An interesting read.
An Advantaged Disease, Indeed | RealClearPolitics
Coach,
I commend you for your service in hosting the conversation RE this debacle. The video of Dr. Wittkowski is priceless as an instructional on the nature of respiratory viruses/diseases as they affect populations and perfectly provides a template for interpreting the extremely flawed data/information available. Thank you VERY much for sharing.
Imperial College of London seem to be the biggest persuaders of a global lockdown, a certain Prof Neil Ferguson. If it's proven in years to come that he's got this wrong, I hope he enjoys porridge in solitary confinement for the rest of his life.
Here's a recent debate on the UK Governments reaction to lock us down:
YouTube
Large image here
What happens when you add the covid19 deaths to the 2019-2020 red line? In previous years, how many pneumonia deaths also had a coronavirus of some kind? I'm sure you've seen the CDC documents that don't even require a test to categorize a death as covid19.
Perhaps previous years categorize deaths having a coronavirus (and pneumonia) as "Pneumonia" and not coronavirus?
My family enjoyed Professor Wittkorski's video and the discussion here in this thread. Thanks
For those interested, data for week 12 has been published: http://www.salute.gov.it/portale/cal...si_2020w12.pdf
The spike in the number of deaths is now very clear.
IPB
Comrades, hold your horses!
It looks as if the Völkischer Beobachter of the ruling classes has published an apology. Sorry, that would be just uncouth for such a lofty paper. Let's say they performed a U-turn. Naaah, that would be an admission that they got it wrong first time around, which is clearly not allowed. Ok, let's call it a clarification, a position paper to flip around the genuine meaning of some parts of the dogma while claiming it hasn't changed.
The full piece is here (hopefully not-paywalled. It wasn't for me. Deleting the cache might help)
Subscribe to read | Financial Times
(Virus lays bare the frailty of the social contract)
One of the most interesting parts is the following (A word to the wise. You don't kick out a forty-years habit in the space of a few days; hence, the piece still contains some ably disguised excerpts from the old doctrine, which I took the liberty to highlight).
<quote>
Radical reforms – reversing the prevailing policy direction of the last four decades – will need to be put on the table. Governments will have to accept a more active role in the economy (because, as everyone knows, it was their decision to take a less active role, and we repeatedly told them it was the wrong thing to do). They must see public services as investments rather than liabilities (Of course, this newspaper always held the opposite view), and look for ways to make labour markets less insecure. Redistribution will again be on the agenda; the privileges of the elderly and wealthy in question (We are thinking here about the old guy who lives in a semi at the end of the road, barely scraping through with his state pension, not tax-exempt ex-IMF cadres ). Policies until recently considered eccentric, such as basic income and wealth tax (Just to be clear: we mean your wealth, not ours), will have to be in the mix.
<unquote>
If this sounds a bit egregious, just wait until, a few months down the line, they will go around telling the rest of the world that they saw it first, and we should thank them for it.
IPB