Thursday, March 26, 2020

Biden falsely claims he left Senate to become University of Pennsylvania professor



OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 3:05 PM PT — Thursday, March 26, 2020

Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden has been caught lying about being an Ivy League professor. During a virtual roundtable on Wednesday, an 18-year-old asked Biden what he was going to do to appeal to young voters who support Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.).

The former vice president suggested he can easily relate to young college students. He noted his experience as a University of Pennsylvania professor after leaving the Senate in 2009.

However, reports revealed the 2020 hopeful has never taught a single class at the school. In 2017, he received the honorary title of the ‘Benjamin Franklin Presidential Practice Professor.’

“When I left the United States Senate, I became a professor at the University of Pennsylvania,” said Biden. “The University of Delaware has the Biden school there as well, so I spent a lot of time on campus with college students.”

 A University of Pennsylvania spokesperson has said they are unsure what role Biden had at the school.





Epidemiologist Behind Highly-Cited Coronavirus Model Drastically Revises Model





Epidemiologist Behind
Highly-Cited
Coronavirus Model
Drastically Revises Model




Amanda Prestigiacomo | March 26th, 2020


Epidemiologist Neil Ferguson, who created the highly-cited Imperial College London coronavirus model, which has been cited by organizations like The New York Times and has been instrumental in governmental policy decision-making, offered a massive revision to his model on Wednesday.

Ferguson’s model projected 2.2 million dead people in the United States and 500,000 in the U.K. from COVID-19 if no action were taken to slow the virus and blunt its curve.

However, after just one day of ordered lockdowns in the U.K., Ferguson is presenting drastically downgraded estimates, revealing that far more people likely have the virus than his team figured. Now, the epidemiologist predicts, hospitals will be just fine taking on COVID-19 patients and estimates 20,000 or far fewer people will die from the virus itself or from its agitation of other ailments, as reported by New Scientist Wednesday.

Ferguson thus dropped his prediction from 500,000 dead to 20,000.

Author and former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson broke down the bombshell report via Twitter on Thursday morning (view Twitter thread below).

“This is a remarkable turn from Neil Ferguson, who led the [Imperial College] authors who warned of 500,000 UK deaths — and who has now himself tested positive for #COVID,” started Berenson.

“He now says both that the U.K. should have enough ICU beds and that the coronavirus will probably kill under 20,000 people in the U.K. — more than 1/2 of whom would have died by the end of the year in any case [because] they were so old and sick,” he wrote.

To put this number in context, there are usually thousands of deaths from the flu each year in the U.K. Here is some information from the University of Oxford on deaths ranging from 600-13,000 per year:


Influenza (flu) is a very common, highly infectious disease caused by a virus. It can be very dangerous, causing serious complications and death, especially for people in risk groups. In rare cases flu can kill people who are otherwise healthy. In the UK it is estimated that an average of 600 people a year die from complications of flu. In some years it is estimated that this can rise to over 10,000 deaths (see for example this UK study from 2013, which estimated over 13,000 deaths resulting from flu in 2008-09). Flu leads to hundreds of thousands of GP visits and tens of thousands of hospital stays a year.


Berenson continued: “Essentially, what has happened is that estimates of the viruses transmissibility have increased — which implies that many more people have already gotten it than we realize — which in turn implies it is less dangerous.”

“Ferguson now predicts that the epidemic in the U.K. will peak and subside within ‘two to three weeks’ — last week’s paper said 18+ months of quarantine would be necessary,” the former reporter highlighted.

“One last point here: Ferguson gives the lockdown credit, which is *interesting* — the UK only began [its] lockdown 2 days ago, and the theory is that lockdowns take 2 weeks or more to work,” stressed Berenson. “Not surprisingly, this testimony has received no attention in the US — I found it only in UK papers. Team Apocalypse is not interested.”

Ferguson’s change of tune comes days after Oxford epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta criticized the professor’s model.

“I am surprised that there has been such unqualified acceptance of the Imperial model,” Gupta said, according to the Financial Times.

Professor Gupta led a team of researchers at Oxford in a modeling study which suggests that the virus has been invisibly spreading for at least a month earlier than suspected, concluding that as many as half of the people in the United Kingdom have already been infected by COVID-19.

If her model is accurate, fewer than one in a thousand who’ve been infected with COVID-19 become sick enough to need hospitalization, leaving the vast majority with mild cases or free of symptoms.

In other words, Ferguson’s highly influential initial model was off by orders of magnitude.








Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our Disqus
Homepage


The 2020 Census Wants You To Identify With Some Race. So Pick ‘American’

When you write in 'American' on the census, you acknowledge that while our differences are part of us, they don't compare with all we have in common.


On St. Patrick’s Day, my children and I dressed in green. We ate corned beef and cabbage, as we do every year. I listened to Irish music, read Irish history, and even enjoyed Irish cuisine. I’m too old for the bar scene on St. Paddy’s, but they were all shut down this year anyway, along with the parades. Still, for me and my family, it is a day on which we acknowledge our Irish roots.

The next day, I filled out the 2020 United States census. Question No. 9 addressed race, as every census has since 1790. This year, there’s an added twist: After checking off “white,” I was asked to fill in my “origins.” I typed the same answer for myself, my wife, and my children: American.
census American
The contrast between these two paragraphs might jump out at you, but to me it reveals the flaw in the question of origins. Some of my ancestors did, indeed, come from the Emerald Isle and travel by boat to these shores. But some of them came from other places. That’s true of most Irish Americans I know. We’re not fully Irish — not in ancestry and certainly not in spirit. We are fully American, though. Our origins, whatever that means, are in this country as a part of this American culture.

The Census Department’s website says, “Your answer to this question should be based on how you identify,” a thoroughly postmodern view of race and ethnicity. It’s also a definition guaranteed to cause problems since “identity” is a lot different from “origins.” One is a feeling, while the other is closer to a fact.

The more I thought about the question, the harder it was to answer. We are told to enter, “for example, German, Irish, English, Italian, Lebanese, Egyptian, etc.” While the online form above might have allowed enough room to list all the nations from which my ancestors sprang forth, the paper form below was more restricted.
Census American

Was there room for every branch of the family tree when so many people have mixed ancestry? This led me to consider the question perhaps more deeply than the Census Department had intended. Could anyone really consider himself as having “origins” in the fourth or fifth country on his list? As those immigrant roots grow more distant, how much do they really count in one’s “identity”? For many 21st-century Americans, any connection with the old country is almost theoretical by now.

For more recent immigrants, the question would have been simpler. My great-grandfather’s origins were on a farm in western Ireland. He became an American citizen, so the question “Where are you from?” would have been easy for him: Ireland. Since then, my family has identified as Irish, with other ancestries added along the way. After four generations of the American experience, however, the connections are less sure.

My last immigrant ancestor died in 1966, more than a decade before I was born. I’ve never been to Ireland. I don’t hold dual citizenships. Even my Irish traditions — such as corned beef, a dish served by Irish Americans, not Irishmen — are all filtered through American culture. Thinking hard enough about this question, it occurred to me that my origins are here.

Connections Fade as Generations Pass

This is even truer of my wife and children. My wife’s most recent European immigrant ancestor came here about 1820, and most came far earlier. With which European nation is she meant to identify after two centuries of ancestors living in the New World? The longer families are here, the murkier their origins become. Those who arrived here centuries ago came to a place with little bureaucracy and spotty record-keeping. Immigrant origins are preserved only within families, if at all.

The 2010 census did not ask about origins, but the 2000 census did, with 20 million Americans reporting their ethnicity as “American.” They are a growing slice of the population that identifies as American only, either because they don’t know where their ancestors came from or because they feel no real connection to any country but this one.

That number will increase in 2020. I’m the family genealogist, and even I don’t know exactly where some of my ancestors come from. Millions of Americans are saying the same. But it’s more than an admission of ignorance: Many people are asserting that there is an American culture and that we are members of it.

We’re Looking At This the Wrong Way

That people fill in “American” for their origins, and that they have been doing so for years, shows the flaw in the whole question. While it is interesting to know where a person’s ancestors originated, is it a matter of interest to the government? If so, should the question of origins be mixed up with the question of race?

A larger problem with the question is that filling in “American” is mostly an option for white people, when really it should be something Americans of any race can claim. A similar fill-in-the-blank section exists for people who list their race as black, and Native Americans are supposed to fill in their tribe. But for Asian Americans, the only option is to choose from a variety of Asian nationalities. Why should American origin be denied to anyone born in America, whatever his or her race?

An American identity exists, and it transcends old-fashioned ideas about race. That identity has some of its roots in Europe, but it also draws on all the other cultural traditions blended within our borders, creating something different from any of them. Rich Lowry said in his 2019 book, “The Case for Nationalism,” “[A]n American cultural nationalism is an inclusive nationalism.” If you’re here, American culture is open to you, regardless of your race or ethnicity.

If the culture is open to everyone, and if anyone in America can claim American origins, what is the point of writing it down on a form? A better inquiry: What is the point of this census question in the first place? We come from many different places, but we become one culture. Any Irish-descended American has more in common with his neighbor of a different ethnicity than he does with some distant relation on the other side of the ocean.
So why ask the question at all?

For that matter, it’s worth asking why we demand that people categorize themselves by race in the first place. Race exists, and it has an effect on our lives, but the government need not play a part in separating us from each other this way. In France, the government has steadfastly refused to sort citizens by race. French citizens are French citizens — that’s it.

America should consider a similar course. In the meantime, removing this increasingly antiquated question of origins would be a good start. Our differences are a part of us, but after a while, they amount to little compared with all we have in common. When you write in “American” on the census, you acknowledge this and act to embrace your own culture, not that of your ancestors.

The Wuhan Virus Is Serious, But Shutting Down Isn’t The Long-Term Answer


What to do about the U.S. economy in the wake of the Wuhan virus? The answer requires a mix of both short-term suppression and then long-term mitigation.


Lots of people didn’t see the COVID-19 pandemic coming. Many prognosticators who didn’t have since found their way into two camps. In the first camp, the occupants are in full panic mode. We should all shut everything down for the time-being, they say. In the second camp, the occupants are borderline dismissive of the Wuhan virus threat. Both sides are completely wrong.

The camp dismissive of the virus is dead wrong. Many do this to argue a never-ending shutdown is wrongheaded — which is right — but in getting there, they make stupid arguments about how “few Americans have it,” and it’s “really just the flu.”

They forget the law of exponential growth. Because the Wuhan coronavirus spreads so easily, even if contained, the virus is expected to eventually infect at least half of all Americans. Today’s 35,000 infected easily becomes a huge chunk of the population unless people and governments move to limit human interaction.

Tons of people also have the virus, yet they don’t have symptoms severe enough to get a test. The official numbers measure only those who have officially been tested, and China’s official numbers are completely wrong.

We’re also finding that the virus out of communist China can be really nasty, even for otherwise-healthy young people. Common cases in young people are presenting with an initial fever and aches, followed by breathing problems, and severe headaches and body aches that persist after the virus is gone. There is even evidence the virus can have long-term effects, including on a person’s fertility and lung capacity.

Don’t Destroy the Economy

But we can’t kill the economy because of the virus. Many on Wall Street are now forecasting depressionary gross domestic product prints. Goldman Sachs says Q2, which hasn’t even started, will see a GDP contraction of 24 percent — the biggest ever quarterly GDP drop on record. Already, masses of Americans who work in industries requiring face-to-face human contact are suffering layoffs. Economists are forecasting an unprecedented spike in jobless claims as a result, which is just not acceptable either. There is another way.

Going forward, policymakers face a tough choice between what Hedgeye demographer Neil Howe calls suppression versus mitigation. Mitigation is where we go about our normal lives, while trying to segment the at-risk population. This strategy allows for quicker herd immunity, if immunity is even possible, but it overloads the health system, and more people die. That is unacceptable.

Suppression opts for a lockdown to avoid overloading the health-care system and minimize deaths. Suppression only works, however, if it buys time to do something — say, develop a vaccine or an antiviral. But a vaccine or antiviral won’t be ready any time soon, unfortunately. Because of this, long-term suppression just kicks the can down the road, prolonging the shutdown and delaying the pain, even as it does untold damage to the economy. This is also not a viable long-term strategy.

Strike a Balance

What to do? The answer requires a mix of both: short-term suppression, then long-term mitigation. Again, suppression only makes sense as a means to gain time and supplies.

We need a national strategy wherein the federal government, along with state and local governments, develops a specific plan to stock up on supplies during a pre-set period of suppression. Here, we should allow hospitals to build supplies of masks and ventilators. We should also set up programs to deliver food and supplies to at-risk people, assisting them so they can work and function from their homes in near-isolation for some time.

After this pre-set period, which could last even another month, we should transition toward mitigation. This doesn’t mean everything returns to normal, but it means most Americans begin transitioning back into everyday life. The alternative is another depression and no resolution to the Wuhan virus to boot.

Understand U.S. Economic Trends

Is this a silver bullet? Not at all. Many prognosticators, even on the right, unfortunately, don’t understand the economic problems America was facing pre-virus.
Global growth was slowing in 2015 before communist China introduced a massive stimulus that caused a resurgence in global economic indicators. That lasted only for a time, and global growth was again slowing since late 2017. People blamed this on the trade war, but the trade war, which didn’t start until at least 2018, was only a small part of that story.

In America, our growth was strong but began slowing in the back half of 2018. There were problems in the American economy a simple tax cut couldn’t fix. The Federal Reserve responded to a debt-fueled bust in 2008 by incentivizing even more debt. Where the big debt buildup was households and mortgages, it is now in corporate credit. Going into this year, American corporate debt to GDP is the highest in U.S. history.

This explains why stocks have fallen so hard and so fast. It’s just the business cycle, albeit with a Wuhan-virus-sized elephant in the room. Debt is like financial kerosene. It increases the risk of a shock if the economy slows even a little. It also decreases the margin for error when unforeseen events like the coronavirus occur. This is why it’s an ominous signal for America’s long-term economic health that the Fed is looking to buy U.S. company debt. It hasn’t worked in Europe, so why would we double down on an already failed policy?

But America can still choose between an orderly end to the business cycle and the necessary deleveraging that comes with it, or an outright depression. We can have at least a few quarters of somewhat sluggish growth, or unheard-of job-losses and a slide toward socialism. Yes, continue suppression for another couple weeks. But use this time to prepare for a shift to mitigation, meaning the resumption of normalcy for most Americans. We simply can’t go on living like this forever.


L.A. Mayor Garcetti Says Residents Will Be Confined to Homes For “At Least Two Months”



In an interview with Business Insider Wednesday, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said that the 4 million-plus residents of his city should be prepared to confined to their homes for “at least two months, and be prepared for longer.”

Garcetti also spoke out against “false hope” in the face of the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic.
[He] pushed back against “premature optimism” in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, saying leaders who suggest we are on the verge of business-as-usual are putting lives at risk.
“I can’t say that strongly enough,” the mayor said. Optimism, he said, has to be grounded in data. And right now the data is not good.
“Giving people false hope will crush their spirits and will kill more people,” Garcetti said, noting it will change their actions, instilling a sense of normalcy — and normal behaviors — at the most abnormal time in a generation.
“I think the main horrifying thing that I think is keeping every local leader awake is the projection of how many people will get this, the projection of what the mortality rate will be, and how many dead will have,” Garcetti said. “Will we have hundreds of thousands of deaths or tens of thousands of deaths? That’s what keeps us up.
“It will be our friends. It will be our family. It will be people who we love dearly,” he said. “And everything I do is through that lens.”

The number of confirmed coronavirus cases in Los Angeles was at 812 as of 2 P.M. Thursday, up from 662 at noon on Tuesday. The number of coronavirus-related deaths stood at 13 on Thursday, up from 11 on Tuesday. Before the pandemic was declared, Los Angeles County’s ICU beds were already at 90 percent of capacity.

No Liberty Until No Death?



Man’s struggle for freedom is at least as old as the archetypal story of Moses leading his people out of bondage. Free will and freedom have always come at a cost. Yet in the last month, we have seen a sudden, though we hope temporary, surrender of freedoms in the country that has always paid the price for freedom.

The novel coronavirus response has almost totally curtailed the right to peacefully assemble. Our religious services now must be exercised through a computer screen. Governments are looking for ways to curtail gun purchases. The Department of Justice sought authority to detain suspects without a trial indefinitely.

Government agencies are dusting off their wish lists to take advantage of the COVID-19 pandemic, much as they did in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Unrelated proposals like monitoring corporate board diversity and bailing out the U.S. Postal Service are put forward as ways to help fight the virus. There’s an opportunistic rush underway for money and power.

Is the coronavirus a sufficient threat to justify the surrender of all of these cherished freedoms? As I write, deaths in the United States remain relatively small when compared to the entire population. But the upward trend is alarming. In America, the daily rate of deaths is doubling roughly every 72 hours. Who knows? Within a couple of weeks, the horror stories from Italy may be commonplace in New York City.

Thus, the president’s expressed desire to restore “normal” to the United States seems premature, almost reckless. How can he contemplate relaxing the near-national lockdown we’re currently experiencing when continuing restrictions could save lives?

One answer may be a potential medical solution. Significant evidence supports the hypothesis that a family of drugs, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, when combined with a common antibiotic, may prevent COVID-19 from killing its victim in most cases.

But the media have resisted this good news. Outlets have hyped the story of an Arizona man dying after taking a related chemical used to treat aquariums. But that’s not all. There’s a story of three overdoses in Nigeria. A small Chinese study failed to reproduce the results from the French study. Nevertheless, the FDA is fast-tracking the study of chloroquine and other drugs in the hope that an existing drug can be used to reduce mortality from the COVID-19 infection.

Americans are suffering under the quarantine and near-quarantine conditions. Setting aside the obvious economic disaster that continues to build, Americans are missing out on life. Weddings, funerals, church, family dinners, concerts, vacations, and countless other essential human activities have been canceled to fight the virus. Some can be rescheduled. Others can never be replaced. Young people, in particular, are missing cherished milestones like school dances, sports seasons, and irreplaceable classroom time.

Nobody wants people to die. But we have to agree upon a point at which this has to stop.

My son made this point: the flattening of the curve approach to managing this crisis comes at the cost of drawing out the pandemic over a longer timeline. Many point to this chart contrasting the strategies employed by Philadelphia and St. Louis in response to the 1918 flu pandemic. It seems to visually confirm the wisdom of social isolation. But the slowing of the spread of the virus also means we’re slowing the resolution of the crisis.

Pandemics of varying severity will always sweep through our population. The current panic over COVID-19 has presented a moment of rare opportunity for a growing authoritarian movement within the country. There’s talk of government take-over of factories or even whole industries. The Department of Justice is talking about making it a crime to hold needed privately owned items in a warehouse. We watch briefings to receive our daily instructions from our government officials on how to conduct our lives. The world is slowly shrinking for each of us as our lives increasingly become a de facto house arrest.

Zero deaths cannot be the standard for lifting the lockdown. We’ll never achieve zero deaths. Even as coronavirus abates, another illness will take its place. The opiate of power will be hard for many public officials to relinquish. A lot of people are going to get really rich from this panic.

Americans will eventually need to insist upon the return of their freedoms. If we wait for no death until we demand a return of our liberty, we will have lost everything to this pandemic.

Inaccurate Virus Models Are Panicking Officials Into Ill-Advised Lockdowns


How a handful of Democratic activists created alarming, but bogus data sets to scare local and state officials into making rash, economy-killing mandates.


As U.S. state and local officials halt the economy and quarantine their communities over the Wuhan virus crisis, one would hope our leaders were making such major decisions based on well-sourced data and statistical analysis. That is not the case.
A scan of statements made by media, state governors, local leaders, county judges, and more show many relying on the same source, an online mapping tool called COVID Act Now. The website says it is “built to enable political leaders to quickly make decisions in their Coronavirus response informed by best available data and modeling.”
An interactive map provides users a catastrophic forecast for each state, should they wait to implement COVID Act Now’s suggested strict measures to “flatten the curve.” But a closer look at how many of COVID Act Now’s predictions have already fallen short, and how they became a ubiquitous resource across the country overnight, suggests something more sinister.
When Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins announced a shelter-in-place order on Dallas County Sunday, he displayed COVID Act Now graphs with predictive outcomes after three months if certain drastic measures are taken. The NBC Dallas affiliate also embedded the COVID Act Now models in their story on the mandate.
The headline of an NBC Oregon affiliate featured COVID Act Now data, and a headline blaring, “Coronavirus model sees Oregon hospitals overwhelmed by mid-April.” Both The Oregonian and The East Oregonian also published stories featuring the widely shared data predicting a “point of no return.”
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer cited COVID Act Now when telling her state they would exceed 7 million cases in Michigan, with 1 million hospitalized and 460,000 deaths if the state did nothing.
A local CBS report in Georgia featured an Emory University professor urging Gov. Brian Kemp with the same “point of no return” language and COVID Act Now models.
We need ⁦@GovKemp⁩ to act now, the point of “no return” for GA is rapidly closing. To prevent a catastrophe in the healthcare system due to #COVID19 we need for him to shut down GA now. ⁦@drmt⁩ ⁦⁦@Armstrws⁩ ⁦@colleenkraftmd⁩ https://t.co/aZEJVYcUH0
— Carlos del Rio (@CarlosdelRio7) March 21, 2020
The models are being shared across social media, news reports, and finding their way into officials’ daily decisions, which is concerning because COVID Act Now’s predictions have already been proven to be wildly wrong.
COVID Act Now predicted that by March 19 the state of Tennessee could expect 190 hospitalizations of patients with confirmed Wuhan virus. By March 19, they only had 15 patients hospitalized.
In New York, Covid Act Now claimed nearly 5,400 New Yorkers would’ve been hospitalized by March 19. The actual number of hospitalizations is around 750. The site also claimed nearly 13,000 New York hospitalizations by March 23. The actual number was around 2,500.
In Georgia, COVID Act Now predicted 688 hospitalizations by March 23. By that date, they had around 800 confirmed cases in the whole state, and fewer than 300 hospitalized.
In Florida, Covid Act Now predicted that by March 19, the state would face 400 hospitalizations. On March 19, Gov. Ron DeSantis said 90 people in Florida had been hospitalized.
COVID Act Now’s models in other states, including Oklahoma and Virginia, were also far off in their predictions. Jordan Schachtel, a national security writer, said COVID Act Now’s modeling comes from one team based at Imperial College London that is not only highly scrutinized, but has a track record of bad predictions.
4) Their models come 100% from Imperial College UK projection that is coming under *heavy* scrutiny from scientific community. IC UK produced the famed doomsday scenario that guaranteed 2MM dead Americans. The man behind the projections is refusing to make his code public.
— Jordan Schachtel (@JordanSchachtel) March 24, 2020

Jessica Hamzelou at New Scientist notes the systematic errors researchers and scientists have found with the modeling COVID Act Now relies on:
Chen Shen at the New England Complex Systems Institute, a research group in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and his colleagues argue that the Imperial team’s model is flawed, and contains ‘incorrect assumptions’. They point out that the Imperial team’s model doesn’t account for the availability of tests, or the possibility of ‘super-spreader events’ at gatherings, and has other issues.

Among other issues, COVID Act Now lists the “Known Limitations” of their model. Here are a few that seem especially alarming, considering they generate a model for each individual state:
  • Many of the inputs into this model (hospitalization rate, hospitalization rate) are based on early estimates that are likely to be wrong.
  • Demographics, populations, and hospital bed counts are outdated. Demographics for the USA as a whole are used, rather than specific to each state.
  • The model does not adjust for the population density, culturally-determined interaction frequency and closeness, humidity, temperature, etc in calculating R0.
  • This is not a node-based analysis, and thus assumes everyone spreads the disease at the same rate. In practice, there are some folks who are ‘super-spreaders,’ and others who are almost isolated.

So why is the organization or seemingly innocent online mapping tool using inaccurate algorithms to scaremonger leaders into tanking the economy? Politics, of course.

Founders of the site include Democratic Rep. Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins and three Silicon Valley tech workers and Democratic activists — Zachary Rosen, Max Henderson, and Igor Kofman — who are all also donors to various Democratic campaigns and political organizations since 2016. Henderson and Kofman donated to the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016, while Rosen donated to the Democratic National Committee, recently resigned Democratic Rep. Katie Hill, and other Democratic candidates. Prior to building the COVID Act Now website, Kofman created an online game designed to raise $1 million for the eventual 2020 Democratic candidate and defeat President Trump. The game’s website is now defunct.

Perhaps the goal of COVID Act Now was never to provide accurate information, but to scare citizens and government officials into to implementing rash and draconian measures. The creators even admit as much with the caveat that “this model is designed to drive fast action, not predict the future.”

They generated this model under the guise of protecting communities from overrun hospitals, a trend that is not on track to happen as they predicted. Not only is the data false, and looking more incorrect with each passing day, but the website is optimized for a disinformation campaign.

A social media share button prompts users to share their models and alarming graphs on Facebook and Twitter with the auto-fill text, “This is the point of no return for intervention to prevent X’s hospital system from being overloaded by Coronavirus.”
The daunting phrase, the “point of no return,” is the same talking point being repeated by government officials justifying their shelter-in-place orders and filling local news headlines.

Democrats are not going to waste such a rich political opportunity as a global pandemic. Americans already witnessed Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats attempt to take advantage of an economic recession with a pipe-dream relief bill this week. Projects like COVID Act Now are another attempt to play the same political games, but with help from unknown, behind-the-scenes Democratic activists instead.

Our community leaders, the mayors and the city councils, deserve better than to be swindled by a handful Silicon Valley tech bros. Our governors and state officials deserve better data and analysis than a Democratic activists’ model that doesn’t adjust for important geographical factors like population density or temperature. Americans and their families deserve better than to be jobless, hopeless, and quarantined because of a single website’s inaccurate and hyperbolic hospitalization models.

CNN, NBC, NPR, Others Refuse to Show Trump Pressers and the Reason Is Obvious



The media aren’t liking Trump’s pressers and it may not be for the reason most think. They have become a staple of the Wuhan virus epidemic, with the administration giving crucial airtime to experts like Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx.

Now, an NPR affiliate in Seattle is refusing to show the President’s daily question and answer sessions.

This is just nonsense. While there is always the risk of things being misstated or not fully conveyed, no one speaking at these pressers has been giving false information. KUOW provides no citation to exactly what they are talking about because of course they don’t.
CNN and NBC (one of the worst offenders of garbage reporting throughout this ordeal) followed the same path today.

But let’s be honest. There’s a reason why they are suddenly wanting to do this and it’s not because the media got religion about Trump’s supposed “false information.”
No, it’s because his approval ratings are rising.

As streiff reported yesterday, Gallup also has the President receiving his highest marks of his presidency.
Forty-nine percent of U.S. adults, up from 44% earlier this month, approve of the job Trump is doing as president. Trump also had 49% job approval ratings — the best of his presidency — in late January and early February around the time of the Senate impeachment trial that resulted in his acquittal…
…Trump’s response to the novel coronavirus pandemic may be behind his higher overall approval rating. Americans give the president generally positive reviews for his handling of the situation, with 60% approving and 38% disapproving. Ninety-four percent of Republicans, 60% of independents and 27% of Democrats approve of his response.

The media are incensed by this. They can’t figure out why there propaganda campaigns aren’t working. In their bubble, Trump should be cratering right now and every bad outcome should be credited to his supposed lack of leadership. But the American people, at least a majority of them, aren’t seeing it that way.

So what does the media do? Simply start censoring the information they send out in order to try to tamp down those rising ratings.

It’s so transparent. It’s also fun to watch these news outlets squirm a bit.

COVID-19 Probably Won't Destroy Society, but the Government's Reaction Might

 
Article by Michael Thau in "The American Thinker":

The Washington Post recently touted "an alarming new scientific model" that warns that treating COVID-19 like a somewhat more severe strain of flu won't cut it.  The model predicts over a million U.S fatalities unless we shut down all non-essential mingling until a vaccine is developed, "which could take 12 to 18 months at best."

Pretty bleak stuff.  In fact, that's about the bleakest take on COVID-19 you'll find.

Let's run with it.

Let's momentarily not raise a fuss about having no reason to trust the model's underlying algorithm or whatever unknown assumptions about the virus generated its scary predictions.  We'll also ignore that there's no chance the Washington Post or any other major media outlet would present a balanced picture by informing us of any expert opinions or data not supporting the paper's dire take.  Furthermore, let's just forget that there even are experts who think the media-generated panic about COVID-19 is a bigger problem than the virus itself.

We'll also entirely ignore the media's generally appalling track record concerning "expert" projections of hypothetical disasters.  In fact, we'll ignore their altogether abysmal record of spreading misinformation when it matters most.  Pretend they never created a completely unjustified panic over the prospect of massive Y2K technology failures.  Nor remember they've been serially predicting we have only ten years 'til the Earth becomes uninhabitable from environmental damage for at least the last 50.

The preposterous and poisonous story that Donald Trump entered the White House as a Russian mole?  Ignore it.  The completely bogus "hands up, don't shoot" narrative about Michael Brown that directly caused mass rioting and the assassination of at least a dozen cops?  Never happened.

We're also going to have to forget that they utterly trivialized the very mortal threat posed by COVID-19 they're hyping.  Avert your gaze from the idiotic ruckus over identifying the virus's Chinese origin the media raised so they could, yet again, chant another round of malignant and infantile non sequiturs about Trump being a racist.

Finally, we'll need to ignore that there's no evidence that social distancing is even effective against the spread of COVID-19.  Studies have shown that it can work only against the flu, which itself isn't even certain.  And the whole point of the extreme measures being pushed on us is that COVID-19 is orders of magnitude more dangerous, hence we can't depend on even surefire strategies effective against the flu.  A medical expert interviewed for a FOX News piece promoting the effectiveness of social distancing says, "There are many moving parts and variables and bias implicated in [social distancing] studies."  At the end of the day, she admits there's no scientific reason at all to think the extreme measures we've adopted will accomplish anything.  It just comes down to "common sense," which apparently is an acceptable guide only when it increases rather than ameliorates panic.

So we'll ignore that, even during the proposed lockdowns, people will encounter others infected by COVID-19 and the many surfaces on which they've left traces of the virus on trips to grocery stores, pharmacies, and gas stations.  Most will also be getting packages by mail handled, breathed on, and likely sneezed and coughed on, too, by potentially infected carriers at various points in their journey.

Let's momentarily sweep under the rug everything showing that we don't have a clue whether the fear-induced voluntary extreme isolation and government-mandated shutdowns and bans to which we've so far passively acquiesced even serve a purpose.

Even though the reasons for believing it are worse than tenuous — indeed, even though you'd actually have to be pretty stupid to blindly trust any of the media's threatening scenarios — let's give the Washington Post some completely unearned benefit of the doubt.  For the sake of argument, we'll accept that isolating ourselves and shutting down almost the entire economy is the only way to bring an otherwise unavoidable million-person death toll from COVID-19 down to just a couple hundred thousand and ignore any reason for thinking the latter might very well be the most we were likely to suffer anyway.

Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad

We're now in a position to observe a remarkable fact.  The restrictions and spur-of-the-moment peremptory government abridgment of our most basic rights to which we've acquiesced are still completely unjustified.  The idea that we're considering extending them indicates that we've completely lost our collective mind.

Eight hundred thousand additional deaths over the course of a year, while not to be taken lightly, isn't a catastrophic increase.  In 2017, 2.8 million Americans died.  So our worst-case COVID-19 scenario is already less than a 29% rise.  Moreover, the average age of COVID-19 fatalities is 80.  In Italy, the country whose high fatality rate is supposed to make us panic, a whopping 88% had at least one other serious illness listed as cause of death.  Many had two or three.  So a significant number of projected U.S. fatalities are, sadly, out of time almost independently of the virus.

More importantly, though a year in which we averaged 9,900 instead of 7,700 deaths a day would be unpleasant and stressful, it's the sort of natural misfortune that occasionally strikes human societies.  What little recovering society as a whole needed would be over in a few years.

Even the worst-case scenarios presented by our dishonest, fear-mongering media don't present some kind of unique catastrophe the likes of which no human society has ever faced and for which it's impossible to predict the long-term damage or even if we'll ever recover.

The same, however, can't be said for the insane idea of an extended period of time living under draconian government-enforced social and economic sanctions.  Virtually every single brick-and-mortar business in America could wind up out of business, and unheard-of levels of unemployment are guaranteed.

The Great Depression, with its suicides and bread lines, saw a first-year decrease in U.S. GDP of only 8.5%.  The next year, it decreased just 6.4%.  In the third and final year of significant economic downturn, GDP went down 12.5%.  Can anyone seriously think completely shutting down the U.S economy doesn't have the real potential to yield those numbers?

The economy isn't a collection of isolated sectors not affecting each other.  If 80% of U.S. brick-and-mortar businesses go under and unemployment reaches 30%, the reverberations will be catastrophic and long-term.  There's no reason to think we won't cause shortages in medical supplies that over time will make the 800,000 fatalities we may have avoided from COVID-19 look small.

America is already suffering from a suicide crisis.  The decimation of American businesses and jobs resulting from a long-term shutdown of the entire U.S. economy is guaranteed to render many already struggling Americans' lives too much to bear.

But we will be facing not just a nation devastated by massive business failure and unemployment.  We'll be facing it under government decrees making us alone and isolated.  If you were trying to design the most malevolently evil plan possible for America, increasing the number of deaths by 25% for a year and concentrating them mostly among the old and the sick wouldn't even come close.  But isolating everyone so he's deprived of human companionship while inflicting a historically unprecedented economic catastrophe...that would be hard to beat.

Even if we accept the most hysterically alarmist U.S. predictions, blithely talking about isolating every single American as if humans were machines to whom companionship means nothing while outlawing most economic activity is madness.  It's the societal analogue of someone who tries to cure a broken foot by strapping himself into a machine that stands a good chance of tearing his leg off.

"Whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad."  All this casual talk of shutting down our economy and isolating everyone in America without considering the awful uncharted waters we'd be entering indicates we've become mad enough to destroy ourselves.

Moreover, if our leaders try to deprive of us of human companionship until COVID-19 is no longer a threat while strangling the economy to avoid something that, even in the worst-case scenario presented by our unreliable media, is a perfectly natural occurrence that history has shown humans handle and shrug off, one has to wonder: are our leaders mad, or are they trying to destroy us?