrolled in the COMET-ICE trial, which demonstrated an 85% reduction in the hospitalisation or death in high-risk COVID-19 patients treated early with VIR-7831 monotherapy compared to placebo.

The trial, that will continue as a blinded trial with the existing patients, with the patients will be followed for 24 weeks, will also yield additional results when completed – this data will be ‘forthcoming’, according to GSK and Vir.

GSK and Vir will use these results to form the EUA application, and for additional authorisations in other countries.

In addition to the positive phase 3 results, GSK and Vir announced results from a new study – submitted and pending online publication on the pre-print server bioRxiv – demonstrating that VIR-7831 maintains activity against currently circulating ‘variants of concern’.

This includes the variants discovered in the UK, South Africa and Brazil.

The results are based on in vitro data from pseudotyped virus assays – according to GSK/Vir, their mAb binds to a highly conserved epitope of the spike protein, which could make it more difficult for resistance to develop.

“The dual-action design of VIR-7831 to both block viral entry into healthy cells and clear infected cells, as well as its high barrier to resistance, are key distinguishing characteristics,” said George Scangos, chief executive officer of Vir.

“These findings, paired with our pending publication of resistance data, demonstrate the potential of VIR-7831 to prevent the most severe consequences of COVID-19 and highlight its potential ability to protect against the current circulating strains of the virus,” he added.

http://www.pmlive.com/pharma_news/gsk,_vir_seek_eua_after_scoring_positive_results_for_covid-19_antibody_vir-7831_1365070

*************************************

Why Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine is probably the best shot

Americans have had two extremely similar authorized COVID-19 vaccines since December: one mRNA vaccine from Pfizer, and another mRNA vaccine from Moderna.

But now, there is another coronavirus shot authorized for use across the US: Johnson & Johnson’s adenovirus jab, which got a green light from the US Food and Drug Administration on Saturday after an expert committee unanimously recommended on Friday evening that it should receive emergency-use authorization.

In trials around the world, J&J’s shot was shown to be 66% effective at preventing coronavirus infections altogether, and 85% effective at preventing severe COVID-19 cases, when given four weeks to take effect.

Taken at face value, that may not appear as good as Moderna’s or Pfizer’s two-shot vaccines, both of which had efficacy better than 94% in their 2020 trials.

But don’t be fooled by the buffet of incomplete vaccine data we have. Comparing efficacy rates among different vaccine trials conducted at different times is like comparing apples to oranges. That’s why Dr. Anthony Fauci and other experts have said they would just take whichever shot they could get.

And for some people, getting the J&J vaccine may be ideal.

Young, healthy people, and those who can’t necessarily afford to come back for a second jab, may prefer it, and others who don’t tolerate vaccine side effects well might like it better too. Plus, you have to consider that J&J’s shot was tested out at the height of the pandemic, which may have had an effect on the numbers in the trial.

While it may not eliminate disease, J&J’s jab holds its own in preventing the worst outcomes of COVID-19 – hospitalization and death. What’s more, it’s cheap to make, simple to give and get, and you’ll gain some good viral protection in just a matter of weeks, without ever having to return for a second shot. As a bonus, you just might be better protected than anyone else against some new variants that are spreading fast.

In short, this vaccine could be the pandemic escape hatch we’ve been waiting for – helping vaccinate millions more Americans at a breakneck clip.

The most obvious benefit of the J&J vaccine is it’s just one shot. “It’s nice to have a single-dose vaccine,” FDA committee member Eric Rubin, editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, said Friday evening after the vote. “The demand is so large that it clearly has a place.”

The rest of the FDA committee agreed.

“What we have to keep in mind is we are still in the midst of this deadly pandemic,” committee member Archana Chatterjee, dean of the Chicago Medical School, said. “There is a shortage of vaccines that are currently authorized, and I think authorization of this vaccine will help meet the needs of the moment.”

Adding millions more shots to the US’s vaccine arsenal will help drive up the collective immunity of the country. And one shot can do that quicker than two. Not only is the J&J vaccine simpler to give out, requiring no second appointments, it’s also significantly cheaper to produce than mRNA shots – making it a great tool to fight the pandemic worldwide. (All the authorized COVID-19 vaccines are, under federal law, free to everyone in the US.)

It works particularly well in young people

For younger, healthier people the convenience factor of a one-shot vaccine is not trivial.

People under 60 are generally not at great risk of major COVID-19 complications in the first place, and are more likely to struggle taking time off work, but it’s still imperative that they get vaccinated.

They can do their part to combat the pandemic without having to schedule two vaccine appointments (or accidentally skip the second). With J&J’s shot, immune protection will become robust within a month, without having to go back in for a second booster.

Fortunately, this new vaccine works particularly well in the under-60 group too. In J&J’s trial, people under the age of 60 were well protected from serious infections: Only 58 out of more than 8,200 who were fully vaccinated got moderate to severe illness after their shot had time to take effect. In the similarly sized control group, 180 got moderate to severe COVID-19 infections.

J&J’s shot is also the only one that the FDA has reviewed, so far, that provides evidence that it helps stop people from spreading the virus asymptomatically. That is particularly useful for young people, as well as essential workers and people experiencing homelessness who may not be able to social distance, and already face more barriers getting access to vaccine or testing sites.

Though more research is needed to know for sure, J&J’s data suggests that their vaccine may be about 74% effective against asymptomatic infections. That means it could be a great tool to help achieve herd immunity nationwide, by stopping the silent, undetected spread of the virus.

It’s safe and likely doesn’t require a day of rest
Both Pfizer’s and Moderna’s two-dose mRNA shots come with some more serious side effects than J&J’s. Though temporary, the fever, chills, and general malaise people may feel the day after getting their second shot (called the booster) can be severe enough to affect their daily plans.

Lots of people who’ve had strong reactions to their second shot of Pfizer’s or Moderna’s vaccine are recommending others take a day off work after shot No. 2, or they schedule their appointment over the weekend. But not everyone can afford to do that.

J&J’s vaccine is also more convenient for providers. It is less fragile, so it can sit in a regular fridge for three months, without requiring any of the hypercold storage mRNA vaccines do. This could make it an indispensable tool in rural areas. The vaccine may also be a better choice for some people who have polyethylene glycol allergies.

It’s the only vaccine we know that works against variants in the real world

“We have a vaccine now that has good efficacy that everyone is going to compare to the existing vaccines and say it doesn’t look quite as good,” Rubin said.

But there’s more to J&J’s result than that single number.

“What’s really important to remember about this vaccine is that when we conducted our clinical trials, in October of 2020 to about January of 2021, this was during the time when the incidence rate of the virus was really about at its peak,” J&J CEO Alex Gorsky told NBC’s “Today” show on Monday.

J&J’s shot is also the only vaccine to have rigorous clinical data showing success in numerous countries where variants of the virus are rapidly spreading. In particular, J&J’s shot was 64% effective in South Africa, where virtually all the local illnesses during the study were caused by the B.1.351 variant.

Mathai Mammen, J&J’s research and development head, told Insider that the company’s shot has been “co-optimized” for both antibody and T-cell responses to the virus, while both Pfizer’s and Moderna’s have not.

“That makes our vaccine potentially really good versus a virus that is changing on us,” he said. “We’re worried about the mRNA vaccines not having that T-cell net and actually taking a much bigger hit by the South African variant.”

Mutations seen in the B.1.351 variant have concerned vaccine developers to the point that Moderna and Pfizer are now developing new booster shots of their vaccine, tailored to neutralize that concerning variant.

Moderna and Pfizer are confident that their shots will still provide protection, at least partially, against these concerning variants. J&J’s shot, in contrast, brings certainty that it is.

“We’re in a race between the virus mutating, new variants coming out that can cause further disease, and stopping it,” Dr. Jay Portnoy, the FDA committee’s consumer representative said. “We need to get this vaccine out.”

You might get a little sick

Even though J&J’s vaccination may not eliminate disease entirely, it makes getting COVID-19 tolerable.

People who were vaccinated with J&J’s shot in the trial but got sick – in what are called “breakthrough” infections – had much milder symptoms.

Dr. James Hildreth, also on the FDA expert advisory committee, said it was an “important point” about the shot.

It’s similar to what happens with annual flu shots: They tend to make flu symptoms milder and illnesses shorter, when and if vaccinated people do get infected. That’ll be an important feature of any good coronavirus vaccine, as COVID-19 becomes endemic.

Starting four weeks after immunization, no one receiving J&J’s vaccine was hospitalized. There were also no deaths among vaccinated participants (seven people who got the useless placebo jab died during the vaccine study in South Africa).

“The efficacy at preventing relatively mild or even moderate disease may be different,” Dr. Cody Meissner, an infectious-disease expert at Tufts School of Medicine, said during the FDA meeting on Friday, speaking of the differences between Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J.

“Yet all of the vaccines seem to be equally effective at preventing very severe disease, intensive-care needs, and deaths.”

And isn’t that what all the best vaccines are designed to do? Keep us alive and free of serious diseases. As the virologist Angela Rasmussen said Wednesday on Twitter, “I’ll take it.”

She added: “I’d recommend it to my parents and older relatives too.”

https://medium.com/business-insider/why-johnson-johnsons-covid-19-vaccine-is-probably-the-best-shot-99a5d5beab04

************************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

Posted by JR at 4:17 PM 0 comments

Thursday, March 11, 2021

Is Trump a populist?

Leftist intellectuals are firmly convinced that Trump is a populist. And that accusation does make some sense. But a lot depends on what you think populism is. The general idea is that a populist adopts popular stances that in the end don't work or are destructive. That strikes me as a useful summary of Leftism.

So the term is usually narrowed down to refer to politicians who claim to represent "the people" in opposition to a ruling elite. Trump's attack on "the swamp" is clearly of that ilk. So which is it? Is populism inherently Leftist or is it just one approach to politics?

A useful approach to defining populism has been made by Joe Forgas, a distinguished Australian psychologist who escaped Communist Hungary as a child. Given that origin, his sympathey for the Left is rather limited, unusually for a social science academic.

He equates populism with tribalism and notes that Trump appealed to Americans as a tribe: "Make America great". Forgas also sees the Left as hugely tribal, obsessed with all sorts of tribal identities: Homosexuals, feminists, blacks etc. The Left, too, create tribes with their propaganda.

So Forgas does create a coherent story about populism.

But I think he misses the wood for the trees. He overlooks what British conservative philosopher Roger Scruton devoted his life to pointing out: That patriotism and conservatism are two branches of the same tree. So it was not some sort of narrow tribalism that lay behind Trump's appeal but his conservatism generally.

Trump certainly was patriotic and wanted the best for his country but he also had a whole range of conservative ideas -- he was critical of abortion, he disliked feminism, he sidelined global warming, he was pro-Christian etc. And he most clearly saw the status quo as having some virtue and thought it should be changed only gradually.

Where most thinkers saw the transfer of American industrial jobs to China as desirable on cost grounds, Trump looked to the effect that was having on American industrial workers and tried to halt it. He taught us that money was not everything. Stability had value too

And another change that Trump vehemently opposed was the mass illegal immigration into America by people with very different traditions to Americans. He liked America as it was and wanted population change to be carefully controlled and limited

So "make America great" was only a general rubric for a whole range of conservative policies. He was a thoroughgoing conservative, the first such that Americans had seen in public life for a long time. And that is why he is widely loved by conservatives and widely loathed by non-conservatives. The Left could put up with wishy-washy conservative like George Bush but a real conservative shook them to the core. They had never before been confronted by a real conservative and that generated huge rage

So Trump was a populist in only an incidental sense. The breadth of his appeal was the voice he gave to conservatism across the board. The Left thought that their own limited view of the world was the only one. Trump showed them otherwise

**************************************

Biden, like Trump, embraces the 'Buy American' folly

What Jeff Jacoby says below was for a long time conventional wisdom on both sides of American politics. And it is still largely true. Buying local tends to prop up inefficient producers who really need to find something better to spend their time and efforts on.

Jacoby is however wrong to see Trump as the simplistic "buy American" advocate we have seen in the past. Trump does after all have an economics degree from a prestigious economics school (Wharton) so would obviously be well aware of the problems with a buy American agenda.

So while his rhetoric was at times sweeping, what Trump actually did was finely calibrated. He protected American industries only when the social impact of foreign trade was grievous. The headline example of that is that coal and steel towns got help from Trump when they were suddenly hard-hit by foreign trade. Trump endeavoured to revive coal mining in particular. He recognized, in other words, that there were some cases where buying overseas rather from American producers could be socially disruptive and should therefore be deplored.

Tariffs have long been seen as a legitimate instrument of government and it was simply conservative of Trump to use them to give a breathing space to disrupted communities

But the very distinctive thing about Trump's tariffs was that he actually used them to FREE UP trade. He put tariffs on other countries in order to pressure them into removing their tariffs on American goods. And he did have considerable success at that. So at the end of the day trade was freed up overall, not reduced. He actually used tariffs to promote free trade

Whether Biden will use trade restrictions in a similar intelligent way remains to be seen but it seems unlikely

IN HIS first weeks as president, Joe Biden has been busily undoing much of his predecessor's legacy. On issues ranging from climate to abortion to immigration, Biden has signed executive orders and proposed new regulations aimed at reversing Donald Trump's policies. But when it comes to one of Trump's most damaging economic obsessions — his "Buy American" agenda — Biden is following in Trump's footsteps.

Trump was the most protectionist president of modern times. Hostility to free trade was a key theme of his 2016 campaign and of his inaugural address. "We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs," he declared. "Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength.... We will follow two simple rules: buy American, and hire American."

He was wrong. His protectionist policies failed. Yet now comes Biden, and vows to go even further.

On Jan. 25, the president issued a series of directives toughening Trump's policy of requiring the federal government to buy US-made products. Biden's orders, as summarized by the White House, impose higher hurdles for imported components used in US manufacturing and direct government agencies to "crack down on unnecessary waivers" — i.e., to allow fewer federal agencies to procure foreign-made goods in cases when they determine that a preference for American products would not be in the public interest.

But "buy American" mandates, though popular with the general public, are never in the public interest.

The idea that the federal government should be compelled to buy its products and supplies from US producers and suppliers — or, to put it differently, that the government should be barred from spending taxpayer dollars on goods made abroad — dates back to the Great Depression. On his last full day as president in 1933, Herbert Hoover signed the protectionist Buy American Act, which for the first time required government agencies to give preference to domestic goods for all contracts above a $10,000 threshold. Supporters of the law argued that it would strengthen American industry, fuel job-creation, and boost the fortunes of American workers.

The same argument is still being made by advocates of "buy American" policies. Biden's new executive orders, said the White House, "will ensure that the federal government is investing taxpayer dollars in American businesses—both small and large. These investments will help create well-paid, union jobs, and build our economy back better so that everybody has a fair shot at the middle class."

That may sound patriotic and reasonable. But the effect of Hoover's law, and myriad subsequent domestic-preference statutes and regulations, has been to drive up the cost of goods and services bought with public funds and to prevent jobs from being created. According to one scholarly estimate, scrapping "buy American" restrictions would add $22 billion to the US economy and generate an estimated 363,000 new jobs. Another analysis, by Gary Hufbauer and Euijin Jung of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, calculates that "the annual taxpayer cost for each US job arguably 'saved' by made-in-America [requirements] probably exceeds $250,000."

"Buy American" laws and regulations have driven up the cost of goods and services bought with public funds and prevented jobs from being created.

There is a superficial appeal to the notion that US procurement dollars should be reserved whenever possible for US producers. But like a lot of superficially appealing notions, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. No one would ever insist that officials in Cambridge or Worcester be compelled to buy equipment and materials only from vendors and producers located within their municipal borders. After all, there are so many more options — often less expensive options, higher-quality options, or more reliable options — to be found in other towns. It would be equally absurd to insist that Massachusetts agencies be barred from contracting with firms in Ohio or California. Economic well-being doesn't come from locking up trade behind local or state boundaries, but from expanding it beyond those boundaries. What is true of neighborhoods, cities, and states is equally true of countries.

Protectionist mandates deprive American taxpayers of the benefits that come from access to worldwide supply chains and the broadest possible competition. By sheltering domestic producers from competitors abroad, "buy American" rules reduce the pressure on those producers to innovate, improve quality, and become more efficient. Rare is the American business that is capable of achieving sustained excellence, or of remaining at the cutting edge of its industry, if it never has to face challengers.

Those entrusted with taxpayer dollars should be required not to "buy American," but to buy wisely — to get the highest quality at the most reasonable cost. When American-made products meet that standard, by all means buy them. When imports are available at higher quality and lower cost, that is where taxpayer dollars should go. Surely Biden would agree that Herbert Hoover's policies have done enough harm. This is no time to double down on them.

http://www.jeffjacoby.com/25195/biden-like-trump-embraces-the-buy-american-folly

******************************************

COVID: UK variant up to 100 percent more deadly, study finds

Research reveals the B.1.1.7 strain of the novel coronavirus is significantly more lethal than earlier variants.

A highly infectious variant of COVID-19 first discovered in the United Kingdom is between 30 to 100 percent more deadly than previous strains, researchers have said.

In a study that compared death rates among people in the UK infected with the variant known as B.1.1.7 with those infected with other strains, scientists said the new strain had “significantly higher” mortality.

Published in the British Medical Journal on Wednesday, the UK study revealed infection with what is commonly known as the “UK variant” led to 227 deaths in a sample of 54,906 COVID-19 patients, compared with 141 among the same number of patients infected with other variants.

“Coupled with its ability to spread rapidly, this makes B.1.1.7 a threat that should be taken seriously,” said Robert Challen, a researcher at Exeter University who co-led the research.

B.1.1.7 was first detected in the English county of Kent in September 2020 and has since become the dominant strain in the UK. It fanned outwards rapidly, and more than 100 other countries have reported cases since.

The variant has 23 mutations in its genetic code – a relatively high number of changes – and some of these have made it far more able to spread.

UK scientists say it is about 40-70 percent more transmissible than the first-wave coronavirus.

Its rapid spread in the UK late last year fuelled a surge in cases and deaths and, on January 4, forced a new national lockdown – the country’s third since the pandemic began.

To date, the UK has recorded more than 4.3 million cases of COVID-19. The virus has killed nearly 125,000 people nationwide – one of the world’s worst death tolls.

In a bid to curb the crisis, officials have rolled out a mass inoculation drive which has seen more than 22.5 million people – about a third of the UK’s adult population – receive at least one dose of a vaccine to date.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson last month said he was confident the vaccines currently being used in the UK – produced by Oxford-AstraZeneca and Pfizer-BioNtech – were “effective in protecting against death and serious illness”.

His comments came amid fears over the emergence of two other highly infectious virus strains – the so-called Brazilian and South African variants, known by scientists as 20I/501Y.V2 or B.1.351 and P.1 respectively.

According to the World Health Organization, the COVID-19 vaccines that are currently in development or have been approved in various parts of the world are expected to provide at least some protection against the new variants.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/3/10/uk-covid-19-variant-30-100-more-deadly-study-finds

************************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

Posted by JR at 8:10 PM 0 comments

Wednesday, March 10, 2021

Indisputable Proof That Donald J. Trump Won the Election

On election night Trump was ahead, significantly ahead. By 930pm on election night, it was already a statistical impossibility for Biden to win. Yet, all of a sudden, despite Trump’s substantial margin, Biden was ahead and winning the election, how did this happen? Notice in the graphic below Trump’s lead (top numbers) and then Biden’s fraudulent lead – which occurred within 5 hours, in the middle of the night. Note also that this sudden leap forward for Biden just by chance happened in not one state or even two, but FOUR states, and ALL at the same time. Oh, and they were all swing states, but that’s all just coincidence right?

Notice in the below image that Biden instantly received 23 times the votes that Trump did in Michigan. Not in hours, but in minutes. This is of course impossible.

Look at the above graphic where Trump was ahead by over 100,000 votes. In ONE vote update in Wisconsin, Biden leapfrogs ahead by some 20,000 votes. How can this be? Answer – it CAN’T.

One vote update in Georgia gave Trump 29,000 votes – the same update gave Biden 136,000 votes. Seeing a pattern here?

These abnormal, and unquestionably all but impossible vote count spikes gave Biden the win. Except that based solely on statistics, Biden could not possibly have received this many votes in so short a time, in so many states – at the same time. Neither could any other candidate – ever.

Have you ever heard of 100% of a particular voter precinct actually voting? Well, how about 150% – or over 300% of a voting precinct voting??? Well guess what? This actually did happen, in Michigan.

From Kiwiblog:

“Russell Ramsland of Allied Security Group, LLC of Dallas, TX swore an affidavit concerning a detailed audit his company did on voting machines in Texas in 2018. He wrote in detail of the many serious security inadequacies of the software and then examined the 2020 Presidential vote count in a number of counties in Michigan. He reported that over 3,000 precincts in the state of Michigan reported a vote count between 80 and 350% of registered voters. He lists a number of precincts in his report and in some cases a massive over vote. The vast majority of the precincts on the list were on or about 100%. The whole affidavit makes for interesting reading.

Note again the mention of Dominion, and particular software used to essentially rig the vote. It’s not possible to obtain 350% of the registered vote, that is only common sense and only a fool would deny it.

The Kiwiblog post referenced above mentions other very interesting statistical details such as Trump being the first president in 132 years to have increased his vote total in his reelection bid, and NOT win reelection. I encourage you to read the article; it supports the case that the Democrats cheated – big time.

Judicial Watch reported finding 353 U.S. Counties in 29 States with Voter Registration Rates Exceeding 100%. Seems to me that these counties are fertile areas for vote manipulation.

Pennsylvania was another major playground for vote manipulation.

From Libertas Bella:

“What’s more, Pennsylvania was another state where vote-counting was paused with the Vote Fairy showing up in the middle of the night to drop obscene amounts of ballots, all marked for former Vice President Joe Biden.

Two examples of such dumps were reported on by left-leaning Five Thirty Eight on their Twitter feed: 23,277 votes came in from Philadelphia, all of them for Biden. 5,300 votes in Luzerne County, which includes Wilkes-Barre, with nearly 4,000 of them for Biden. This was on November 4, the day after the election, when the number of outstanding ballots miraculously increased throughout the day.

Another vote dump went for Joe Biden by a 92-8 margin, something that might have been plausible in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, but not so much in the United States.

Pennsylvania law does not allow for mail-in ballots to be counted in advance, which is rather convenient for anyone seeking to rig an election. Simply wait for the other side to count their ballots, then fabricate as many as you need to put your candidate slightly over the top.”

It is worth noting here that the vote dumps for Biden in the above article were reported by a LEFTIST magazine.

Ever hear of weighted race distribution? Yet another way to manipulate votes, via – you guessed it, voting machines. It works like this: the candidate you like, well one vote for that person counts as one and a half, or two votes, because the voting machine is set to weigh the vote in whatever fashion a person sets it for. Conversely, the candidate that you don’t like, each of his or her votes only count as half of one vote for example. All of this happens with none the wiser. Except that now these voting patterns have been caught by some sharp voting sleuths, like Dr. Shiva.

The votes are stored in decimal form, very easy to manipulate. Dr. Shiva also said that the process used by the HAMMER, which we reported on, used to allegedly manipulate votes is EASY to do.

In Wisconsin:

A data scientist who remains anonymous performed a review of the data in precincts in Milwaukee. His conclusion is very similar to Dr. Shiva’s in Michigan in three counties. The more Republican the makeup of a precinct, the more votes that were taken away from President Trump and ‘switched’ to Joe Biden. Also, ironically these votes move in a linear fashion which is very disturbing and highly, highly unlikely. The pattern indicates that these precincts were manipulated and votes were removed from President Trump and allocated to Joe Biden.

Over a period of days, more than a week actually, it was observed that the vote ratios between Trump and Biden in vote tabulation updates were identical – and this happened in more than one state. This is IMPOSSIBLE, there is no way that this could have naturally happened without any interference.

This happened in Florida, Connecticut, and Minnesota among other states. Again, weighted race distribution is mentioned by yet another source – Patriot Intel Report. Watch the video below:

[Rumble Video]

At the State Farm Arena on election night, election workers were supposedly all sent home. Except that there are five workers still present, and these workers are counting votes with some of the votes being counted multiple times. It’s all on video. Watch at about the 5:45 mark in the above video.

How about the woman who was exposed by Project Veritas and busted by Texas law enforcement for harvesting votes for pay in Texas?

Now, in today’s world, the Democrats and the media claim that all information published claiming vote fraud via voting machines (Dominion) or any other way is “dangerous misinformation.”

It wasn’t all that long ago that the Democrats and the media were claiming the very same things are (were) a problem!

“The principle of one person, one vote is the single greatest tool we have to redress an unjust status quo.”

“We’re right to be on guard against voter fraud. Voter fraud would impinge on our democracy. We don’t want folks voting that shouldn’t be voting. We all agree on that. Let’s stipulate to that, as the lawyers say.”

Who do you suppose made the above statements? Barack Obama in 2014.

How about a letter from 4 Democrats stating that voting machines are not secure – in 2019!

“The letter, sent Wednesday, calls on election equipment makers ES&S, Dominion Voting and Hart InterCivic to explain why they continue to sell decades-old machines, which the senators say contain security flaws that could undermine the results of elections if exploited.”

Watch the above video which lays out the case that foreign countries were without a doubt involved in the 2020 election fraud. IP addresses accessed through Dominion machines connected to the Internet were shown to originate in Iran and China.

Even more suspicious, security logs for these machines for 2020 – are ALL missing. Now why would that be do you think?

There were also significant error rates in these voting machines.

From Amac:

“For example, while the allowable election error rate established by the Federal Election Commission (FEC.gov) guidelines is 1 in 250,000 ballots (.0008 percent), ASOG’s forensic analysis observed an error rate of 68.05 percent, which is a significant and fatal error in security and election integrity.” (Bolding mine)

There were also massive amounts of ballots that had to be adjudicated. What does that mean? It means the ballots cast are rejected, and then are sent to election personnel who then make a determination as to who the ballots are credited to – or not. This is done WITHOUT supervision. Vote flipping is the obvious reason here. In the past, votes rejected were low, not anymore, this being just another way for the Democrats to cheat their way to the win.

Consider the following example:

“For example, in Central Lake Township, there were 1,222 ballots reversed out of 1,491 total ballots cast, resulting in an 81.96 percent rejection rate. These reversed ballots are sent to “adjudication” for a decision to be made by election personnel. When such a staggering number of votes require adjudication, the biggest problem includes integrity and chain of custody issues. It makes it easy to “flip” votes without any supervision en masse. In past elections, the rejection rates were so low, this was a minor risk, whereas now, it is a major risk and most likely one of the means of exploitation that took place to defraud one candidate out of a massive number of votes that would have been in his favor. The video below demonstrates how easy it is to cheat at adjudication:”

Mail-in ballots are another huge source of voter fraud. According to a Google search, this is largely untrue. On a Yahoo search, you at least see both sides of the story.

Like how 28 million votes went missing in the last four elections. Or a Democrat operative who says mail-in vote fraud is more the norm than not. These particular elections were overturned because of mail-in (absentee) vote fraud.

Thousands of poll workers and everyday citizens testified via affidavit to illegal activity at the polling places. In Arizona, over 20,000 mail-in ballots were received BEFORE they were even mailed – this also happened in Pennsylvania according to the Geller Report. There is ample evidence of voter fraud, and election fraud – yet the courts refuse to even HEAR the evidence. Voting laws were changed in many states by state officials at the last minute – the problem is that having done this is illegal, only the state’s legislature has the authority to make these changes.

Anyone denying the existence of voter fraud in the U.S. should visit the Heritage Foundation’s online voter fraud database, where they will find 1,311 proven instances of it – including 1,130 criminal convictions.

Remember how the Democrats insisted that in the 2016 election the only reason Trump won was because the Russians “stole” the election from Hillary? These same Democrats now insist that the 2020 presidential (and other elections as well) election was the safest and most secure election ever.

There can be NO doubt that the Democrats cheated, and cheated massively. The numbers of all kinds simply do NOT add up. The evidence that there was massive vote fraud is so overwhelming that it cannot even begin to be contested. I presented a ton of it here, and there is a lot more out there from many different sources.

That last sentence is key – there is evidence from many different sources. A source, or two, or heck even three maybe got it wrong. But not hundreds of sources.

The election was stolen, and Biden IS illegitimate. Trump IS the rightful president of the United States of America.

https://newswithviews.com/indisputable-proof-that-donald-j-trump-won-the-election/

********************************************

Justice for Derek Chauvin

If you were a juror, would you dare to return a ‘not guilty’ verdict?

As I write, jury selection for the murder trial of Derek Chauvin is about to begin in Minneapolis. You remember Derek Chauvin, right? He is the (former) policeman charged with the murder of St George Floyd, race martyr (also drug addict, woman abuser, and career criminal).

First, the video clip that horrified the world was heavily edited. We see Floyd, pinned to the ground by Chauvin, piteously crying ‘I can’t breathe.’ Conclusion? That he can’t breathe because Chauvin is pressing on his windpipe. But a look at the police bodycam footage shows that Floyd was complaining that he couldn’t breathe before he was restrained by the police. Why? Because, as the FBI’s interview with the local medical examiner on July 8, 2020 revealed, Floyd was suffering from pulmonary edema, i.e., his lungs were full of fluid. And why was that? Partly because of an underlying heart condition, partly because Floyd was full to the gills with fentanyl, a drug known to affect respiration and cause pulmonary edema.

Here’s something else. Although Chauvin’s restraint looks brutal, it was actually part of the standard Minneapolis police protocol for dealing with persons exhibiting ‘excited delirium,’ a dangerous, often fatal, condition brought about by too much fentanyl with one’s afternoon tea. According to the medical examiner, Chauvin did not appear to have obstructed Floyd’s airway — Floyd would not have been able to speak if he had — and Floyd did not die from strangulation. Bottom line, George Floyd died from the effects of a self-administered drug overdose, effects that might have been exacerbated by his interactions with the police, i.e., his exertions in resisting arrest. For their part, the police were trying to help Floyd. It was they who called the ambulance because they recognized that Floyd was in extremis.

The real question is whether, whatever security window-dressing may be deployed, Derek Chauvin can receive a fair trial in Minneapolis. As former federal and state prosecutor George Parry has observed, ‘there is no conceivable possibility that Derek Chauvin can receive a fair trial in Hennepin County, simply because it will be impossible to seat an unintimidated jury free from the threat of mob violence. Conducting a trial under these circumstances will serve only to put a thin veneer of pretend due process on what in reality will be a legalized lynching based on a verdict rendered by a properly and quite understandably terrorized jury.’

https://spectator.us/topic/justice-derek-chauvin-george-floyd-minneapolis/

************************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

Posted by JR at 5:00 PM 0 comments

Tuesday, March 09, 2021

Science, Politics, and COVID: Will Truth Prevail?

By Scott W. Atlas

The COVID pandemic has been a tragedy, no doubt. But it has exposed profound issues in America that threaten the principles of freedom and order that we Americans often take for granted.

First, I have been shocked at the unprecedented exertion of power by the government since last March — issuing unilateral decrees, ordering the closure of businesses, churches, and schools, restricting personal movement, mandating behavior, and suspending indefinitely basic freedoms. Second, I was and remain stunned — almost frightened — at the acquiescence of the American people to such destructive, arbitrary, and wholly unscientific rules, restrictions, and mandates.

The pandemic also brought to the forefront things we have known existed and have tolerated for years: media bias, the decline of academic freedom on campuses, the heavy hand of Big Tech, and — now more obviously than ever — the politicization of science. Ultimately, the freedom of Americans to seek and state what they believe to be the truth is at risk.

Let me say at the outset that I, like all of us, acknowledge that the consequences of the COVID pandemic and its management have been enormous. Over 500,000 American deaths have been attributed to the virus; more will follow. Even after almost a year, the pandemic still paralyzes our country. And despite all efforts, there has been an undeniable failure to stop cases from escalating and to prevent hospitalizations and deaths.

But there is also an unacknowledged reality: almost every state and major city in the U.S., with a handful of exceptions, have implemented severe restrictions for many months, including closures of businesses and in-person schools, mobility restrictions and curfews, quarantines, limits on group gatherings, and mask mandates dating back to at least last summer. And despite any myths to the contrary, social mobility tracking of Americans and data from Gallup, YouGov, the COVID-19 Consortium, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have all shown significant reductions of movement as well as a consistently high percentage of mask-wearing since the late summer, similar to the extent seen in Western Europe and approaching the extent seen in Asia.

With what results?

All legitimate policy scholars today should be reexamining the policies that have severely harmed America’s children and families, while failing to save the elderly. Numerous studies, including one from Stanford University’s infectious disease scientists and epidemiologists Benavid, Oh, Bhattacharya, and Ioannides have shown that the mitigating impact of the extraordinary measures used in almost every state was small at best — and usually harmful. President Biden himself openly admitted the lack of efficacy of these measures in his January 22 speech to the nation: “There is nothing we can do,” he said, “to change the trajectory of the pandemic in the next several months.”

Bizarrely, though, many want to blame those who opposed lockdowns and mandates for the failure of the very lockdowns and mandates that were widely implemented.

Besides their limited value in containing the virus, lockdown policies have been extraordinarily harmful. The harms to children of suspending in-person schooling are dramatic, including poor learning, school dropouts, social isolation, and suicidal ideation, most of which are far worse for lower income groups. A recent study confirms that up to 78 percent of cancers were never detected due to missed screening over a three-month period. If one extrapolates to the entire country, 750,000 to over a million new cancer cases over a nine-month period will have gone undetected. That health disaster adds to missed critical surgeries, delayed presentations of pediatric illnesses, heart attack and stroke patients too afraid to go to the hospital, and others — all well documented.

Beyond hospital care, the CDC reported four-fold increases in depression, three-fold increases in anxiety symptoms, and a doubling of suicidal ideation, particularly among young adults after the first few months of lockdowns, echoing American Medical Association reports of drug overdoses and suicides. Domestic and child abuse have been skyrocketing due to the isolation and loss of jobs. Given that many schools have been closed, hundreds of thousands of abuse cases have gone unreported, since schools are commonly where abuse is noticed. Finally, the unemployment shock from lockdowns, according to a recent National Bureau of Economic Research study, will generate a three percent increase in the mortality rate and a 0.5 percent drop in life expectancy over the next 15 years, disproportionately affecting African-Americans and women. That translates into what the study refers to as a “staggering” 890,000 additional U.S. deaths.

We know we have not yet seen the full extent of the damage from the lockdowns, because the effects will continue to be felt for decades. Perhaps that is why lockdowns were not recommended in previous pandemic response analyses, even for diseases with far higher death rates.

To determine the best path forward, shouldn’t policymakers objectively consider the impact both of the virus and of anti-virus policies to date? This points to the importance of health policy, my own particular field, which requires a broader scope than that of epidemiologists and basic scientists. In the case of COVID, it requires taking into account the fact that lockdowns and other significant restrictions on individuals have been extraordinarily harmful — even deadly — especially for the working class and the poor.

***
Optimistically, we should be seeing the light at the end of the long tunnel with the rollout of vaccines, now being administered at a rate of one million to 1.5 million per day. On the other hand, using logic that would appeal to Lewis Carroll’s Mad Hatter, in many states the vaccines were initially administered more frequently to healthier and younger people than to those at greatest risk from the virus. The argument was made that children should be among the first to be vaccinated, although children are at extremely low risk from the virus and are proven not to be significant spreaders to adults. Likewise, we heard the Kafka-esque idea promoted that teachers must be vaccinated before teaching in person, when schools are one of the lowest risk environments and the vast majority of teachers are not high risk.

Worse, we hear so-called experts on TV warning that social distancing, masks, and other restrictions will still be necessary after people are vaccinated! All indications are that those in power have no intention of allowing Americans to live normally — which for Americans means to live freely — again.

And sadly, just as in Galileo’s time, the root of our problem lies in “the experts” and vested academic interests. At many universities — which are supposed to be America’s centers for critical thinking — those with views contrary to those of “the experts” currently in power find themselves intimidated. Many have become afraid to speak up.

But the suppression of academic freedom is not the extent of the problem on America’s campuses.

To take Stanford, where I work, as an example, some professors have resorted to toxic smears in opinion pieces and organized rebukes aimed at those of us who criticized the failed health policies of the past year and who dared to serve our country under a president they despised — the latter apparently being the ultimate transgression.

Defamatory attacks with malicious intent based on straw-man arguments and out-of-context distortions are not acceptable in American society, let alone in our universities. There has been an attempt to intimidate and discredit me using falsifications and misrepresentations. This violates Stanford’s Code of Conduct, damages the Stanford name, and abuses the trust that parents and society place in educators.

It is understandable that most Stanford professors are not experts in the field of health policy and are ignorant of the data about the COVID pandemic. But that does not excuse the fact that some called recommendations that I made “falsehoods and misrepresentations of science.” That was a lie, and no matter how often lies are repeated by politically-driven accusers, and regardless of how often those lies are echoed in biased media, lies will never be true.

We all must pray to God that the infamous claim attributed to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels — "A lie told once remains a lie, but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth" — never becomes operative in the United States of America.

All of the policies I recommended to President Trump were designed to reduce both the spread of the virus to the most vulnerable and the economic, health, and social harms of anti-COVID policies for those impacted the most — small businesses, the working class, and the poor. I was one of the first to push for increasing protections for those most at risk, particularly the elderly. At the same time, almost a year ago, I recognized that we must also consider the enormous harms to physical and mental health, as well as the deaths attributable to the draconian policies implemented to contain the infection. That is the goal of public health policy — to minimize all harms, not simply to stop a virus at all costs.

The claim in a recent Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) opinion piece by three Stanford professors that “nearly all public health experts were concerned that [Scott Atlas’s] recommendations could lead to tens of thousands (or more) of unnecessary deaths in the U.S. alone” is patently false and absurd on its face. As pointed out by Dr. Joel Zinberg in National Review, the Great Barrington Declaration — a proposal co-authored by medical scientists and epidemiologists from Stanford, Harvard, and Oxford — "is closer to the one condemned in the JAMA article than anything Atlas said.“ Yet the Great Barrington Declaration has already been signed by over 50,000 medical and public health practitioners.

When critics display such ignorance about the scope of views held by experts, it exposes their bias and disqualifies their authority on these issues. Indeed, it is almost beyond parody that these same critics wrote that "professionalism demands honesty about what [experts] know and do not know.”

I have explained the fact that younger people have little risk from this infection, and I have explained the biological fact of herd immunity — just like Harvard epidemiologist Katherine Yih did. That is very different from proposing that people be deliberately exposed and infected — which I have never suggested, although I have been accused of doing so.

I have also been accused of “argu[ing] that many public health orders aimed at increasing social distancing could be forgone without ill effects.” To the contrary, I have repeatedly called for mitigation measures, including extra sanitization, social distancing, masks, group limits, testing, and other increased protections to limit the spread and damage from the coronavirus. I explicitly called for augmenting protection of those at risk — in dozens of on-the-record presentations, interviews, and written pieces.

My accusers have ignored my explicit, emphatic public denials about supporting the spread of the infection unchecked to achieve herd immunity — denials quoted widely in the media. Perhaps this is because my views are not the real object of their criticism. Perhaps it is because their true motive is to “cancel” anyone who accepted the call to serve America in the Trump administration.

For many months, I have been vilified after calling for opening in-person schools — in line with Harvard Professors Martin Kulldorf and Katherine Yih and Stanford Professor Jay Bhattacharya — but my policy recommendation has been corroborated repeatedly by the literature. The compelling case to open schools is now admitted even in publications like The Atlantic, which has noted: “Research from around the world has, since the beginning of the pandemic, indicated that people under 18, and especially younger kids, are less susceptible to infection, less likely to experience severe symptoms, and far less likely to be hospitalized or die.” The subhead of the article was even clearer: “We’ve known for months that young children are less susceptible to serious infection and less likely to transmit the coronavirus.”

When the JAMA accusers wrote that I “disputed the need for masks,” they misrepresented my words. My advice on mask usage has been consistent: “Wear a mask when you cannot socially distance.” At the time, this matched the published recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO). This past December, the WHO modified its recommendation: “In areas where the virus is circulating, masks should be worn when you’re in crowded settings, where you can’t be at least one meter [roughly three feet] from others, and in rooms with poor or unknown ventilation” — in other words, not at all times by everyone. This also matches the recommendation of the National Institutes of Health document Prevention and Prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection: “When consistent distancing is not possible, face coverings may further reduce the spread of infectious droplets from individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection to others.”

Regarding universal masks, 38 states have implemented mask mandates, most of them since at least the summer, with almost all the rest having mandates in their major cities. Widespread, general population mask usage has shown little empirical utility in terms of preventing cases, even though citing or describing evidence against their utility has been censored. Denmark also performed a randomized controlled study that showed that widespread mask usage had only minimal impact.

This is the reality: those who insist that universal mask usage has absolutely proven effective at controlling the spread of the COVID virus and is universally recommended according to “the science” are deliberately ignoring the evidence to the contrary. It is they who are propagating false and misleading information.

Those who say it is unethical, even dangerous, to question broad population mask mandates must also explain why many top infectious disease scientists and public health organizations question the efficacy of general population masking. Tom Jefferson and Carl Heneghan of the University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, for instance, wrote that “despite two decades of pandemic preparedness, there is considerable uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks.” Oxford epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta says there is no need for masks unless one is elderly or high risk. Stanford’s Jay Bhattacharya has said that “mask mandates are not supported by the scientific data… . There is no scientific evidence that mask mandates work to slow the spread of the disease.”

Throughout this pandemic, the WHO’s “Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19” has included the following statement: “At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.” The CDC, in a review of influenza pandemics in May 2020, “did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility.” And until the WHO removed it on October 21, 2020 — soon after Twitter censored a tweet of mine highlighting the quote — the WHO had published the fact that “the widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and harms to consider.”

My advice on masks all along has been based on scientific data and matched the advice of many of the top scientists and public health organizations throughout the world.

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/78213

************************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

Posted by JR at 11:12 PM 0 comments

Monday, March 08, 2021

U.S. Accuses Russia of Launching a Disinformation Campaign Against Pfizer Vaccine

U.S. officials believe that Russia is carrying out a disinformation campaign to discredit the Pfizer COVID vaccine. Russian intelligence has been trying to cast doubt on the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine in an effort to boost their own Sputnik V vaccine.

Four publications acting as fronts for Russian intel agencies have been publishing disinformation, trying to convince Americans that the approval of the Pfizer vaccine was rushed and shortcuts were taken.

“We can say these outlets are directly linked to Russian intelligence services,” an official at the State Department’s Global Engagement Center told the newspaper. “They’re all foreign-owned, based outside of the United States. They vary a lot in their reach, their tone, their audience, but they’re all part of the Russian propaganda and disinformation ecosystem.”

Insider:

Russia announced a successful coronavirus vaccine in August, but Sputnik V was approved under questionable circumstances. It was released before it went through phase 3 trials. In the United States, phase 3 is a requirement before a drug or vaccine can be vetted and approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

The rushed timeline led health officials to speculate whether the Kremlin coerced vaccine makers into putting out Sputnik V quickly to gain a leg up in the global race for a cure to the novel coronavirus.

China is still in the game as well, inking vaccine deals with several countries. But it goes without saying that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are the gold standard and are in the most demand around the world.

The problem for other countries is getting their hands on some. The U.S. is “vaccine hoarding” according to the WHO because we are choosing to vaccinate our own citizens before giving it away to others. Here’s where Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine can make inroads in this massive market, and Russian intelligence is doing all they can to help.

Wall Street Journal:

“The emphasis on denigrating Pfizer is likely due to its status as the first vaccine besides Sputnik V to see mass use, resulting in a greater potential threat to Sputnik’s market dominance,” says a forthcoming report by the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a nongovernmental organization that focuses on the danger that authoritarian governments pose to democracies and that is part of the German Marshall Fund, a U.S. think tank.

The foreign efforts to sow doubts about the vaccine exploit deep-seated anxieties about the efficacy and side effects of vaccines that were already prevalent in some communities in the U.S. and internationally. Concern about side effects is a major reason for vaccine hesitancy, according to U.S. Census Bureau data made public last month.

In addition, Russian state media and Russian government Twitter accounts have made an effort to openly disparage and sow doubts about the cost and safety of the Pfizer vaccine.

The Russians have dismissed any idea that the FSB or GRU are engaged in disinformation against the COVID vaccines but the publications mentioned by the State Department have deep ties to Russian intelligence and it’s not likely that they would be conducting this kind of campaign without the approval of top intelligence officials.

Russia can do its worst but its credibility on the vaccine issue leaves much to be desired.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2021/03/07/u-s-thinks-russia-has-launched-a-disinformation-campaign-against-pfizer-vaccine-n1430613

***********************************

As an Industry Faces Destruction, It Grows a Voting Coalition

Imagine if you had a job. A good job, one that required skill and critical thinking and had a broad impact in the community where you lived. A job you didn’t just show up to do. It was a job you were good at, and because of it, you were able to provide a roof over your family’s head, put your children through college or help pay for their wedding, and once a year, it gave you the ability to carve out a week or two to take the family on vacation.

Now imagine that job becomes the center of political debate, one far removed from the Laurel Mountains, where this town sits. Within two decades, your profession goes from being championed by the Democratic Party and labor officials to one that they want to destroy.

John Fisher and Harvey Charles were standing outside of the Acosta Mine mechanic station here in Somerset County. Both still had traces of coal dust on their hands and faces. Both had just finished their shifts and were cleaning up themselves and their equipment. Fisher works in the mine; Charles transports the coal.

Fisher has been doing this job since 1989, when he returned home after serving four years in the U.S. Marine Corps. The 52-year-old says he travels 67 miles one way every day from his home in Cherry Tree in Clearfield County to do his job at the mine.

He describes his day, which begins not with walking into the mine, but crawling.

“I get here, what? 4:30 a.m. Make sure everything’s running. Then, I go underground and fix what’s broken. All over, in the pots, in the slop, in the bad roof, in the good roof.” He explains all the vulnerabilities that exist in a mine that require monitoring and daily repairs.

Here, metallurgical coal gets mined. It is used exclusively for the steel production that supports the construction of bridges, roads, highways, homes, factories, distribution centers, churches and other businesses supporting the country’s infrastructure and economy.

Fisher explains the core business here is producing and selling metallurgical coal to domestic and international steel and coke (a porous fuel) producers: “It’s a good living. I like what I do, or I would not be doing it.”
So does Charles, who says he’s been in the industry since 1987. “Right out of high school, I followed in the footsteps of my father and grandfather.”

“I used to be the maintenance foreman. Now I’m just a truck mechanic,” he said of his job to make sure all of the massive dump trucks used to haul the coal out of the hollow are in working order.

They acknowledge their industry is in the center of a political storm and their fate does not rely on how many improvements the industry does to make it clean. “Politicians and the press need a good guy and a bad guy to either win a race or tell a story. We used to be the good guys that everyone stood up for,” Fisher says and then shrugs.

“Now we are the bad guys.”

Pick up the daily newspaper and you will find mining will get blamed for everything from the growth of the deer tick population to last year’s mild winter (this winter has not been mild).

Several things bother Fisher and Charles regarding how others look upon those in the mining industry. One is the stereotype of anyone in their business as either anti-intellectual or anti-clean environment. The former they consider insulting, the latter ridiculous.

“Not only do we drink the water and breathe the air here, but we also hunt, fish and swim here. We are the first people who want whatever we do here to be safe,” Fisher said. It is a common refrain from energy workers across the country.

The other thing that gets under their skin is when politicians flippantly suggest they can quickly get another job. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg recently said people who lost their job to climate justice might find a climate-conscious job.

And President Joe Biden suggested coal miners should just learn to code. Last year in New Hampshire, in the middle of a brag of how former President Barack Obama had placed him in charge of judging what the jobs of the future would be, he said, “Anybody who can go down 3,000 feet in a mine can sure as hell learn to program as well.”

It is still astounding to witness the contempt and disdain politicians and the press have toward the lives and livelihoods of people who aren’t like them, people who don’t live in their ZIP codes or attend the same universities they did.

People who work with their hands don’t start a conversation by asking you where you work. It is rare to find anyone here who would say your profession is irredeemable and that you need to do something they find worthy. Traditionally, when a job or an industry has a problem, they work on fixing it or correcting it rather than destroying it.

People often asked after the 2020 election what will happen with the Trump voters (Fisher and Charles voted for him twice). The thing is this complex conservative populist coalition existed long before it helped catapult Donald Trump to the presidency in 2016.

His win was, in part, the result of a culture that became detached from the people they served in various institutions, whether it was the government, the entertainment industry or the college campus. Many people ultimately rejected all of them.

But if you never understood that, if you always thought it was about Trump, you never understood who they were and why they vote the way they do.

And you never understood how someone who lives in the suburbs of Arizona or Kenosha, Wisconsin, or Miami could have anything in common with someone who works the mines in Appalachia. And you didn’t understand that because you didn’t care to, because you hoped for its destruction.

There will be two endings to this story. The first is industries such as coal or shale, or the creation of pipelines, will continue to get attacked and dismantled, costing people their jobs. As Fisher said, politicians and the press always need a bad guy.

And the other ending is this coalition will grow — despite the press incorrectly believing one person caused it and having the audacity to think they have the power to dismantle it.

https://pjmedia.com/columns/salena-zito/2021/03/02/as-an-industry-faces-destruction-it-grows-a-voting-coalition-n1429253

****************************************

Blue collar workers going Republican

An NBC News poll released last week reflects one of the most significant political trends of the past 30 years – the realignment of blue-collar workers who’ve left the party of Planned Parenthood and Drag Queen Story Hour for the party of energy-independence, fair-trade deals and border security.

The poll shows that between 2010 and 2020, the Republican share of blue- collar votes rose from 45% to 57%. Within the same demographic, its Hispanic vote went from 23% to 36%, while its black working-class vote went from 5% to 12%.

In 1992, Bill Clinton carried 49% of counties where at least 25% of the workforce was employed in manufacturing. In 2016, Donald Trump took 95%. What used to be one of the left’s most reliable constituencies is now going the way of evangelicals in their flight from a party that’s lost both its mind and its soul.

Writing in The Detroit News on April 10, 2019, Terry Bowman (a 22- year UAW/Ford worker) charges: “While Democrats fight for policies that crush working-class communities, Republicans and our president are fighting for blue-collar jobs and traditional American values.”

The geezer in the White House is becoming a job-killing machine. On Day One, the Keystone XL-Pipeline was axed. And that’s just a down-payment on Biden’s debt to the Greenies. But, not to worry. As John Forbes Kerry assured us, unemployed pipeline workers can get good-paying jobs manufacturing solar panels – in China.

It’s infuriating the way Democrats can speak so nonchalantly about sacrificing the opportunities of others. Campaigning in 2016, the warm and lovable Hillary Clinton boasted, “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business!” This from someone who probably never lifted anything heavier than a nail file.

Under Biden’s welcome-mat policy, the Border Patrol has been ordered not to arrest illegals unless they commit multiple homicides within eyesight. He’s starting to admit the first of 25,000 “asylum” seekers, and blue-collar workers will get to pay for a process that will lead to the loss of more of their jobs.

But jobs isn’t the whole picture.

Most of the white working-class is solidly middle-American: church-going, socially conservative (pro-life, pro-marriage and pro- traditional morality). Many are gun-owners, veterans and reservists, patriotic and not embarrassed to show it and mystified by those who are. And, are you sitting down Nancy, they refuse to apologize for being white.

If a guy drives a pick-up truck with a gun-rack and a tool box in back, and an American flag decal, chances are he isn’t a community organizer who votes Democratic.

In short, workers are everything liberals have come to loathe – an animosity that’s reflected in Obama’s bitter-clingers comment, Hillary’s basket of deplorables and Biden’s dregs of society.

The Democrats have become the party of Alice-in-Wonderland social policy – the party that refuses to criticize Antifa and Black Lives Matter even as they turn our cities into barbecue pits, the party that turns a blind eye to urban riots but sees white supremacy everywhere, the party of defund the police and sanctuary cities, the party of climate-change cultists, the party of “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15,” the party that tried to take an innocuous reference God out of its 2012 platform, the party of abortion up to the moment of birth, the party of LGBTQ, and now, the party of transgenderism.

Bowman writes: “My father, a retired UAW/Ford worker, was a life-long Democrat” who voted for Trump in 2016 and now says “I don’t know the damn Democrat party anymore.” Ronald Reagan used to say he didn’t leave the Democrats; they left him.

Unlike their white-collar counterparts, blue-collar workers didn’t have an opportunity to be indoctrinated by their college professors – but Biden wants them to pay the debts of those who were. They are less likely to heed the so-called experts. They don’t get their news from The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN. They’re not afraid to voice views that get conservatives banned by Facebook and Twitter.

While the GOP is becoming the party of labor, the Democrats are firmly in the hands of coastal elitists.

Business Insider listed the billionaires who bankrolled Biden’s 2020 campaign. It reads like the Fortune 500 and includes the CEOs -- or their wives -- of Microsoft, Google, Lucasfilm, Estee Lauder, Dream Works, Hyatt, J.P. Morgan Chase, Linkedin and Comcast/Universal. Remember when the media used to whine about Republicans as the party of the super-rich?

You think they care about the guy who worries about making this month’s mortgage payment or if he’ll still have a pension when he retires? In a pig’s eye.

Since Jimmy Carter, blue-collar workers have been worked over by the Democrats. Now, they’re returning the favor. With the Republicans, they’ve found their real home.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/03/lunch-box-donald-why-blue-collar-workers-are-don-feder/?utm_campaign=2069283&utm_content=2840889

************************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

Posted by JR at 10:15 PM 0 comments

Sunday, March 07, 2021

UK: 35 people deaf and 25 blind after taking mRNA vaccine shots

Among people in the U.K., 35 cases of deafness and 25 cases of blindness have been reported by people who have taken the experimental mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. The numbers are derived from the U.K. Yellow Card vaccine reporting scheme, which is the British equivalent to the American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Oxford/AstraZeneca mRNA COVID vaccines were given temporary authorization in the U.K. by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the former in mid-December 2020, and the latter at the beginning of January 2021. Since then, the Yellow Card scheme has flagged a combined 191,832 individual adverse events, or side effects, of varying degrees of injury. Of the injuries recorded, AstraZeneca’s vaccine consistently performed the worst, accounting for 60% of all adverse events, and 58% of deaf and blind reports. Additionally, of the 402 fatalities, 197 were reported following use of the Pfizer formula, and 205 after taking AstraZeneca’s vaccine.

The latest data, which runs up to February 19 and was published on February 22, reveals a plethora of debilitating side-effects, but this has not alarmed officials at the MHRA who maintain that “no other new safety concerns have been identified from reports received to date.” They conclude from this that the “overall safety experience with both vaccines is so far as expected from the clinical trials.”

The regulator doubled down on supporting the jabs, stating that the “expected benefits of the vaccines in preventing COVID-19 and serious complications associated with COVID-19 far outweigh any currently known side effects,” including deafness, blindness, and death.

The MHRA justified this position by citing the passively analytical nature of recordings on the Yellow Card scheme: It is a self-reporting system. This means that none of the serious injuries, or even the deaths, are confirmed by a licensed doctor, giving the MHRA some leeway to declare that “the available evidence does not currently suggest that the vaccine caused the event.”

Rather, the MHRA favors use of the term “temporally-related” to describe the succession of adverse events from injection with the vaccine, which they describe as “events occurring following vaccination but may or may not be caused by the vaccine.”

John Stone of Children’s Health Defense noted that, despite the passive reporting system used by the MHRA, “[n]evertheless, the very distinct event profiles of two products [COVID-19 vaccines] filtered through the same system after 15 million vaccine administrations [in the U.K.] would suggest that there is something to be investigated and explained.”

A pattern of adverse results has been established regarding use of the Pfizer vaccine, which can be seen by examining its use in the U.S., following the award of “Emergency Use Authorization” by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December. In both the U.K. and the U.S., use of the Pfizer vaccine has brought about similar results, accounting for the majority of post-vaccination injuries in America. VAERS has recorded 19,907 cases of adverse events arising after taking a COVID-19 vaccine, 64% of which are linked to Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine, and 36% attributable to Moderna’s equivalent jab.

In the U.S., VAERS reported 23 cases of complete deafness and 27 of unilateral deafness, with Pfizer’s jab making up 76% of complaints. Additionally there have been 29 cases of partial or complete blindness, over half of which followed the Pfizer vaccine.

Experimental mRNA vaccination programs in Israel, too, are returning grim results, with a new analysis of vaccine-related deaths demonstrating a dramatic rise in both young and elderly people dying after taking the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine over those who have died after encountering the pathogen naturally.

Upon investigating the Israeli Health Ministry’s own data on the nation’s vaccine rollout, Dr. Hervé Seligmann, a member of the faculty of Medicine at Aix-Marseille University, and engineer Haim Yativ revealed that Pfizer’s mRNA experimental vaccine killed “about 40 times more [elderly] people than the disease itself would have killed” during a recent five-week vaccination period.

Among the younger class, the researchers discovered that these numbers are compounded to death rates at 260 times what the COVID-19 virus would have claimed in the given time frame.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/uk-35-people-deaf-and-25-blind-after-taking-mrna-vaccine-shots

*************************************

Would the Real Fascists Please Stand Up?

One of the Left's favorite pejoratives for the Right is completely backwards.

“I do think that [there are] fascistic tendencies” in the Republican Party, pontificates Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who thinks “we certainly saw a lot of fascist sympathizing” at the Conservative Political Action Conference this past weekend, especially from the man she loves to hate, Donald Trump. Worse, AOC added, “There are legitimate white supremacist sympathizers that sit at the heart and at the core of the Republican Caucus in the House of Representatives,” and “American white supremacy” is the driving force of this supposed fascism overtaking the GOP.

This sounds serious.

Or it would if anything AOC said ever made a lick of sense. As usual, however, her historical ignorance is a feature, not a bug, in service to the radical Left’s political agenda. And she’s far from the only leftist spouting such nonsense. It’s coming from other elected Democrats, from their lickspittles in the Leftmedia, and from their intelligentsia in education. Whether it’s offhand comments on cable news shows, “think” pieces littering the Internet, or academic papers and classes, leftists yelling “fascism!” as an inaccurate pejorative for conservatives has a long and storied history in America.

But what is fascism anyway? For all the public school-educated “progressives” out there, perhaps a history lesson is in order, and who better to give it than the esteemed Thomas Sowell. In a 2008 column, he explained it quite simply:

Real Fascism [was] introduced into Italy after the First World War by Benito Mussolini.

The Fascists were completely against individualism in general and especially against individualism in a free market economy. Their agenda included minimum wage laws, government restrictions on profit-making, progressive taxation of capital, and “rigidly secular” schools.

Unlike the Communists, the Fascists did not seek government ownership of the means of production. They just wanted the government to call the shots as to how businesses would be run.

That sure does sound an awful lot like today’s Democrat agenda. Who are the real fascists? The alleged “racists” who want an American melting pot and Rule of Law for everyone, or the ones pushing government takeover of healthcare, energy, finance, education, etc., as well as race-based policies and an aggressive and totalitarian cancel culture?

The Nazis, by the way, were really only adding a racialist and nationalist variation to fascism, which is why American leftists today deliberately distort the meaning of those words and project upon their Republican opponents what they themselves are guilty of doing and perpetuating. It’s why they laughably call their rioting fascist goons “antifa,” which is short for “anti-fascist.”

In fact, conservatives might do better to trade in the word “socialism” for “fascism” to describe Democrat proposals. Few Democrats want the government to literally own the means of production. Instead, as Sowell said in a 2012 column on the subject, “[They want] government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.” That’s the textbook definition of fascism.

The truth is fascism, Nazism, socialism, and communism are all variations on a leftist theme of control and power. Don’t let them tell you that your rejection of that totalitarianism makes you the fascist when reality is quite the opposite.

https://patriotpost.us/articles/78106-would-the-real-fascists-please-stand-up-2021-03-02

******************************************

The Conservative Identity Crisis

When a movement’s flagship publication features a “This We Believe” statement on its cover, as National Review recently did, you know there’s a problem. But the problem itself is not new.

Last summer, The American Conservative published a special edition devoted to the question, “What Is American Conservatism?” The issue drew on essays by dozens of self-identified conservatives, each attempting to define the movement. Reading through them, one might get the impression that conservatism is not one point of view but a whole slew of them. Yet in truth, there is only one important intellectual schism on the right worthy of attention: that between those who embrace the legacy of the European Enlightenment and those who reject it.

The Enlightenment, or the Age of Reason, was the revolution against the institutions of statism and superstition that freed human minds and human relationships in the 16th and 17th centuries. As Steven Pinker has aptly noted, the free minds and free markets that resulted from this revolution are the reason for the relative prosperity and security we enjoy today.

I can only imagine how liberating and exciting it must have been to have lived through that time when David Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and America’s Founding Fathers were overthrowing an old intellectual and political orders and creating new ones. I like to think it must have felt similar to the 1980s of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, when ideas such as the flat tax, school vouchers, private Social Security accounts, deregulation, and privatization were sweeping the globe, promoted with palpable energy and enthusiasm by a raft of newly created conservative think tanks.

A decade later, as the 20th century came to a close, Communism and big government were in retreat, and free-market reforms remained ascendant everywhere. But alas, the 21st century has seen considerable backsliding, which has fueled the rise of those on the other side of the conservative schism: the folks who reject the legacy of the Enlightenment.

This school of thought is aptly represented in What Is Conservatism?, the classic essay collection edited by Frank Meyer and published a little over 55 years ago. I recently reread the book, seeking to find anything in it that might engage a politically agnostic college student, making him eager to be part of the conservative movement. Sadly, I came up empty.

The kind of conservatism pushed by What Is Conservatism? doesn’t just fail to win converts; it also isn’t prepared to solve real-world problems. About the same time that Meyer’s book was published, Milton Friedman published Capitalism and Freedom. The two books are as different as night and day. Whereas the essays Meyer edited are backward-looking, Friedman’s book is forward-looking. Whereas the former lamented change, the latter called for the kind of change that liberates people and makes their lives better.

Friedman was well aware that his approach to public policy was very different from that of conventional conservatives. He even avoided calling himself a “conservative,” preferring to identify with the tradition of classical liberalism. But his ideas came to dominate American conservatism anyway, at least until the development of the movement’s present schism. And for those of us who still believe in them, there is much work to be done going forward.

In every large city in the country, large numbers of low-income minority families are forced to live in substandard housing and send their children to failing schools. They benefit the least from almost every public service, from transportation to health care to public safety. They are also denied job opportunities by medieval-style occupational-licensing laws. These cities are almost always run by Democrats, usually liberal Democrats. A reformist conservative agenda would advocate school choice, the liberation of the housing and job markets, and private alternatives to essential city services.

Likewise, too many American seniors are trapped in antiquated social-insurance schemes that should be an embarrassment to a civilized society such as ours. They are misled on a daily basis by Social Security bureaucrats who encourage them to take early retirement, giving up benefits that are growing at a 3 percent, no-risk, real rate of return every year. Then when they do take a part-time job, they face the highest marginal-tax rates in the nation—as high as 95 percent in some cases. Seniors on Medicare are the only people in the country who cannot have a health-savings account or direct, 24/7 access to a primary-care physician as an alternative to the emergency room. As I argue in my book New Way to Care, we desperately need to reform Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the disability system, and other forms of social insurance that were designed in a different century to meet different needs.

These are only a few of the ways in which an activist conservative agenda could liberate people and markets, reform institutions, and make the world better for the most vulnerable among us. But for that to happen, the conservative movement will first have to decide whether it wants to embrace its Enlightenment roots or reject them.

https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=13412&omhide=true

**************************************

IN BRIEF

Conservative comic strip "Mallard Fillmore" dropped (Washington Times)

A dose of common sense: New York Public Library will keep all of its Dr. Seuss books circulating (Examiner)

Children as young as five forced to have "diversity and inclusion" lessons in New Jersey schools (Daily Wire)

Number of illegal border crossings now six times what Obama considered a "crisis" (Daily Wire)

DOD took hours to approve National Guard request during Capitol riot, commander testifies (NPR)

Damages from February winter storms could be as high as $155 billion (UPI)

Evangelical adoption agency Bethany dangerously opens doors to LGBT families (Disrn)

Governor Andrew Cuomo, who should resign over nursing home scandal, refuses to resign over sexual harassment scandal (Post Millennial)

Hyatt Hotels backtracks, slams CPAC — which it hosted — for "hate" and "hostility" (Disrn)

Arkansas lawmakers send governor near-total abortion ban (Fox News)

Policy: We already have an alternative to massive student-loan cancelation (National Review)

Advisers of Governor Andrew Cuomo altered report on nursing home deaths (Fox News)

Number of child migrants crossing the border is overwhelming HHS (Axios)

Second SUV filled with illegal immigrants catches fire near U.S. border (Disrn)

Senators from both aisles introduce bill to repeal Biden's war powers following Syria strike (Fox News)

The United States is now averaging two million vaccine doses administered per day (NY Times)

Connecticut lifting all capacity restrictions on restaurants, gyms, offices, and houses of worship (Forbes)

Mississippi legislature wisely approves bill banning males from competing against women (Daily Wire)

Supreme Court drops "sanctuary city" cases following Biden DOJ request (Fox News)

Swing and a miss: California high school stupidly gives baseball team two-week suspension for taking a picture without masks (Disrn)

Policy: Biden could overstimulate the economy into a crisis (National Interest)

Policy: Job creation, not a $15 minimum wage, will reduce poverty (Daily Signal)

************************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************
March 06, 2021

AstraZeneca vaccine DOES work against Brazil's 'super-covid,' report claims: Unpublished data will show Oxford's shot works against worrisome variant that may weaken others

AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine does protect against the feared Brazilian coronavirus variant, sources close to the matter said of unpublished data from an Oxford University trial.

Preliminary data from a study conducted at the university indicates that the COVID-19 vaccine developed by AstraZeneca is effective against the P1, or Brazilian, variant, a source with knowledge of the study told Reuters on Friday.

The data indicates that the vaccine will not need to be modified in order to protect against the variant, which is believed to have originated in the Amazonian city of Manaus, said the source, who requested anonymity as the results have not yet been made public.

So far, there are at least 13 cases of the Brazilian variant in seven US states, but the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has dragged its feet on the authorization of the AstraZeneca shot, and is not expected to do so until at least next month.

US trials for the AstraZeneca shot are ongoing, and the FDA typically does not accept results from other countries.

But results are in from other nations, including the UK, South Africa and Brazil - all of which have seen variants emerge, and spread across the globe, including to the the US.

In the aggregate of those countries, the AstraZeneca vaccine's efficacy rose to 82 percent after a second dose, given three months after the first.

Earlier data found that the vaccine reduced the risk of coronavirus infection by 78 percent.

That was markedly superior to the performance of the Chinese-made CoronaVac, which was only about 50 percent effective.

Importantly, the AstraZeneca vaccine was 100 percent effective at preventing severe disease and death from COVID-19, according to its data published February 3.

It's difficult to know how prevalent Brazil's P1 variant was in the country during earlier stages of the trial. Now, the variant is dominant there.

The Reuters report suggests that AstraZeneca may soon release data specific to how the vaccine performed in Brazil during the most recent round of trials.

The source did not provide the exact efficacy of the vaccine against the variant. They said the full results of the study should be released soon, possibly in March.

Early results indicated the AstraZeneca vaccine was less effective against the South African variant, which is similar to P1. South Africa subsequently paused the use of the vaccine in the country.

The information comes as a small-sample study suggested the COVID-19 vaccine developed by China's Sinovac may not work effectively against the Brazilian variant.

Responding to a request for comment, Fiocruz, which sent the samples that formed the basis of the study, told Reuters it did not have any information on the study, as it was being led by AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford.

Representatives for AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Brazil is currently confronting a brutal and long-lasting second wave of the coronavirus, hitting a daily record of 1,910 deaths on Wednesday.

The P1 variant is among the factors that epidemiologists believe is contributing to a rise in cases and deaths, and there has been concern in the scientific community about the variant's resistance to vaccines.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9330441/Oxford-study-indicates-AstraZeneca-effective-against-Brazil-variant-source-says.html

****************************************

UK: Facebook is silencing debate on lockdown

Two of the scientists behind the Great Barrington Declaration on their brush with Big Tech censorship.

JAY BHATTACHARYA & MARTIN KULLDORFF

On 2 February, we put up a post in favour of the Covid vaccine on the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) Facebook page. We, as two of the primary authors of the GBD, are firmly in favour of voluntary vaccination, using vaccines that regulatory authorities have carefully evaluated and approved for use. Our post argued for prioritising the elderly for vaccination against Covid-19 as a tool for the focused protection of this vulnerable group. It generated a vigorous debate in the comment section among people against the Covid vaccines and people who agreed with us.

On 4 February, without warning, Facebook deleted the entire Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) page. The only explanation it provided was that the page violated its ‘community standards’, but it did not specify what standards the page violated. A week later, again without any explanation, Facebook restored the page.

The Great Barrington Declaration, now signed by tens of thousands of scientists and physicians, proposes a radically different approach to the Covid epidemic that eschews lockdown in favour of focused protection of the vulnerable. Many governments worldwide have adopted elements of our approach by prioritising the elderly living in nursing homes for vaccination and expanding the set of permitted activities (such as schooling) despite rising cases.

Other governments have adopted draconian lockdowns – including forced quarantines for the healthy and extended closures of schools and businesses – to address the epidemic. In many places, this lockdown strategy has successfully protected the zoom class, who can work from home without losing their jobs, while exposing the working class and the vulnerable to Covid infection.

Given the stakes, the scientific debate between lockdown and focused protection is of intense interest to nearly everyone on the planet. As co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, we are admittedly partisans in this debate. However, we recognise that these are complicated topics that require the open engagement of many minds, even those who disagree with us, to arrive at the truth. For good reasons, the Enlightenment enshrined free scientific inquiry as a primary good. A tolerance for contrary argument is essential if we are ever to exit the intellectual cul-de-sacs we inhabit.

Well, okay, fine, the reader may be thinking. Maybe Facebook made a mistake in suppressing the Covid-lockdown debate, but it recognised its error and corrected the problem within a week. Plus, there are other venues for the scientific debate to take place. What is the harm?

First, for many people, Facebook is a primary source for their news; Facebook banning content has at least a temporary effect on the information they see and the thoughts they have. Second, as should be evident from the debate over vaccination policy that preceded the Facebook ban, the Great Barrington Declaration site itself is followed by people with a diverse set of opinions on key aspects of Covid policy. Shutting down the site led many people to leave the page and closed one of the few venues where civil and open discussion between people with differing views happens on these topics. Most Covid-related policy discussions occur in closed environments, where people and scientists speak with those who already agree with them. The GBD Facebook site is an exception worth preserving.

Third, and most importantly, even a temporary ban imposes reputational harm to the shuttered site and the people behind it. For good or ill, Facebook has taken upon itself the role of hall monitor, and those who violate its editorial standards lose credibility in the eyes of many. The question is whether Facebook deserves its role as arbiter of questions of science and science policy. What are the scientific credentials of the people who censored the site, or (perhaps more relevantly) of the engineers who wrote the algorithms that censored it? Do they really have the omniscience to know that imprinting a scarlet letter on the GBD is good for our society?

Economists have a handy rule of thumb that it is more accurate to infer what people value by their actions and choices rather than from their words. It is useful to apply this rule here, especially since Facebook has not explained its actions beyond its invocation of ‘community standards’. First, Facebook is undecided on whether to permit open scientific debate on its site, at least concerning Covid policy. Second, since it was a pro-vaccine post that preceded the ban, perhaps Facebook community standards oppose the Covid vaccines or at least prioritising vulnerable seniors to receive them?

Facebook, like nearly every company whose success depends on the extensive use of its online services, stands to benefit financially from extended lockdowns. Though this pecuniary motive may not have played a direct, conscious role in its censorship of the GBD site, it certainly must have played some role in its editorial policies and ‘community standards’. Facebook clearly does not know how to use the power it wields to shape public understanding of science responsibly.

The impulse by those who wield the power to suppress their adversaries’ words and ideas stretches back to at least Cain and Abel. This power is usually exercised by repressive regimes, like Mao’s, who sent his Red Guards house to house during the 1966 Cultural Revolution to find and burn books that espoused the old, dangerous ideas opposed by the Communists. Religious and political considerations typically motivate the censors, which often include non-state actors. What is new in the world today is ostensibly progressive technocrats enthusiastically censoring scientific discussion and debate.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/02/15/facebook-is-silencing-debate-on-lockdown

****************************************

Dems Push End to Election Integrity

The Democrats' massive HR 1 election bill is a recipe for tyranny.

It might as well be called the “Ensure Democrat Electoral Victory Act” given what’s in the massive 800-page election overhaul bill put forward by House Democrats. HR 1, which Democrats have ironically dubbed the “For the People Act,” is anything but for the people. Rather than seeking to reestablish and shore up the badly abused state election laws Americans witnessed in the 2020 election, HR 1 would seek to codify the abuses. As Representative Tom Cole (R-OK) observed, “This is a bill that is about preserving the present Democratic majority. It is a bill by the majority, for the majority, and is intended to entrench the majority in power for years to come.”

HR 1 would essentially federalize national elections by mandating that states adopt voting rules such as a right to no-excuse mail-in ballots, elimination of voter ID laws, same-day registration and voting, 10-day post-election day acceptance of mail-in ballots, no laws against ballot harvesting or limits on the number of ballots a person can return, a 15-day early-voting mandate, and giving out-of-prison felons the right to vote — all while also making it harder for states to clean up their voter rolls. These are just a few of the terrible rules entrenched in HR 1, and it encapsulates the Left’s election strategy going forward.

Furthermore, the bill would create a code of conduct for Supreme Court justices, which is an obvious effort to dictate to the High Court how it would be allowed to rule on cases.

In short, HR 1 is a recipe for tyranny.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court refused a perfect opportunity to tackle last year’s election integrity issues — and thus lay a roadblock in the way of HR 1 — when the justices inexplicably declined to hear the case against a Pennsylvania courts’ unilateral judicial rewrite of the state’s election laws, making an end run around the state legislature. Justice Clarence Thomas blasted his colleagues’ decision to pass on the case: “The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling.” And why wouldn’t SCOTUS weigh in now, when we’re free and clear of any pending election? Now is the time to address this, not the 11th hour before an election. Moreover, as Thomas noted, “Changing the rules in the middle of the game is bad enough. Such rule changes by officials who may lack authority to do so is even worse.”

SCOTUS has, however, decided to hear another election case, Brnovich v. DNC. At issue are Arizona’s requirements that voters who cast their ballot on election day must do so in their assigned precinct and the state’s prohibition against ballot harvesting. (Both are common state laws.) Democrats have dubiously argued that Arizona’s laws violate the Voting Rights Act by creating a standard that infringes on minorities’ right to vote. A federal judge has ruled there is no evidence to support the Democrats’ claims, a decision that a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel agreed with but was then overruled by the full court.

It appears likely that SCOTUS will find in Arizona’s favor by ruling that the Ninth Circuit was in error in overturning the decision, though as narrow rulings are the wont of Chief Justice John Roberts, it’s probable that the Court will avoid ruling on the merits of Arizona’s election laws, or to truly clarify the Voting Rights Act. If they take the narrow path, the justices will only be kicking the proverbial can down the road. Repairing the gaping holes caused by Democrats and lower courts in the nation’s election integrity will remain left undone. A fair election system should matter to all parties, but clearly for Democrats, the only concern is working to establish a system that ensures their victory.

https://patriotpost.us/articles/78108-dems-push-end-to-election-integrity-2021-03-02

**************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

Posted by JR at 7:43 PM 0 comments

Friday, March 05, 2021

Early signs COVID-19 vaccine jab ‘clobbers’ more transmissible variants

British researchers say there is growing evidence that the full two courses of existing vaccines will “clobber” the more transmissible strains of COVID-19 — a development that could help unlock international travel and help relieve millions of people from lockdowns.

The emergence of strains in countries with major coronavirus outbreaks, including Britain, Brazil and South Africa, have led to further international travel restrictions and measures. Governments have feared the strains would be resistant to the vaccines that were designed before their discovery.

This week the Australian government extended the international border closure by another three months, citing the more transmissible strains that had emerged overseas.

Britain has also introduced hotel quarantine for travellers from countries where the strains are prevalent and stopped recreational international travel.

Professor Tim Spector, from King’s College London and principal investigator with Britain’s ZOE COVID Symptom study – where millions of Britons log their symptoms and vaccine side effects – told an online webinar that early fears about the variants’ resistance to vaccines might prove to be unfounded.

“There’s been some more reassuring data showing that once you’ve had the second dose, it really clobbers all the variants; we just need time to show that,” Spector said.

Ellie Barnes, a professor in hepatology and experimental medicine at Oxford University and member of the UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium, said there was data showing the jab worked well against the South African variant, but only after the second dose.

“We’ve got Oxford data which basically shows that after one dose your antibody titre [concentration] is not so high – it’s high but it’s not super high – and that is not enough to neutralise the South African [variant],” Barnes said.

“After you give the second dose you get really robust neutralisation of the South African variant, so I think we can be reassured of that.

“And even after a single dose the data from these vaccines in South Africa itself shows a single dose prevents you from hospitalisation and severe infection. “But you do need the second dose to get fully protected.”

Barnes said the same outcome was likely against the Brazilian variant, which is similar to the strain that emerged in South Africa. She said the next generation of COVID-19 vaccines would be specifically designed to counteract the South African variant and said she was not sure that annual vaccines would be required, as has been previously touted.

“There’s only so many mutations a virus can make before it’s no longer able to infect cells; it’s unlikely to go on indefinitely,” she said. “SARS-CoV-2 is not the same as influenza. I’m not sure we’ll need vaccines every year; we’ll see, time will tell.”

Barnes said there was emerging data to support anecdotal reports of people who had previously had COVID-19 experiencing stronger side effects to the vaccine.

She said this was because the body’s T-cells were activated by the COVID-19 infection and their memory was able to respond “very rapidly” to vaccination.

“So if you’ve been infected before and then you get a first dose of vaccine, you have a really excellent response to that single dose comparable to someone that wasn’t infected before and was on their second dose - that’s the data that’s just coming out in pre-prints,” she said.

She said it was for this reason that it is recommended people wait one month after being infected with COVID-19 to receive their vaccine.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/early-signs-covid-19-vaccine-jab-clobbers-more-transmissible-variants-20210304-p577ll.html

**************************************

Are Liberals Really More Egalitarian?

Recent studies find conservatives treat others more equally than liberals

Recent experiments reveal that in some cases it is liberals who tend to treat information and people more unequally on the basis of sex, race, and group status.

In a set of studies, liberals wished to censor written passages that portrayed low-status groups unfavorably more than identical passages that portrayed high-status groups unfavorably, whereas conservatives treated the passages more comparably.

This does not necessarily mean that liberals are not egalitarian. It might be that liberals prioritize equality of outcomes and view unequal treatment (at least for a time) as a means of attaining equal outcomes.

On personality measures, liberals are more egalitarian than conservatives. This preference for equality is often measured with the Social Dominance Orientation Scale, which contains items about both equality of treatment (e.g., “We would have fewer problems if we treated people more equally”) and equality of outcomes (e.g., “We should strive to make incomes as equal as possible”).

However, sometimes personality scales do not map onto behavior in expected ways. For example, despite the fact that conservatives score higher in epistemic needs for certainty, they appear to be no more politically biased than liberals (i.e., no more likely to evaluate politically congenial information more favorably than otherwise identical politically uncongenial information). A paper forthcoming in the American Journal of Political Science replicated this “symmetrical bias” pattern in two nationally representative studies, finding that epistemic needs for certainty actually did not predict political bias.

So, consistent with liberals’ self-reported support for equality, do they treat people and groups more equally than conservatives? Several recent studies over the past few years cast doubt on this proposition.

Scholars test for unequal treatment (sometimes also called bias) by presenting participants with identical or very similar stimuli (for example, a scientific finding, a resume) and manipulating whom or which group that piece of information is about (for example, a scientific finding about men or women, a resume for a Black or a White job applicant), and then having participants evaluate the piece of information. To the extent that people treat the stimuli differently in the different sex or race conditions, this is considered unequal treatment or a bias. If people rated a male candidate as more qualified for a job than a female candidate with the exact same resume, this would be considered an unequal treatment or bias in favor of men (or against women).

Recent experiments and quasi-experiments of this kind suggest that, at least sometimes, it is liberals who tend to treat information and people more unequally on the basis of sex, race, and group status.

Evaluations that favor or disfavor some groups

For example, two sets of studies by two different research teams found that participants evaluated science on sex differences more favorably when women were portrayed more favorably than men (as better drawers and less prone to lying and as more intelligent) than when men were portrayed more favorably than women. In both of these sets of studies, these tendencies were stronger as participants were more politically liberal.

Similarly, in a more naturalistic study on Twitter, liberals were more likely to amplify the successes of female and Black athletes than male and White athletes, whereas conservatives treated the successes of groups more similarly.

In another set of studies, White liberals presented less self-competence to Black than White interaction partners, whereas White conservatives treated Black and White interaction partners more similarly. And in another set, liberals had stronger desires to censor passages that portrayed low-status groups unfavorably than identical passages that portrayed high-status groups unfavorably, whereas conservatives treated the passages more comparably.

Other teams of researchers have found similar patterns in other domains. For example, people had more generous acceptance criteria for admitting Black than White candidates to an honor society, and this tendency was stronger among liberals. Whereas those high in social dominance orientation favored a White over a Black job applicant, the reverse tendency to favor a Black over a White job applicant was stronger among those low in social dominance orientation.

And whereas those high on system justification (correlated with more conservative ideology) found jokes that target low-status and high-status groups similarly funny, those low on system justification (liberals) found jokes that target low-status groups less funny than those that target high-status groups.

Limitations and a word about future research

These findings are far from a comprehensive overview of the literature on these kinds of studies. In order to draw any conclusions that one group (liberals or conservatives) treats groups and people more equally in general, one would need to conduct a thorough meta-analysis (if anybody wants to conduct a meta-analysis, perhaps as part of an adversarial collaboration, do let me know). Moreover, it seems quite possible that preferences for equality of treatment and equality of outcomes in relation to political ideology have changed over the past couple of decades and may continue to change in the future, and so one would have to take time into account as well.

However, these results may suggest that we cannot assume that liberals, being more egalitarian than conservatives, treat individuals and groups more equally. They might not.

This does not necessarily mean that liberals are not the egalitarians they claim to be. It might be that liberals—first and foremost—prioritize equality of outcomes and view unequal treatment (at least for a time) as a means of attaining equal outcomes.

But likewise, that conservatives are more tolerant of inequality of outcomes does not necessarily mean conservatives oppose equality. It might be that conservatives—first and foremost—prioritize equality of treatment and view unequal outcomes (at least for a time) as an unfortunate side effect.

None of this research can adjudicate which of these positions (if either) is more empirically or morally justified. But it may lead one to wonder whether the relationships between ideology and egalitarianism are more complicated than certain mainstream narratives suggest.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-antisocial-psychologist/202102/are-liberals-really-more-egalitarian

*****************************************

IN BRIEF

Pentagon: One militia member killed, two injured in Syria airstrike (UPI)

We're shocked — shocked! Iran rejects Biden offer to discuss new nuclear deal (Disrn)

California lawmakers reach agreement to return schools to in-person learning (UPI)

Minneapolis prepares for unrest during Derek Chauvin trial next week (Examiner)

Virginia to become 16th state to legalize marijuana (Daily Caller)

Andrew Cuomo backers reevaluate fundraising amid sexual harassment probe (CNBC)

Conservative United Methodists detail breakaway plan (World)

Golden Globes suffer ratings nightmare (Disrn)

Biden State Department nominee Victoria Nuland is a defender of Chinese propaganda (Free Beacon)

Twenty-three embarrassing Andrew Cuomo takes that just didn't age well (Disrn)

Base with U.S. troops in Iraq attacked with rockets after being targeted by Iran (Jerusalem Post)

ICE conducting human smuggling investigation after California crash that killed more than a dozen (Fox News)

ICE locks Twitter account that alerted public of illegal immigrants freed by sanctuary cities (Washington Times)

Treasury Department sanctions Russian officials in response to the poisoning of Aleksey Navalny (Treasury.gov)

Home prices surged by 10% in January, the largest annualized jump since 2013 (Forbes)

Prices at the pump are going up thanks to Texas's epic cold snap (Examiner)

Governor Cuomo to be stripped of pandemic emergency powers in legislative deal (NBC New York)

Poll finds more Americans concerned about Black Lives Matter riots (55%) than Capitol riot (45%) despite the Leftmedia's ignoring the former and obsession with the latter (Disrn)

Earth's green vegetation has increased 10% since 2000 (Disrn)

Skipping mammograms raises odds for breast cancer death in women (HealthDay News)

Policy: Bringing back pork would be a disaster (National Review)

Woke Mob Believes CPAC Stage Is Nazi Symbolism — The Leftmedia pushes the conspiracy theory by claiming it resembles a symbol used by the SS.

We Are All Essential — Mike Rowe tells John Stossel that COVID rules had a huge unintended consequence: They crushed work, sapping meaning from many people's lives.

**************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

Posted by JR at 6:19 PM 0 comments

Thursday, March 04, 2021

'NINETY PER CENT of Germany's severe Covid-19 patients have migrant background and more than half are Muslim' despite making up 4.8% of the population

More than 90 per cent of severely ill coronavirus patients in Germany have a 'migrant background', a leading doctor has said, prompting claims that the government is turning a blind eye to the issue to avoid igniting a race row.

Thomas Voshaar, the head doctor at a German lung hospital, said a survey of leading medics had found that many of the sickest patients were what he described as 'patients with communications barriers'.

In a conference call of health experts, reported by Bild, Voshaar said he had raised the issue with Angela Merkel's health minister Jens Spahn - while the head of Germany's top diseases institute, Lothar Wieler, described it as a 'taboo'.

Wieler added that the number of Muslims in intensive care was 'clearly above 50 per cent' even though they make up only around five per cent of Germany's 83million population.

Voshaar told the February 14 conference call that government warnings about the dangers of the virus were 'simply not getting through' to migrant communities.

He said top doctors had compiled figures from intensive care wards in November and December 2020 and January 2021, the peak months of the second wave.

'According to my analysis, more than 90 per cent of the intubated, most seriously ill patients always had a migrant background,' he said. 'We agreed among ourselves that we should describe these people as 'patients with communications barriers'. We don't seem to be getting through to them.'

Wieler, the RKI chief, called for authorities to engage with imams to get through to Muslim communities, calling the issue a 'taboo' and a 'real problem'. 'There are parallel societies in our country. You can only put that right with proper outreach work in the mosques, but we're not getting through. And that sucks,' he said.

Wieler said the proportion of Muslims in intensive care wards was 'clearly above 50 per cent', even though they make up only around 4.8 per cent of the population.

Asked by Bild about the conference call, Wieler did not deny what was said but described it as a 'private, informal exchange' rather than conclusive findings.

Voshaar said that everyone he had spoken to about his findings, including health minister Spahn, had reacted with a sense of 'oh God'.

But Merkel is not thought to have discussed the issue in her regular meetings with state premiers.

Experts on the conference call are said to have raised fears that the German government was avoiding confronting the issue for fear of triggering a racism debate.

Migrants and integration are a sensitive political issue in Germany, which unilaterally took in more than a million refugees from war-torn Syria in 2015. That spurred the growth of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), which surged into parliament in 2017 and severely weakened Merkel's authority.

One politician in Merkel's party acknowledged that there might be 'language barriers' but said the dangers should be clear by now regardless of background.

Minority groups have been hardest-hit in many countries, including in the UK where studies have shown a higher mortality rate among black and Asian people.

But Germany's RKI has published no official figures on infection or death rates among different ethnic groups.

The new revelations are the latest blow to Merkel's government which is already facing criticism over the slow vaccine roll-out and long-running lockdown.

Meanwhile, Merkel wants to start easing virus curbs from next week with surveys suggesting Germans are losing patience with the lockdown. 'We're coming out of a long lockdown and must now proceed step by step,' Merkel said in a video call with MPs from her conservative bloc.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9320323/Coronavirus-Germany-90-severely-ill-patients-migrant-background.html

********************************************

Could a vaccine against South African 'super-Covid' prevent ALL forms?

Scientists have found a potential silver lining to the worrisome South African coronavirus variant: antibodies developed to it may protect against other variants.

Lab tests by Africa Health Research Institute scientists suggests that antibodies triggered by exposure to the country's dominant coronavirus variant can prevent infection by other variants, the scientists said on Wednesday.

The opposite is true of people infected with other variants. The immunity someone gains from prior infection with earlier forms of the virus or even the UK's B117 variant is less protective against South Africa's B1351 variant.

And the discovery that antibodies to B1351 may offer broader immunity suggests that making vaccines that trigger these immune cells could mean a vaccine for that variant may protect against all of the currently circulating forms.

Better yet: Moderna announced Wednesday that it has shipped enough supplies to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for trials of its booster shot designed specifically to combat B1351 to begin.

If infection rates can be kept low enough to close the window of opportunity for new variants to arise, Moderna's booster vaccine and others designed to block B1351 could have a good shot at ending the pandemic.

The clinical trial has not yet begun, but will include both participants who got two doses of Moderna's original vaccine in the earlier trial and participants who have never had the vaccine or COVID-19.

Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel said Wednesday that it could have booster doses ready later this year. 'We look forward to beginning the clinical study of our variant booster and are grateful for the NIH’s continued collaboration to combat this pandemic,' Bancel said in a statement.

'As we seek to defeat COVID-19, we must be vigilant and proactive as new variants of SARS-CoV-2 emerge. Leveraging the flexibility of our mRNA platform, we are moving quickly to test updates to the vaccines that address emerging variants of the virus in the clinic.

'Moderna is committed to making as many updates to our vaccine as necessary until the pandemic is under control. We hope to demonstrate that booster doses, if necessary, can be done at lower dose levels, which will allow us to provide many more doses to the global community in late 2021 and 2022 if necessary.'

Although the UK's B117 variant is certainly spreading more quickly than other variants, the SOuth African form has much more concerning mutations.

In addition to be an estimated 50 percent more infectious, changes in its spike protein - the portion of the virus that allows it to infect human cells - make the variant less 'visible' to antibodies developed based on other forms.

The variant doesn't totally nullify the effects of current vaccines - which were designed based on the genetic makeup of earlier circulating forms of the virus - but they do weaken it.

Potency was reduced by about five-fold in the lab for Moderna's original shot, and by about two fold for Pfizer's vaccines.

Johnson & Johnson's one-shot reduced infection risks by 64 percent in South Africa, where the variant is dominant, compared to 72 percent in the US, where there are only 65 confirmed cases, according to the CDC.

But all three companies are now working on booster shots, with Moderna's leading the pack as it takes a step closer to clinical trials.

The findings in the South African laboratory studies offer hope that COVID-19 vaccines based on the 501Y.V2 variant first identified late last year could protect against multiple variants circulating in different parts of the world.

The more contagious variant drove a second wave of infections in South Africa that peaked in January and is believed to have spread to many other countries in Africa and other continents.

'We used plasma...from people that were infected in this latest wave with the 501Y.V2' - another alphanumeric name for the variant that emerged in South Africa - 'and we used it against the first-wave virus...what we found is that it could neutralize, OK not as well as it could neutralize itself but it's not bad at all,' Alex Sigal from the Africa Health Research Institute told a news conference.

Sigal said vaccines designed with the 501Y.V2 variant in mind 'might be cross-protective to other variants...this gives you some idea how this problem of variants can be solved.'

Penny Moore, a professor at the National Institute for Communicable Diseases, said the antibody response from the 501Y.V2 variant was only reduced threefold against the first-wave virus, whereas the response from the first-wave virus was reduced nine-fold against 501Y.V2.

'It's not that the antibodies that are triggered by 501Y.V2 are somehow magical, there is a drop-off, ... but unlike the antibodies triggered by the original variant they seem to somehow have a little bit more breadth,' she told the same briefing.

Salim Abdool Karim, a top government adviser on COVID-19, noted that major vaccine manufacturers including Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson were already making vaccines based on the 501Y.V2 variant.

Moderna had already adapted its shot and was putting it into human studies, he added.

He predicted that by the end of 2021 most vaccine manufacturers would have adapted their shots, 'not because they are specifically worrying about the virus coming from South Africa... but because key mutations in the 501Y.V2 are actually also present in many other variants.'

Health Minister Zweli Mkhize said the research was encouraging and that genomics surveillance had helped the government respond to the pandemic.

South Africa has recorded by far the most COVID-19 infections and deaths on the African continent, at 1.5 million cases and over 50,000 fatalities to date.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9321281/South-African-scientists-antibodies-variant-offer-cross-protection.html

****************************************

The real president who is running things instead of Biden!

This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a reasonable deduction

When you really think about it, would you let a seventy-eight-year-old man run the country? Nah, they couldn’t be that stupid.
Or…could they? Anyway, what seems to be happening now is that Joe Biden is being sent out to make the speeches and do the smiling and the waving. Just because someone has the title doesn’t mean they are the one in charge. Anyone that has ever seen an officer in the military get chewed out privately by an upper enlisted person knows that’s the case

The fact of the matter is, they are going to try and insulate Joe Biden as much as humanly possible.

Former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice has been tapped to lead the White House Domestic Policy Council in the Biden administration, but former acting DNI Ric Grenell believes she could be in control of a lot more.

“I think you need to watch Susan Rice very closely,” he said on “Sunday Morning Futures.” “She will be the shadow president.”

Susan Rice, known for launching regime change war in Libya, trying and failing to launch regime change war in Syria, and blaming Benghazi on a YouTube video has returned to the White House briefing room— Greg Price (@greg_price11) January 26, 2021

Grenell called Biden’s pick “interesting” considering Rice has no experience in domestic policy but nonetheless will be “incredibly influential” under the new administration.

Having served in the Obama administration as a national security adviser, Rice already understands the “entire apparatus,” Grenell said.

“I think the reality is, she’s going to be running foreign policy, domestic policy,” he said. “She’s probably extremely happy that Kamala Harris is going to be preoccupied with the Senate… and won’t have a lot of time to get into policy issues.”

Wow, Biden Policy Advisor Susan Rice, who never fully answered why she was unmasking Americans and evaded the truth in multiple interviews about Benghazi is now going to discuss a top priority for Biden Admin, Racial equity (equality)— Sara A. Carter (@SaraCarterDC) January 26, 2021

Grenell theorized that the Democrats elected Biden because he could be swayed.

“We saw him raise his hand during the Democratic primary for some really radical ideas,” he said. “The progressives have clearly taken over him… And Susan Rice being right there at the White House to be the shadow president is probably exactly where she wants to be.”

http://2020conservative.com/revealed-the-real-president-who-is-running-things-instead-of-biden-2/

**************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

Posted by JR at 5:29 PM 0 comments

Wednesday, March 03, 2021

French doctors slam 'AstraZeneca bashing' as France enacts U-turn on jabs for over-65s

French doctors have blamed deep domestic scepticism of AstraZeneca on the “bad press” it has received, including criticism from Emmanuel Macron that it was “quasi-ineffective” for the elderly.

The indirect criticism of the French president, who was forced to say he would take the jab if necessary last week, came as Gallic health regulators said they would make the jab available for the over 65s.

Mr Macron fanned Gallic scepticism over the jab developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University in January hours before it received a green light from the European Medecines Agency by saying: “Everything points to thinking it is quasi-ineffective on people older than 65, some say those 60 years or older."

Since then, French reports of flu-like side-effects among dozens of health workers further tainted its image.

That contributed to a dearth of demand in France, where only 24 per cent of AstraZeneca stocks have been used, according to the health ministry.

That is well below a target set at 80-85 per cent and compares with 82 per cent for vaccines made by Pfizer/BioNTech and 37 per cent for those made by Moderna.

"It is true that we are facing issues with AstraZeneca vaccines," said a health ministry official.

The scepticism prompted Jacques Battistoni, head of the MG France doctors' union to denounce the widespread "AstraZeneca bashing" that was causing many vials to go unused.

France’s vaccination coordinator, Alain Fischer, has also complained that the "bad press" surrounding the shot was "deeply unfair".

All vaccines combined, France has only injected three million people with a first dose and 1.6 million a second to date. The UK has given at least one dose to more than 21 million people. However, France has administered two injections to roughly twice as many citizens - preferring initially to target only the over 75s and health workers.

However, after talking down the AstraZeneca jab, the country has now abruptly changed its tune, with Mr Macron urging people to take it.

"If this is the vaccine I'm offered, obviously I would take it," he said after a European Council meeting on Friday.

On Monday, French health minister Olivier Veron said that the vaccine would now be made available to those between 65-75 with serious health risks.

The French U-turn came after the release of a recent study published in Scotland that showed the AstraZeneca shot lowered the chance of being hospitalised for four to six weeks by 94 per cent after one shot and was effective in older people.

The World Heath Organisation has also recommended the jab for over-65s.

In light of this, the French health minister said: “The higher health council now considers as of today that all three vaccines that we have in France have a remarkable efficacy to protect people against the risk of severe forms of Covid-19."

“As a result, I can announce that from now on people aged 50 and above who have conditions such as diabetes, high blood pressure or a history of cancer can be vaccinated with AstraZeneca, including those aged 65 to 74.”

The previous advice had been for the UK-Swedish company’s vaccine to be given only to people aged 50 to 64 with comorbidities and to healthcare workers. Those over 75 will continue to receive the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine, he added.

It remains unclear whether France will also eat humble pie over previous criticism of the UK's decision to space out jabs.

Last month, France's Europe minister Clément Beaune slammed the practice, saying: "I don't think our public would accept that we take all those risks against the advice of our scientists."

However, the country's top health body now says there is sufficient evidence to space out AstraZeneca jabs by up to 12 weeks. The health ministry has not said whether it would heed the advice.

The French government has come under fierce criticism in recent weeks for a sluggish and inefficient vaccination rollout. Authorities are also battling the highest vaccine scepticism in the Western world. Around half of health workers in French care homes do not want to get a jab.

There are fears the country, which has a blanket 6pm to 6am curfew, may have to impose lockdowns in at least 20 departments in the coming days due to rising infection rates. Authorities are “seriously considering” weekend lockdowns in the Paris region.

On Monday, the daily death toll was 379 and 3,544 Covid patient were in intensive care with 25,430 people hospitalised. The incidence rate in the Paris area is now 322 per 100,000.

Schools remain open and Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo on Tuesday suggested that classes should take place outside in city squares and parks where possible - an idea the education ministry and unions said could be possible.

Mr Macron on Monday told the French to “hold tight for another four to six weeks”. On Tuesday, government spokesman Gabriel Attal insisted there was “light at the end of the tunnel with vaccination”, adding that this would be accelerated as pharmacies were to authorised to give people jabs.

The French change of tune on AstraZeneca came as Belgium's health council advised authorities to lift a ban on the vaccine for the over 55s on Tuesday. Belgium had previously ruled out authorising the jab for the over 55s, blaming a lack of clinical data.

In Canada, the vaccine was authorised for people who are 18 and older by drug regulator on Friday but the regulator noted that available clinical trial data was too limited to reliably estimate how well the vaccine worked in people 65 and older.

But it also said "emerging real world evidence" in places that had already started using the vaccine suggested a potential benefit and no safety concerns.

Germany is under pressure to change its vaccination strategy after the country's top vaccine regulator acknowledged that advice against giving the AstraZeneca jab to over 65s had been flawed.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/02/france-approves-astrazeneca-vaccine-over-65s-despite-president

********************************************

Democrats Manufacture Racism

If you wanted to tear apart a country, really have the people hate each other, the playbook Democrats are following would be the way to do it. Take something irrelevant, but over which people can do nothing, and build it up into everything. Convince people others are out to get them, thereby absolving them of any responsibility for problems in their life, and they will eventually give up. Convince others they are perpetrators of something horrible, which only works with those out of real problems, and you have the makings of Nazi-esque powers of manipulation. This is what Democrats are doing with race, and it can no longer simply be laughed off. It must be actively confronted and exposed.

The tip of the spear in this mental race-war movement on the left are Ibram Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, with their personal Mein Kampfs, “How to Be an Anti-Racist” and “White Fragility.” The basic premise of each book is white people are racists and everyone else is a victim. The only way for a white person to not be a racist is to self-flagellate on the altar of progressive politics while cutting a big check to whichever of these grievance grifters happens to be collecting a big payday from the nearest school that day.

It’s a hell of a racket. Who knew there were literally millions to be made in telling rich white liberals their skin is the root of all problems in the world? I wish I had thought of it. If I had known wealthy suburbanites led lives so devoid of meaning that they’d turned to mental masochism, I would’ve happily told them how awful they are and for half the price. They disgust me, but it never occurred to me to rip them off.

Now an entire industry of phony race-grievance exists, and it’s motivating damn near everything the Democratic Party does.

We now have the Cartoon Network running public service announcements telling children to “see color” when it comes to people. In a little less than 60 years we’ve gone from Martin Luther King changing the world with the words, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” to a cartoon character telling kids, “My experience with anti-black racism is really specific. Other people of color experience other forms of racism, too. But you won't see any of that if you 'don't see color.’”

You could light the eastern seaboard by plugging MLK’s grave into the power grid, he’s turning over in it so fast.

Professional grievance has power over stupid people now, and everyone is excited to play.

Someone with the title “principal chief of the Cherokee Nation” asked Jeep to discontinue using the name “Jeep Grand Cherokee” because why not? The Redskins are now “the Washington football team,” and college newspapers happily run opinion pieces on fears of how “Mid-Semester Residential Experience could enforce settler colonialism.”

The last in that list, which comes from American University, laments “The large influx of predominantly affluent white students into D.C.’s ‘chocolate city,’ a term that refers to its large population of Black citizens, could evoke similar effects of settler colonialism and negatively impact the community.” A conservative speaking at an event in the same zip code as AU would cause a student riot and condemnation from the school’s administrators and faculty, but not straight-up racism, like complaining white students who return to campus early are probably going to get black people sick and “are likely not planning to give back to the communities that they reside in and will buy out stock at stores and malls, making the resources in those communities limited.”

Switch the races and it’s something the KKK could’ve written. Given the environment the left has created in this country, the student who wrote it will now be faced with a “Sophie’s choice” between a show on MSNBC and s Cabinet post in the Biden administration.

This racism as anti-racism can only exist as long as people keep funding it. DiAngelo has a new book coming out that promises to keep the gravy train rolling for her and the industry. Called “Nice Racism: How Progressive White People Perpetuate Racial Harm,” because no one will ever be “woke” enough. The description says “Dismantling white supremacy requires white people to commit to a lifetime of education and accountability.”

Keep sending those checks, left-wing suckers, but leave the rest of us the hell out of it. Stop playing along, and stop being silent. They can’t cancel all of us, but we have to cancel them. Starving the beast is the only way to kill it. Don’t buy their books, don’t watch their networks, don’t patronize their sponsors (both those that advertise on their shows and the companies that cut them checks). It’s gonna suck, but not buying Coca-Cola is a small price to pay for refusing to subsidize a company that tells its employees to “try to be less white.” And don’t be silent, no matter what they scream back at you.

In their pursuit of manufacturing racism out of thin air for control over people, Democrats are exposing themselves as the racists they’ve always been. Let them. Just refuse to participate in it with them. Let them choke on it. They deserve nothing better.

https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2021/02/28/democrats-manufacture-racism-n2585452

*******************************************

IN BRIEF

Federal judge says national ban against COVID-19-related evictions illegal (UPI)

FBI pinpoints a single suspect in the death of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick (Business Insider)

Federal officials charge more than 300 in Capitol riot (NBC)

Saudi Crown Prince Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman approved killing of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, U.S. intelligence report concludes (Forbes)

Nancy Pelosi's domicile to pull a staggering $120 million from police budget to give to black communities (Disrn)

"San Francisco has seen a sharp rise in violent crime over the past year, with homicides alone rising 35%. Homelessness and drug use has also risen to historic levels."

SCOTUS rules Santa Clara County churches may open indoor services (Disrn)

"Anti-ICE" rioters smash windows, force businesses to board up in Portland (Daily Wire)

Campus police release video proving University of Minnesota student lied about being profiled, harassed (Disrn)

Here's a HuffPo article encouraging parents to support "sex-change" surgeries for their children next to another discouraging people from neutering their dog (Not the Bee)

Judge rules Miss United States of America pageant can exclude men (Disrn)

Dezinformatsiya: NBC rushes to explain why crimes against Asians aren't always hate crimes (Hot Air)

White House shifts thinking on Beijing Winter Olympics boycott as pressure mounts over Uyghur genocide (Examiner)

House Republicans push compromise bill aimed at codifying LGBT "rights" and religious protections (Free Beacon)

Personal income (10%) and spending (2.4%) soared in January (CNBC)

Policy: Joe Biden's Syria airstrike hit the wrong target (1945)

Policy: Rare earth elements aren't that rare, but they're vital to national security (Heritage Foundation)

**************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

Posted by JR at 6:17 PM 0 comments

Tuesday, March 02, 2021

COVID vaccine: ‘Extremely good news’ about Oxford/AstraZeneca jab

The AstraZeneca jab offers even stronger protection than first known, new data shows

Just one shot of either the Oxford/AstraZeneca or Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine can cut hospital admissions of older people by 80 per cent, new data shows.

British Health Secretary Matt Hancock confirmed the finding and also revealed the jab may offer better protection against COVID-19 than first thought.

The Public Health England figures compared people who received the first dose of the vaccine with others of a similar age who were yet to receive protection.

Mr Hancock said the data was “extremely good news”.

“A single shot of either the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine or of the Pfizer vaccine works against severe infection among the over-70s with a more than 80 per cent reduction in hospitalisations," he said in a public address to the nation.

“In fact, the detailed data show that the protection that you get from catching COVID 35 days after a first jab is even slightly better for the Oxford jab than for Pfizer, albeit both results are clearly very strong.”

https://www.couriermail.com.au/coronavirus/covid-vaccine-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-astrazenecaoxford-jab/news-story/f0ff9fe4891f14f34149afeeab7605dd

*********************************

Game-changing COVID-19 vaccine pill pursued by small British firm

In the global scramble to discover a COVID-19 vaccine, did governments overlook an option almost too good to be true? Wayne Channon thinks so, and is out to prove it.

“If we can make vaccines which are thermally stable and taken orally, that could be transformational,” Channon says. “It will require a mindset change. And the benefits are not trivial.”

IosBio, the British biotechnology firm Channon chairs, has for years tried to convince pharmaceutical giants of the benefits of turning temperature-sensitive liquid vaccines into much more stable pills.

“We thought it would be a walk in the park to persuade them to reformulate their vaccines but it turned out to be very naive,” he says.

“For big pharma, getting something into the cold chain [a temperature-controlled supply chain] is considered a success for them. They don’t own the cold chain so there’s no economic imperative to change.”

However the coronavirus pandemic may finally herald the arrival of oral vaccines; iosBio’s technology was given to humans for the first time during trials in California on Monday and the team behind the Oxford-AstraZeneca jab has also started exploring whether it could eventually be taken as a pill.

Tablets or nasal sprays could provide a more targeted immune response, overcome the need for storage and transportation at freezing temperatures, be handed out much faster, help people who are afraid of needles and, according to Channon, even be sent in the post as a booster shot.

“For the next pandemic, the world is going to be a different place,” he says. “We will have some new technology and I think oral vaccines are going to be at the forefront of that.”

IosBio gave up on trying to convince pharmaceutical companies and in 2016 started developing vaccines itself. However the firm was overlooked for funding by the UK’s vaccine taskforce during last year’s race to find candidates.

Several months later a phone call from billionaire doctor, businessman and Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong opened the door to a potential breakthrough. Soon-Shiong - the world’s richest doctor who Forbes estimates is worth $10 billion - had woken up at 3am with a realisation that inoculating the world would be easier through an oral vaccine and tracked down iosBio.

The pills are engineered to withstand temperatures of up to 50 degrees, allowing them to pass through the stomach without loss of efficacy before they are released in the intestines where immune cells are concentrated.

The British outfit licensed its thermal stabilisation technology to ImmunityBio in exchange for royalties on worldwide sales of an approved oral vaccine. The deal opened up the tens of millions of dollars in funding needed to launch clinical trials.

Sixty-five people in California will take part in the phase one trial launched on Monday. Phase two and three trials will be expanded to thousands more. Oral vaccines have already proven highly effective on monkeys under trials funded by the US government’s Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, Channon added.

“We want to be the universal booster, just because of the simplicity of giving it, simplicity of distributing it and the fact it’s going to have probably a more profound impact,” Channon says. “Even if it’s not this year, it could be next year.”

Channon says distributing the pill via post was an option but agreed governments might want more oversight on the actual uptake by public.

“That’s the debate we’ve got to have with the regulator. I think there is a good argument that if you are sent a vaccine there is at least as much chance of you taking it is as you having a needle in the arm. so I think you’d say lets be pragmatic about this.

“If the worst thing is you have to go to your doctor and pick it up and put it in your mouth and say I’ve taken it, it’s still going to be a lot more efficient [than traditional vaccines].”

The phase one trial will end in two months.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/game-changing-covid-19-vaccine-pill-pursued-by-small-british-firm-world-s-richest-doctor-20210301-p576wl.html

***************************************

NY Bars and Restaurants Win Court Victory Against Cuomo's COVID Curfew

Late last year, blue state governors began enforcing an utterly nonsensical policy ostensibly to fight COVID-19. Govs. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) and Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y.) insisted on curfews for bars and restaurants, preventing them from staying open for lucrative late-shifts without explaining how this business-throttling move would fight the pandemic.

On Saturday, a New York State Supreme Court justice granted a preliminary injunction allowing 90 bars and restaurants to remain open until their regular closing time of 4 a.m. Cuomo had ordered a 10 p.m. curfew in November. Last month, he extended the curfew to 11 p.m. The bars and restaurants sued, demanding the scientific data upon which Cuomo based the curfew.

Steve Cohen, the HoganWilling PLLC attorney representing the bars and restaurants, argued that science did not support the curfew. Cohen said his firm has 13 lawsuits already and is welcoming more industries to come on board.

Donald Swartz, owner of Veneto Wood Fired Pizza and Pasta in Rochester, N.Y., told Fox & Friends that the legal effort began with 10 different restaurants, mostly in the Buffalo area, but grew to nearly 100 different small business owners.

“Months ago we were being redlined where the city of Rochester could not serve indoor dining, but you can go over to the suburbs and you can sit down so it was quite difficult to operate under those conditions,” Swartz recalled. “The law office went to battle for us and got that removed.”

The business owner said he is “really hoping that everybody can get back to — as close as we can — to full dining and we can get our employees — get our staff — back to work. That’s really what we want to do.”

“Let us do what we do best, get back to work, provide a service, provide jobs and provide some taxes back to the state, which [has] got to be much needed at this point,” Swartz added.

While the legacy media long celebrated Cuomo as a heroic warrior against COVID-19, a long train of recent scandals involving the governor’s nursing home orders and sexual assault allegations have eviscerated his political future.

The very idea of a curfew to fight COVID-19 never made much sense. The virus does not suddenly become more likely to spread after 10 p.m. or 11 p.m., but limiting the hours of restaurants and bars does severely cut into their revenues. Cuomo, in particular, appeared to target small businesses that dared to mock his lockdown restrictions with satirical menus. While this petty vindictiveness should be beneath the dignity of a governor, fellow Democrats and alleged victims of sexual assault have come forward with claims that Cuomo personally threatened them, suggesting that this vindictiveness is not outside of the governor’s character.

Yes, this is the same Andrew Cuomo who won an Emmy and who penned a book about his exploits in fighting COVID-19.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/03/01/ny-bars-and-restaurants-win-court-victory-against-cuomos-covid-curfew-n1429093

*********************************************

Britain's "national Health Service at work

A bureaucracy that kills

A university student has died from sepsis after trying 25 times to get through to a GP surgery only to be refused an appointment, an inquest heard.

Toby Hudson, 19, was unable to speak to anyone at the practice, in Weymouth, Dorset, because of a faulty phone system, so gave up and tried again the next day.

When he did get through to a member of staff he was told he could not have an appointment for at least 48 hours.

The teenager was told that due to him being registered at another surgery in his university town of Southampton, Hants, he could either wait two days to re-register or go to an urgent care walk-in centre.

He attended the centre and was seen by nurse practitioner Briony Jefferis, who wrongly diagnosed him with tonsillitis and gave him antibiotics.

Over the next 24 hours Mr Hudson‘s condition deteriorated in front of his parents who called 999 when he slipped into unconsciousness.

He went into cardiac arrest but was delayed in getting to hospital because an ambulance went to the wrong location.

Toby died on the night of July 4, 2019, two days after he had first sought help at the Wyke Regis & Lanehouse Medical Practice in Weymouth, Dorset.

A post mortem examination showed he died from multiple organ failure due to sepsis, due to infectious mononucleosis (glandular fever).

An inquest into his death in Bournemouth heard Mr Hudson had previously been a patient at the Weymouth practice.

However, when he moved to Southampton to study chemistry at university he registered at a new clinic closer to campus.

He had been suffering from a cough for around two months before he returned to his family home in Weymouth in the summer of 2019.

It was heard that Toby was suffering from swollen glands and ‘puffy’ tonsils and a sore throat when his parents told him to speak to a GP.

Giving evidence, Dr Matthew Brook, a partner at the Wake Regis & Lanehouse Medical Practice, admitted issues with the phone system due to a high patient load. Dr Brook said: “We were having tremendous problems with our phone system which could not handle a much higher number of calls. “We had updated the system but it was not working correctly.

“There was a queuing system but in a lot of cases people were waiting a long time and then hanging up.

“We have had a review since then and nobody recalled taking the call from Toby.”

Dr Brook insisted that the correct procedures had been followed. According to national guidelines, temporary residents should only be seen by a GP if they do not require urgent care.

He said: “With temporary residents, receptionists are told to ask whether a patient needs an urgent appointment, within 48 hours.

“If they do require one within 48 hours we refer them to the urgent care unit. “If not, the patient is re-registered and we are then able to make an appointment.”

Mrs Jefferis said she was “not remotely worried” about Toby‘s symptoms when she examined him at the urgent care centre in Weymouth Community Hospital.

She added that he “did not show any signs of sepsis” and that his symptoms were “consistent with those of tonsillitis.”

Mr Hudson‘s father, Peter, returned home on July 4 to find him looking pale and when he helped his son to the wet room of the house he briefly lost consciousness, so he called 999.

The teenager was then taken from his home address in Weymouth to the Dorset County Hospital in Dorchester, but died later that evening.

Mr Hudson said: “I felt there was no urgency. I had to press for action to be taken and for our concerns to be heard.” He added: “We have a lot of concerns about his care.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/student-sepsis-death-inquest-b1808022.html

**************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

Posted by JR at 8:05 PM 0 comments

Monday, March 01, 2021

UK: Pfizer vaccine ‘dramatically reduces’ Covid transmission risk after one dose, study shows

A single dose of Pfizer-BioNTech’s coronavirus vaccine cuts the number of asymptomatic infections and could significantly reduce the risk of transmission, a new UK study suggests.

The findings from Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge indicated 75-per-cent protection from Covid-19.

The results also point to a four-fold decrease in the risk of asymptomatic Covid infection among healthcare workers who have been vaccinated for more than 12 days – suggesting the first dose will significantly reduce the spread of the virus.

“Our findings show a dramatic reduction in the rate of positive screening tests among asymptomatic healthcare workers after a single dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine,” said Nick Jones, a Cambridge University Hospital specialist who co-led the study.

The UK has been rolling out Covid vaccinations since late December 2020, with both the Pfizer shot and the Oxford-AstraZeneca jab given to people in high-risk categories.

As part of their study on the Pfizer vaccine, Cambridge researchers analysed results from thousands of Covid tests carried out each week as part of hospital screenings of healthcare staff.

Dr Mike Weekes, an infectious disease specialist at Cambridge University’s department of medicine, who co-led the study, hailed the findings as “great news”.

He said: “The Pfizer vaccine not only provides protection against becoming ill from SARS-CoV-2 but also helps prevent infection, reducing the potential for the virus to be passed on to others.”

After separating the test results from unvaccinated and vaccinated staff, the Cambridge team found that 0.8 per cent of tests from unvaccinated healthcare workers were positive.

This compared with 0.37 per cent of tests from staff less than 12 days after vaccination – when the vaccine’s protective effect is not yet been fully established – and 0.2 per cent of tests from staff at 12 days or more post-vaccination.

The study and its results have yet to be independently peer-reviewed by other scientists, but were published online as a preprint on Friday.

Independent scientists said the findings were very encouraging. Jonathan Ball, professor of molecular virology at the University of Nottingham, said: “To see such a reduction in infection rates after a single dose of the Pfizer vaccine is very impressive, and shows that vaccination truly does offer a way out of the current restrictions and a much brighter future.

“It will be important to understand whether the reduced risk of infection played out across all the exposure risk groups included in the study, but nonetheless, this is still excellent news.”

Dr Andrew Freedman, of the Cardiff University School of Medicine, said the latest study “demonstrates clearly the effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing infection”. He added: “This means that vaccination will lead to a substantial reduction in transmission of the virus.”

Key real-world data published on Wednesday from Israel, which has conducted one of the world’s fastest rollouts of Pfizer’s vaccine, showed that two doses of the Pfizer shot cut symptomatic Covid-19 cases by 94 per cent across all age groups, and severe illnesses by nearly as much.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/covid-vaccine-pfizer-transmission-dose-b1807964.html

*************************************

How the Johnson & Johnson single-dose COVID-19 vaccine is different from others

The United States now has a third regulator-approved coronavirus vaccine. The US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) cleared the vaccine produced by medical giant Johnson & Johnson.

However, this vaccine is different from the others approved in the US. It has provided optimism that swathes of the world could be vaccinated from COVID-19 much quicker than first thought.

Johnson & Johnson has achieved something different to most other vaccine candidates — developed a single-dose COVID-19 vaccine.

The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine requires a person to receive two shots, 21 days apart. The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine allows for a longer timeframe between the two shots.

Other vaccines which require two doses include Novavax, the Moderna vaccine, Russia's Sputnik V and China's Sinovac and Sinopharm vaccines.

However, Johnson and Johnson is not the only company to be developing a single-dose vaccine. The CanSino Biologics vaccine developed in China also has a single-dose shot.

The American company has shown results which have proven to be more effective than its Chinese counterpart.

The USFDA said Johnson & Johnson's vaccine offered strong protection against serious illness, hospitalisations and death.

One dose was 85 per cent protective against the most severe COVID-19 illness, in a massive study that spanned three continents.

Protection remained strong in countries such as South Africa, where the variants of most concern are spreading.

Meanwhile, the Chinese single-shot vaccine falls well below that mark, according to initial data. CanSino Biologics said its vaccine was 68.83 per cent effective at preventing symptomatic COVID-19 disease two weeks after a single-dose vaccination, citing interim data, while the rate fell to 65.28 per cent four weeks after one shot.

However, reports from a trial of the vaccine in Pakistan, and other countries, showed promising results in preventing serious coronavirus infections.

Faisal Sultan, Pakistan's Special Assistant to the Prime Minister on National Health Services, said the CanSino Biologics shot was 90.98 per cent effective in preventing serious infections.

Unlike the Johnson & Johnson studies, the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna research finished before the South African and British variants began widely spreading.

Along with being a single dose, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine also has another big advantage — it can be kept in warmer temperatures.

The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine needs to be stored at -70 degrees Celsius, making it extremely difficult to transport and keep in storage.

The Moderna vaccine used in the US also needs to be stored below zero, at -20C.

However, the Johnson & Johnson jab can be stored in a regular fridge between 2-8C.

This puts the vaccine on par with other vaccines which can be stored at these temperatures, including the Sputnik V and the Oxford-AstraZeneca.

These advantages in transport and storage will make the vaccine potentially more accessible.

In the United States, Johnson & Johnson is aiming to distribute 20 million doses by the end of March, and 100 million by the middle of the year.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-01/how-the-johnson-and-johnson-covid-19-vaccine-differs-from-others/13201050

*****************************************

The Blue States Are Now the Beggar States

Last week, I visited South Florida for four days, and what a shock: Everything was open. The beaches, the hotels, the restaurants (with some sensible safety and social distancing restrictions). The classrooms are full.

The other strange thing about being in Florida was that people were happy. They were playing tennis and golf. They were going to work and getting on with their lives. Florida is a Republican, can-do kind of place.

Then, there is New York. Manhattan is a morose and deserted place to be. It's as if it's boarded up. People are living their lives afraid. They are depressed, which makes the whole place depressing. In Southern California, I experienced the same dreariness. And it wasn't the weather, which was warm and sunny. Restaurants were closed or highly restricted. Stores were sparsely attended, and people were generally grimacing and standoffish. They yelp in horror if you take off your mask, even for a moment.

Yet through it all, there is almost no evidence that lockdowns, business closures, stay-at-home orders and other strategies have reduced the infection rates or death rates from the virus. To take just one prominent example, open Florida has had a lower death rate (adjusted for the age distribution of the population) than closed-down California and New York. Even President Joe Biden's crackerjack health officials can't explain that one.

Fifty states experimented with responses to the virus, and the verdict is in: The big blue states got crushed. The highest unemployment states are Hawaii, Nevada, California, Colorado, New York, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Connecticut. On average, the blue states have 2 percentage points lower unemployment, which means millions of more jobless citizens. Their revenues have collapsed with businesses closed down.

Why New Yorkers put up with walking disasters such as Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio, or why Californians tolerate Gov. Gavin Newsom, is their own business.

The "progressives" in these states voted for higher taxes, more regulations, high energy prices and economic lockdowns. That's democracy in action. Now the latest census data and U-Haul trailer rental data confirm that productive people are "voting with their feet" and accelerating their race to get out of town. The New York Post reports about 1,000 Northeasterners every day are relocating to Florida, Texas and Tennessee. The biggest population losers last year were deep-blue New York, Illinois and California.

Now, Biden wants to give some $400 billion to the failed blue states, mainly from the prospering red states, the ones that wisely didn't shut down their economies or schools. The blue states get a bigger slice of the pie, which is Robin Hood in reverse because blue states generally have a higher per capita income than red states.

The supposedly high-brow, highly educated, culturally refined elites in Beverly Hills, California, and Long Island, New York -- the very same "progressives" who have generally thumbed their nose at the working class "deplorables" in Middle America -- have fallen so far that they now have to beg people in West Virginia, Arkansas and Mississippi for money.

You'd think liberals would be ashamed, but spending other people's money is what they do best.

Every liberal Democrat in Congress, from Sen. Elizabeth Warren to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, will vote for the blue-state bailout. Do they understand that in doing so, they are verifying the collapse of the very blue-state liberal model they want to impose on all of America?

https://townhall.com/columnists/stephenmoore/2021/02/23/the-blue-states-are-now-the-beggar-states-n2585156

******************************************

IN BRIEF

Student suspended from education program for factually saying, "A man is a man. A woman is a woman." (Daily Wire)

Thanks to dezinformatsiya, a sizable number of Americans erroneously think over 10,000 unarmed black men are killed by police each year (Not the Bee)

George Floyd riots estimated to cost 66 times more than Capitol damage (though only in DC dollars would the building damage be $30 million) (Federalist)

Forty percent of California's inmates have been vaccinated for COVID. Meanwhile, the vaccination rate for law-abiding Californians is just 6.5%. (Not the Bee)

As our Nate Jackson observes, former California Attorney General and president-in-waiting Kamala Harris was a "tough on crime" lady who threw tons of people in jail, yet inmates are now being vaccinated at an insanely fast rate.

Jen Psaki distances Biden from Andrew Cuomo, says sex harassment claim should be "reviewed" (Fox)

FDA greenlights Pfizer vaccine to be stored at normal freezer temperatures, instead of ultra-cold (Examiner)

Ex-Olympic gymnastics coach kills himself hours after being charged with sex crimes (WaPo)

Policy: Inflation: The next problem for the U.S. economy? (1945)

Policy: Standing up to the intolerant Equality Act (Daily Signal)

**************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************




For the notes appearing at the side of the original blog see HERE


Pictures put up on a blog sometimes do not last long. They stay up only as long as the original host keeps them up. I therefore keep archives of all the pictures that I use. The recent archives are online and are in two parts:

Archive of side pictures HERE

Most pictures that I use in the body of the blog should stay up throughout the year. But how long they stay up after that is uncertain. At the end of every year therefore I intend to put up a collection of all pictures used on the blog in that year. That should enable missing pictures to be replaced. The archive of last year's pictures on this blog is therefore now up. Note that the filename of the picture is clickable and reflects the date on which the picture was posted. See here



My Home Pages are here (Academic) or here (Personal); My Home page supplement; My Alternative Wikipedia; My Blogroll; Menu of my longer writings; My annual picture page is here; My Recipes;

Email me (John Ray) here.