The Democrat Convention really brought to light the degree of incoherence and variability in the party and the extent to which they rely on their constituents hanging on simply to remove the president. They have not a single objective fact to hang their hat on. The elephant in the room was the lack of concern about the condition of violence in the cities and the lack of solutions for that unrest. So, who will they hang on too? Well to begin with, let’s examine what led to the Biden – Harris ticket. Biden can only talk about Trump’s character in terms of subjective deficits, that he is racist, divisive, having lack of respect for the minorities. Yet the president has a stack of contributions that he already made to the racial minorities. He simply doesn’t isolate and address the ‘gender minorities. Yet, they too, in their economic class have greatly benefited from president Trump. That may become a greater priority for them than a president who touts an acceptance of their lifestyle but cannot improve their economic opportunities. The most revealing speech was that of Obama, who failed to to credit Biden with any sense of potential as president except that he cares about people. By redefining our vocabulary when talking about democracy, all the while making plans to be able to restrict our freedoms, and touting the US Constitution as “having a guiding light”, while finding ways to restrict our rights as citizens and take the balance of power away from the people. This only reveals his objective in using this potential administration to further the globalist goals of the United Nations to redistribute wealth within the US and amongst the nations. Biden’s talk of solutions merely involves throwing tax money at the problems in order to force the appearance of economic parity amongst the races and genders. Let me make it very clear. Biden was the least competent democratic nominee and only clenched the nomination as a proxy for Obama and his objectives of making the United States subservient to the United Nations. The globalists, through a Biden administration hope to weaken the United States into submission to the United Nations, weakening its economic and political capital in the world so as to make it difficult for the US to support and defend Israel. It is still all about Israel! As Kamala Harris shines the threat of weaponizing law enforcement against our freedoms, she is best poised to help the globalists null our second amendment. The defund the police movement is actually a ploy to defund the sheriffs across the country. Once the sheriffs are out of the way it wouldn’t take much for these liberal city councils to take the AR 15s away from law abiding citizens. This would be the crucial first step to taking all guns away altogether. The more well informed sector of each of these minority classes will start to smell the stench of class politics. Even the minorities will not want to give up their individual freedoms and rights, even for the promise of a free living and a guaranteed job. It has been the minorities that are suffering the most in the face of the extreme restrictions to our economy perpetuated by the democrats. There is not only a silent majority being awakened on the part of the city residents and the better informed minorities that don’t live in the cities, but there will also be a serious awakening among the single parents and the 2 parent professionals who’s children will be left relatively unschooled. The other objective of the defund the police movement is to marginalize federal law enforcement while exacerbating unrest in as many cities as possible so as to create the illusion that the Trump administration is inept at handling it and therefore must be replaced by one that allows the UN to come in and establish its authority in those cities.
BLOG
The Rise of the Silent Majority
In just the right timing, Chicago, just the right city, becomes the next city to blow up. At about 2:30 PM on Sunday, August 9th, a looter in the Englewood area shoots at the police upon being chased and is shot at in return. A facebook post at 6:30 shows a video of upset residents confronting officers, describing the suspect as a 15 year old boy when, in fact, it was a 20 year old man with a long criminal history, another perfect subject for provoking a police shooting. Obviously the video was made to trigger a large scale protest. At about 12:20 AM, ‘protesters’, estimated to be about a thousand, arrive in a caravan of cars, get out and immediately start looting and vandalizing the shops and restaurants in the most exclusive downtown Chicago area known as the Magnificent Mile. Illinois state police blocked off ramps into the downtown area. The CTA suspended bus and train service. Three police officers were taken to the hospital.
Upon discovering the Facebook post of the shooting video, the CPD made around a hundred arrests while police superintendent called the situation “an act of pure criminality”. Several dozen people showed up to protest but wound up with a standoff with police and promptly dispersed. So, as could be predicted, the Mayor, Lori Lightfoot heavily denounced the activity as felony criminal conduct and stated she was going to seek prosecution to the full extent of the law. She also implored the state’s attorney general Kim Foxx to follow through.
Now when we add up the facts at hand and see that the person who uploaded the video post with the misinformation regarding the suspect of the shooting is unnamed, no comment about whether or not that is being investigated, and the fact that this young man has a substantial criminal history, making him a rather desperate criminal, we start to see the lack of information regarding this perfect coincidence. Upon some reasonable reflection it may come to light that he would be an optimal victim to manipulate into becoming the actor of this scene. No one is questioning who the police informant was who called about him carrying the gun or what the nature of the interview was that prompted the young man to run and then pre-emptively fire at the police officers, causing enough injury to send 3 officers to the hospital. He was somehow given access to the gun illegally. Everyone seems to be concluding that the cause of the rioting was the incident itself. No one in the media is questioning how well organized and participated the riot response was. There are too many coincidences for this to be a naturally occurring event and a naturally occurring response. Why is the media not questioning the legitimacy of the stated reasons behind this whole event? How do they get their materials together in just a few hours? How come the media isn’t questioning the justification in persisting in the rioting if it is well known that the trigger was misinformation? How come there’s no comment from the city council ? Why doesn’t the media ask who is BLM ‘joining in solidarity’ with if the vast majority of participants were not peaceful protesters?
The actual cause of this riot is most likely a staged police shooting involving a naïve and desperate young man. This well endowed organization has the means and sophistication to pull this off and pay for it. They also have the means to pay the rioters that are reliably available on a moment’s notice to riot wherever they are so directed. This organization involves BLM members whose motivation is to force society to decriminalize their criminal lifestyle. The funding organization’s motive is to delegitimize the second amendment of our constitution so that the liberal politicians can force the entire population to come under the authority of the United Nations and their policing agency. As investigative journalist Bill O’Reilly has discovered, this global organization, most likely owned by globalist billionaires, such as George Soros, and other communist organizations, including organizations such as Thousand Currents within the US out of Oakland, California, is making a mad dash for our second amendment and the sovereignty of the United States, which is their biggest obstacle to achieving global authority. They most likely believe that a minority of people are defending the individual’s constitutional rights and care enough about maintaining national sovereignty. I can predict that these urban eruptions will continue to occur around the country while the UN becomes a more frequent interested voice against federal interference.
The silent majority actually consists of two major factions now, as a result of these riots. The longstanding constitutional and religious conservatives remain a strong and growing faction. The other newly developed faction is the more interesting. This is the urban residents whose lives are being disrupted financially and with growing insecurity. As they start to move out, these cities will suffer a rapidly shrinking tax base. This significantly growing faction of urban residents will thoroughly surprise the Biden camp and the democratic party come November. The only people that will stay will be those that either embrace the BLM movement or don’t feel immediately threatened by it. The silent majority faction of non urban African Americans are the other fast growing support for the republican party. They are now waking up to the many ways that they were just being used by the democratic party. They are following the example of Rob Smith, Iraq war veteran who was interviewed on Fox Nation’s “Reality Check”, who switched during the last election. Thereafter he describes coming to realize that the democratic party panders to the black parents that have no higher aspirations for their children. Once it becomes more clear that the BLM are just a tool being used to go after the second amendment, the democrats will implode. Once they realize the magnitude of support individual constitutional rights and national sovereignty really has in the United States, President Trump supporters will have another growth spurt.
UN Grossly Underestimates Low Income US City Residents
If low income city residents had any doubt, it has all been erased by the persistent neglect of their elected city officials. Any wonder as to how much violence and property destruction they may tolerate may be quelled by a clearer understanding of the motives behind the organizations funding this activity. A big clue lies in a recent communication from the UN.
The UN Security Council actually ordered the Trump administration to remove federal officers from Portland and other cities, claiming that the officers are using lethal force against peaceful protesters. This order comes after the UN had investigated the police shootings over a period of time and only came up with less than ten in the past year, almost all occurring while the suspects were attacking the police. Now the UN threatens the administration with “consequences” if they don’t pull back their federal officers. Make no mistake! The UN absolutely realizes they’re defending the rioters, not the peaceful protesters. They are intentionally taking the example of the mainstream media in creating the impression that the Trump administration is interfering with peaceful protesters for political gain. * I really didn’t see this sort of UN aggression coming this soon in the scheme of things. I thought they would wait until the National Guard and the Customs and Border Protection officers would be overwhelmed with rioters. It is utterly laughable that anyone could expect UN soldiers to come to the rioters recue. It only demonstrates the desperation of the UN for the rioters in Portland to succeed so that they could move on to other major cities across the US in the same vein. They may believe they have the support of enough of the American people. Yes, many of our young adults have been successfully indoctrinated into the globalist socialist agenda. Yet those same people absolutely do not believe that the way to societal change is through animal behavior. Even they would not support the legitimization of this in the US. The UN grossly underestimates the power of the silent majority, those that realize the power behind the vote and the right of the second amendment. Once the UN makes its intentions known to this sleeping giant, it will have demonstrated to the world its total ineptness and futility. They will only embolden this administration and their supporters. Sure, they’re desperate. They have invested billions, if not trillions of dollars into destabilizing the US by making every effort to remove power from the private sector, legally and economically. Now the objective is to remove the functional defense of our second amendment, the sheriffs across the country. This is their real objective with Portland today.
President Trump’s method of serving the state is to allow the state to use its resources first before requesting federal help. So it’s no surprise that yesterday he would welcome the use of state police to help stop the riots in Portland, while phasing out the federal officers. Yet, there should be no doubt that if the state cannot stop it, the feds will be back.
Pulling Out of the UN’s Clutches On the World’s Healthcare
The Trump administration formally withdrew from the WHO due to mishandling of COVID 19. The actual withdrawal is not valid until a year from July 6th as the UN requires one year’s notice in order to pull out.
The announcement in the liberal media is followed by rhetorical comments from the democrats, including Senator Menendez(D) calling the move “chaotic and incoherent”, and California US rep. (D) Eric Swalwell calling it “irresponsible, reckless and utterly incomprehensible”. The liberal media, in classic attack mode, only took statements from the democrats, not a single republican. This media is always ready to use any major decision president Trump makes to make him look dumb and inept. They never apologize after the results prove to be beneficial overall for the entire country. There is the assumption that the WHO has somehow helped us limit the actual damage of the virus, in terms of businesses lost, our death rate, and the extent of serious disease. Why is it not logical that the WHO was initially responsible for misrepresenting the true virility of this virus, claiming that it was not spread from human to human, recommending that travel bans were inappropriate. Why is it not logical that sensationalizing the spread of the virus now is just ridiculous fearmongering given that the death rate and rate of serious illness is actually decreasing as the virus spreads. Why is it not logical to withdraw form an agency that ignores a cheap and effective drug proven to prevent and limit the severity of the disease. These socialist activists actually believe that it is logical and beneficial to continue to pay a doctor who misses lifesaving opportunities and then is not able to help us in the midst of our disease, severely restricting our lifestyle without reasonable evidence. Once we stop using the total number of “cases” as the indicator for whether or not to increase social restrictions and extend lockdowns, president Trump’s decision to pull out of the WHO, which is an arm of the UN, will prove itself right and this media will grow silent. This is one of the first major attempts of the UN, through the WHO, to severely restrict our lifestyle at the expense of everyone’s livelihood without reasonable evidence of its effectiveness. It just happens to severely impact the private sector of the US, the UN’s biggest obstacle to globalization of healthcare.
Henry Ford Health System of Southeast Michigan enrolled 2,541 patients in an HCQ study where patients were given one of four alternatives: HCQ alone reduced mortality by 49%; HCQ with Azythromycin by 23.9%; and Azythromycin alone by 15%; placebo death rate was 26.4%. The study was published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases. Patients were not randomly assigned as in the other studies but rather assigned according to their risk for cardiac complications. They were also treated early, before they developed severe symptoms, 82% within the first 24 hrs. of admission, 91% within the first 48 hrs. of admission. Critics stated that patients treated with HCQ were given twice the dose of steroid, dexamethasone, as those that did not receive HCQ.
Even as these reporters cover a successful HCQ trial, they try to discredit it because the patients were assigned to receive HCQ according to cardiac risk factors. They tout the two studies, the NIH study of 470 patients and the UK Oxford study of 11,000 patients that concluded that HCQ was not only ineffective but dangerous as the trials were stopped. These medical journalists know full well that for HCQ to work, it must be given early to those with no heart disease. They also know that it should be given with zinc to be maximally effective. There was no mention of the various successful studies which assigned patients according to this knowledge. They also tout their political bias by including that president Trump “touted the drug heavily”. In addition, they described the positive impression given by Peter Navarro, White House trade advisor as a final comment after the description of the two failed drug studies. This kind of reporting to include blatant political bias has become the pattern wherever the topic is HCQ. This is not only an effort to discredit HCQ but also scare people away from requesting HCQ for treatment. This report got out lightning fast in an effort to make sure it was reported in a negative light.
On July 3rd, the WHO modified their mask policy to recommend that only those that are sick and those caring for them should wear a mask.
On the same day, July 3rd, the US Surgeon General urges caution not to interpret a flat death rate while case numbers are increasing in the US as an improvement as the death rate may lag the new cases by at least 2 weeks. He uses this to make the case for wearing masks and social distancing among the young people during their 4th of July outings, so as not to give it to their older relatives. What he fails to mention is that the vast majority of young people may already have COVID 19 and the chances of passing it to their relatives while asymptomatic are extremely low. The soaring death rates of March and early April were mostly due to prison inmates, nursing home patients, and the immuno-compromised living within the community. The flattening death rate is due to the virus still spreading to those sectors of their society balanced off by the declining death rates in other states. The death rates themselves are most likely greatly inflated as the actual number of infected individuals is unknown due to the unknown number of asymptomatic infected people. The apparent decrease in death rates may also be due to the effectively increased testing, not necessarily an increase in infection rate. Why would we not be taking large enough samples of the asymptomatic younger population and getting an idea of the number of those individuals not yet infected. If we find that the young people are not a significant threat to one another, then maybe we could be wiser about what kind of businesses we choose to open up. It would make no sense to keep gyms closed just as these were vitally instrumental in encouraging our hardest working cohort of the younger population to maintain their overall health. It would also make no sense to keep parks and beaches closed for the same reasons. If we were really serious about preventing actual serious disease, we would simply continue to quarantine the symptomatic individuals, treating them early with HCQ and zinc. We would also emphasize the already known ways of bolstering immune health among our young population.
On July 4th, the WHO reversed their mask policy from Friday June 3rd to include everyone who is not able to do social distancing,” such as on pubic transportation, in shops or in other confined or crowded areas”. This was presumably in response to the increasing number of positive cases in certain US states and in other countries which are experiencing the same sort of increase. It went on to say that the the mask should consist of 3 layers made of fabric of different material. Once again, the WHO acting as if it was a fact that increasing numbers are a direct threat to the public, resulting from people not wearing masks. This came curiously after Dr. Fauci’s latest press conference in which he demonized those who would not wear a mask in public.
Dr. Bill Fisher, Houston, Texas ER physician described the number of asymptomatic cases coming into the ER, most likely for other reasons than COVID, and the 20 % that are testing positive. He asserts that they are just as contagious as “everyone else”, obviously including those that are symptomatic. This is the basic illogical inference that Dr. Fauci is single handedly trying to make for the entire world! This is the basis upon which he can, with a lot of authority, mandate that the entire country use lockdowns to slow the spread of infection. This infers that slowing the rate of spread of the virus will minimize the actual rate of death and serious illness. To mandate that we shut down the US economy and try to slow the spread of a virus that is not threatening to 90% of the population demonstrates a huge level of desperation. Again, these assertions have now become completely illogical, and if they actually studied the contagiousness of asymptomatic people who have tested positive and remain asymptomatic for 2 to 3 weeks, these assertions would be absolutely fraudulent. Dr. Fisher does state that the ICU beds are at capacity, but did not disclose how many of the COVID 19 patients are in the ICU due to COVID 19 and how many are testing positive but are not there due to progression of COVID 19.
Toward the end of March, Moody’s Analytics in India warned of a progressive financial decline in the world economy in the months to come as the world central banks lose the ability to bolster up their economies. The initial lockdowns in the US is expected to bring our GDP from 2.6% in January to -4.9 % in Mach to make an annual GDP of -0.5%. As of March 24th, Major firms were expected to cut employment and investment. President Trump has made a huge difference by allowing the Fed to produce stimulus checks which allowed many businesses to rehire those that were furloughed or rehired. Still, the extended lockdowns are absolutely unaffordable on the local level and on the macro level. If we continue to lock down, we will surely experience the economic fallout from the economic fallout in a worse way!. The liberal media and those voices from the unaffected will always produce the most moral outcry for continuing the lockdowns. They cry louder than those business owners now going under and those about to be unemployed. The social impact of a world economy in decline is inevitably going to be an increased infant mortality rate around the world and nationally in the US, a significant increase in diabetes and heart disease amongst the younger population, costing the US much more in social services.
Here then, are some major individuals and groups of notable experts around the world that would come to the president’s defense regarding his decision about pulling out form the WHO and encouraging certain governors to do everything possible to help businesses open up:
Twelve major scientists and researchers all agree that fearmongering and lockdowns were an unprecedented overreaction to COVID 19 based on the data available 3 months ago in March. They all agreed that the lockdowns are more likely to produce more harm than the virus itself due to the social upheaval and the economic decline it produces so quickly.
Thanks to Off-Guardian.org for putting this together.
Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi is a specialist in microbiology. He was a professor at the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz and head of the Institute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene and one of the most cited research scientists in German history.
What he says:
We are afraid that 1 million infections with the new virus will lead to 30 deaths per day over the next 100 days. But we do not realise that 20, 30, 40 or 100 patients positive for normal coronaviruses are already dying every day.
[The government’s anti-COVID19 measures] are grotesque, absurd and very dangerous […] The life expectancy of millions is being shortened. The horrifying impact on the world economy threatens the existence of countless people. The consequences on medical care are profound. Already services to patients in need are reduced, operations cancelled, practices empty, hospital personnel dwindling. All this will impact profoundly on our whole society.
All these measures are leading to self-destruction and collective suicide based on nothing but a spook.
Dr Wolfgang Wodarg is a German physician specialising in Pulmonology, politician and former chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In 2009 he called for an inquiry into alleged conflicts of interest surrounding the EU response to the Swine Flu pandemic.
What he says:
Politicians are being courted by scientists…scientists who want to be important to get money for their institutions. Scientists who just swim along in the mainstream and want their part of it […] And what is missing right now is a rational way of looking at things.
We should be asking questions like “How did you find out this virus was dangerous?”, “How was it before?”, “Didn’t we have the same thing last year?”, “Is it even something new?”
That’s missing.
Dr Joel Kettner is professor of Community Health Sciences and Surgery at Manitoba University, former Chief Public Health Officer for Manitoba province and Medical Director of the International Centre for Infectious Diseases.
What he says:
I have never seen anything like this, anything anywhere near like this. I’m not talking about the pandemic, because I’ve seen 30 of them, one every year. It is called influenza. And other respiratory illness viruses, we don’t always know what they are. But I’ve never seen this reaction, and I’m trying to understand why.
[…]
I worry about the message to the public, about the fear of coming into contact with people, being in the same space as people, shaking their hands, having meetings with people. I worry about many, many consequences related to that.
[…]
In Hubei, in the province of Hubei, where there has been the most cases and deaths by far, the actual number of cases reported is 1 per 1000 people and the actual rate of deaths reported is 1 per 20,000. So maybe that would help to put things into perspective.
Dr John Ioannidis Professor of Medicine, of Health Research and Policy and of Biomedical Data Science, at Stanford University School of Medicine and a Professor of Statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences. He is director of the Stanford Prevention Research Center, and co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS).
He is also the editor-in-chief of the European Journal of Clinical Investigation. He was chairman at the Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine as well as adjunct professor at Tufts University School of Medicine.
As a physician, scientist and author he has made contributions to evidence-based medicine, epidemiology, data science and clinical research. In addition, he pioneered the field of meta-research. He has shown that much of the published research does not meet good scientific standards of evidence.
What he says:
Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 are disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes. As most health systems have limited testing capacity, selection bias may even worsen in the near future.
The one situation where an entire, closed population was tested was the Diamond Princess cruise ship and its quarantine passengers. The case fatality rate there was 1.0%, but this was a largely elderly population, in which the death rate from Covid-19 is much higher.
[…]
Could the Covid-19 case fatality rate be that low? No, some say, pointing to the high rate in elderly people. However, even some so-called mild or common-cold-type coronaviruses that have been known for decades can have case fatality rates as high as 8% when they infect elderly people in nursing homes.
[…]
If we had not known about a new virus out there, and had not checked individuals with PCR tests, the number of total deaths due to “influenza-like illness” would not seem unusual this year. At most, we might have casually noted that flu this season seems to be a bit worse than average.
– “A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data”, Stat News, 17th March 2020
Dr Yoram Lass is an Israeli physician, politician and former Director General of the Health Ministry. He also worked as Associate Dean of the Tel Aviv University Medical School and during the 1980s presented the science-based television show Tatzpit.
What he says:
Italy is known for its enormous morbidity in respiratory problems, more than three times any other European country. In the US about 40,000 people die in a regular flu season and so far 40-50 people have died of the coronavirus, most of them in a nursing home in Kirkland, Washington.
[…]
In every country, more people die from regular flu compared with those who die from the coronavirus.
[…]
…there is a very good example that we all forget: the swine flu in 2009. That was a virus that reached the world from Mexico and until today there is no vaccination against it. But what? At that time there was no Facebook or there maybe was but it was still in its infancy. The coronavirus, in contrast, is a virus with public relations.
Whoever thinks that governments end viruses is wrong.
– Interview in Globes, March 22nd 2020
Dr Pietro Vernazza is a Swiss physician specialising Infectious Diseases at the Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen and Professor of Health Policy.
What he says:
We have reliable figures from Italy and a work by epidemiologists, which has been published in the renowned science journal ‹Science›, which examined the spread in China. This makes it clear that around 85 percent of all infections have occurred without anyone noticing the infection. 90 percent of the deceased patients are verifiably over 70 years old, 50 percent over 80 years.
[…]
In Italy, one in ten people diagnosed die, according to the findings of the Science publication, that is statistically one of every 1,000 people infected. Each individual case is tragic, but often – similar to the flu season – it affects people who are atthe end of their lives.
[…]
If we close the schools, we will prevent the children from quickly becoming immune.
[…]
We should better integrate the scientific facts into the political decisions.
– Interview in St. Galler Tagblatt, 22nd March 2020
Frank Ulrich Montgomery is German radiologist, former President of the German Medical Association and Deputy Chairman of the World Medical Association.
What he says:
I’m not a fan of lockdown. Anyone who imposes something like this must also say when and how to pick it up again. Since we have to assume that the virus will be with us for a long time, I wonder when we will return to normal? You can’t keep schools and daycare centers closed until the end of the year. Because it will take at least that long until we have a vaccine. Italy has imposed a lockdown and has the opposite effect. They quickly reached their capacity limits, but did not slow down the virus spread within the lockdown.
– Interview in General Anzeiger, 18th March 2020
Prof. Hendrik Streeck is a German HIV researcher, epidemiologist and clinical trialist. He is professor of virology, and the director of the Institute of Virology and HIV Research, at Bonn University.
What he says:
The new pathogen is not that dangerous, it is even less dangerous than Sars-1. The special thing is that Sars-CoV-2 replicates in the upper throat area and is therefore much more infectious because the virus jumps from throat to throat, so to speak. But that is also an advantage: Because Sars-1 replicates in the deep lungs, it is not so infectious, but it definitely gets on the lungs, which makes it more dangerous.
[…]
You also have to take into account that the Sars-CoV-2 deaths in Germany were exclusively old people. In Heinsberg, for example, a 78-year-old man with previous illnesses died of heart failure, and that without Sars-2 lung involvement. Since he was infected, he naturally appears in the Covid 19 statistics. But the question is whether he would not have died anyway, even without Sars-2.
– Interview in Frankfurter Allgemeine, 16th March 2020
Dr Yanis Roussel et. al. – A team of researchers from the Institut Hospitalo-universitaire Méditerranée Infection, Marseille and the Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Marseille, conducting a peer-reviewed study on Coronavirus mortality for the government of France under the ‘Investments for the Future’ programme.
What they say:
The problem of SARS-CoV-2 is probably overestimated, as 2.6 million people die of respiratory infections each year compared with less than 4000 deaths for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of writing.
[…]
This study compared the mortality rate of SARS-CoV-2 in OECD countries (1.3%) with the mortality rate of common coronaviruses identified in AP-HM patients (0.8%) from 1 January 2013 to 2 March 2020. Chi-squared test was performed, and the P-value was 0.11 (not significant).
[…]
…it should be noted that systematic studies of other coronaviruses (but not yet for SARS-CoV-2) have found that the percentage of asymptomatic carriers is equal to or even higher than the percentage of symptomatic patients. The same data for SARS-CoV-2 may soon be available, which will further reduce the relative risk associated with this specific pathology.
– “SARS-CoV-2: fear versus data”, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, 19th March 2020
Dr. David Katz is an American physician and founding director of the Yale University Prevention Research Center
What he says:
I am deeply concerned that the social, economic and public health consequences of this near-total meltdown of normal life — schools and businesses closed, gatherings banned — will be long-lasting and calamitous, possibly graver than the direct toll of the virus itself. The stock market will bounce back in time, but many businesses never will. The unemployment, impoverishment and despair likely to result will be public health scourges of the first order.
– “Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease?”, New York Times 20th March 2020
Michael T. Osterholm is regents professor and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.
says:
Consider the effect of shutting down offices, schools, transportation systems, restaurants, hotels, stores, theaters, concert halls, sporting events and other venues indefinitely and leaving all of their workers unemployed and on the public dole. The likely result would be not just a depression but a complete economic breakdown, with countless permanently lost jobs, long before a vaccine is ready or natural immunity takes hold.
[…]
[T]he best alternative will probably entail letting those at low risk for serious disease continue to work, keep business and manufacturing operating, and “run” society, while at the same time advising higher-risk individuals to protect themselves through physical distancing and ramping up our health-care capacity as aggressively as possible. With this battle plan, we could gradually build up immunity without destroying the financial structure on which our lives are based.
Fearmongering The Public Into Dumping The Economy
It really isn’t so surprising anymore that the extent and intensity of COVID 19 restrictions are being imposed along political lines. For as much as we now know about this virus, it is inconceivable that the rate of infection amongst the general public has anything to do with the current death rate or the rate of serious illness.