BREAKING : Bill Gates Admits That Covid-19 Is Nothing More Than The Flu

“We didn’t understand that it’s a fairly low fatality rate and
that it’s a disease mainly in the elderly,
kind of like flu is,
although a bit different than that.”

– Bill Gates

After nearly three years, Bill Gates admits, correctly, that SARS-CoV-2 is as virulent as influenza.

When other people stated that CV19 had a low Case Fatality Rate (CFR) they were either suspended from social media or had posts labeled as misinformation. Why isn’t Bill getting the same treatment?

Two sets of rules. One for the elites, and another for we the plebs.

Insane times.

Now that Gates has spilled the beans and told the truth about CV19 can we move on? Or, are the US midterm elections still too far away to end the ‘pandemic’?


Those Who Chose Shaming Over Science 

For those who didn’t panic and remained curious throughout the long two years of the (ongoing) ‘pandemic’, take a bow and enjoy this quality reflection by Author Gabrielle Bauer. Nothing in her story is dissimilar to how sceptics of climate alarm are smeared, vilified, othered, and cancelled. Exact same tactics employed.

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a
false-front for the urge to rule it.”
– H.L. Mencken

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely 
exercised for the good of its victims 
may be the most oppressive.”
– C. S. Lewis

“Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, 
and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not 
regarded as members of the herd.”
— Bertrand Russell

“Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation 
can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely 
under the influence of a great fear.”
— Bertrand Russell

From : Those Who Chose Shaming Over Science ⋆ Brownstone Institute

Those Who Chose Shaming Over Science

BY GABRIELLE BAUER  MARCH 14, 2022   PHILOSOPHYSOCIETY   6 MINUTE READ

For the first 62 years of my life, I don’t recall anyone calling me a selfish idiot, much less a sociopath or a mouth-breathing Trumptard. All that changed when Covid rolled in and I expressed, ever so gingerly, a few concerns about the lockdown policies. Here’s a sampling of what the keyboard warriors threw back at me:

  • Enjoy your sociopathy.
  • Go lick a pole and catch the virus.
  • Have fun choking on your own fluids in the ICU.
  • Name three loved ones that you’re ready to sacrifice to Covid. Do it now, coward.
  • You went to Harvard? Yeah, right, and I’m God. Last I checked, Harvard doesn’t accept troglodytes.

From the earliest days of the pandemic, something deep inside me—in my soul, if you will—recoiled from the political and public response to the virus. Nothing about it felt right or strong or true. This was not just an epidemiological crisis, but a societal one, so why were we listening exclusively to some select epidemiologists? Where were the mental health experts? The child development specialists? The historians? The economists? And why were our political leaders encouraging fear rather than calm?

The questions that troubled me the most had less to do with epidemiology than with ethics: Was it fair to require the greatest sacrifice from the youngest members of society, who stood to suffer the most from the restrictions? Should civil liberties simply disappear during a pandemic, or did we need to balance public safety with human rights? Unschooled in the ways of online warriors, I assumed the Internet would allow me to engage in “productive discussions” about these issues. So I hopped online, and the rest was hysteria.

Village idiot, flat earther, inbred trash, negative IQ… Let’s just say that my thin skin got the test of a lifetime. 

And it wasn’t just me: anyone who questioned the orthodoxy, whether expert or ordinary citizen, got a similar skinburn. In the words of one community physician, who for obvious reasons shall remain anonymous: “Many doctors including myself, along with virologists, epidemiologists and other scientists, advocated a targeted approach and a focus on the most vulnerable cohorts of patients, only to be dismissed as anti-science, tin foil hat kooks, conspiracy theorists, antivax and other equally colorful disparaging labels.”

Early in the game I decided I wouldn’t respond to such insults with more insults—not because I’m especially high-minded, but because mudslinging contests just leave me angry and it’s not fun to walk around angry all day. Instead, I took the shaming on the chin (and still walked around angry).

The Shame Game

The shaming impulse asserted itself right from the start of the pandemic. On Twitter, #covidiot began trending on the evening of March 22, 2020, and by the time the night was over, 3,000 tweets had coopted the hashtag to denounce poor public health practices. When CBS News posted a video of spring breakers partying in Miami, outraged citizens shared the students’ names in their social media networks, accompanied by such missives as “do not give these selfish dumbfucks beds and/or respirators.”

In the early days of the pandemic, when panic and confusion reigned, such indignation could perhaps be forgiven. But the shaming gained momentum and wove itself into the zeitgeist. Also: it didn’t work.

As noted by Harvard Medical School epidemiologist Julia Marcus, “shaming and blaming people is not the best way to get them to change their behavior and actually can be counterproductive because it makes people want to hide their behavior.” Along similar lines, Jan Balkus, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Washington, maintains that shaming can make it harder for people to “acknowledge situations where they may have encountered risk.”

If shaming “covidiots” for their behavior doesn’t accomplish much, you can be sure that shaming people for Wrongthink won’t change any minds. Instead, we heretics simply stop telling the shamers what we’re thinking. We nod and smile. We give them the match point and continue the debate in our own heads.

Gloves Off

For two years I’ve been that person. I’ve smiled politely while dodging insults. To put my interlocutors at ease, I’ve prefaced my heterodox opinions with disclaimers like “I dislike Trump as much as you do” or “For the record, I’m triple-vaxxed myself.”  

Just today, I’ll allow myself to drop the pandering and call it as I see it.

To everyone who dumped on me for questioning the shutdown of civilization and calling out the damage it inflicted on the young and the poor: you can take your shaming, your scientific posturing, your insufferable moralizing, and stuff it. Every day, new research knocks more air out of your smug pronouncements.

You told me that without lockdowns, Covid would have wiped out a third of the world, much as the Black Death decimated Europe in the 14th century. Instead, a Johns Hopkins meta-analysis concluded that lockdowns in Europe and the US reduced Covid-19 mortality by an average of 0.2%. 

What’s more, long before this study we had good evidence that anything less than a China-style door-welding lockdown wouldn’t do much good. In a 2006 paper, the WHO Writing Group affirmed that “mandatory case reporting and isolating patients during the influenza pandemic of 1918 did not stop virus transmission and were impractical.”

You told me that social interaction is a want, not a need. Well, yes. So is good food. In truth, social isolation kills. As reported in a September 2020 review article published in Cell, loneliness “may be the most potent threat to survival and longevity.” The article explains how social isolation lowers cognitive development, weakens the immune system, and puts people at risk of substance use disorders. And it’s not like we didn’t know this before Covid: in 2017, research by Brigham Young University professor Julianne Holt-Lunstad determined that social isolation accelerates mortality as much as smoking 15 cigarettes per day. Her findings splashed the pages of news outlets around the world. 

You told me we need not worry about the effects of Covid restrictions on children because kids are resilient—and besides, they had it much worse in the great wars. Meanwhile, the UK saw a 77% increasein pediatric referrals for such issues as self-harm and suicidal thoughts during a 6-month period in 2021, in relation to a similar stretch in 2019. And if that doesn’t shake you up, a World Bank analysis estimated that, in low-income countries, the economic contraction ensuing from lockdown policies led 1.76 children to lose their lives for every Covid fatality averted. 

You told me that vaccinated people don’t carry the virus, taking your cue from CDC director Rachel Walensky’s proclamation in early 2021, and we all know how well that aged.

You told me I had no business questioning what infectious disease experts were telling us to do. (I’m paraphrasing here. What you actually said was: “How about staying in your lane and shutting the eff up?”) I got my vindication from Dr. Stefanos Kales, another from Harvard Medical School, who warned of the “dangers of turning over public policy and public health recommendations to people who have had their careers exclusively focused on infectious disease” in a recent CNBC interview. “Public health is a balance,” he said. Indeed it is. In a 2001 book called Public Health Law: Power, Duty and Restraint, Lawrence Gostin argued for more systematic assessments of the risks and benefits of public health interventions and more robust protection of civil liberties. 

So yeah. I’m upset and your finger-wagging posse left me alienated enough that I had to go looking for new tribes, and in this quest I’ve been rather successful. I have found more kindred spirits than I could ever have imagined, in my city of Toronto and all over the world: doctors, nurses, scientists, farmers, musicians, and homemakers who share my distaste for your grandstanding. Epidemiologists, too. These fine folks have kept me from losing my mind.

So thank you. And get off my lawn.

Author

Gabrielle Bauer Gabrielle divides her time between writing books, articles, and clinical materials for health professionals. She has received six national awards for her health journalism. She has written two books—Tokyo, My Everest, co-winner of the Canada-Japan Book Prize, and Waltzing The Tango, finalist in the Edna Staebler creative nonfiction award—and is working on two more.READ MORE  

Those Who Chose Shaming Over Science ⋆ Brownstone Institute

•••

Covid-19 Related :


Protección contra el coronavirus / Coronavirus protection

Trust the experts™️

Behold the insanity:

This video is a sad testament to the power that public health has to induce panic and then tell noble lies about how to mitigate that fear. Imagine instead if public health had recognized who was most vulnerable (primarily the elderly), and poured resources into protecting them.

🎥 👉 https://twitter.com/prof_freedom/status/1491373716999409666/video/1

See more…

El espacio de Chus

Protección contra el coronavirus

View original post


COVID-19 Vaccines : Three in four aged care deaths in NSW’s Delta outbreak were fully vaccinated, data shows

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a
false-front for the urge to rule it.”
– H.L. Mencken

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims
may be the most oppressive.”
– C. S. Lewis

If the issue were less tragic, one might quip that the editor of Australia’s state-run media monolith was on holiday’s for the taxpayer funded ABC to even begin to think about running this story for the great unwashed to digest.

That aside, up to date NSW.gov data observing “36 of the 49 aged care residents that died after contracting Covid-19 during NSW’s Delta outbreak were fully vaccinated“, is not an isolated case or issue in terms of unexpected relationships between the fully vaccinated and the non vaccinated.

The UK Health Security Agency recently released data showing an overrepresentation of fully vaccinated people contracting Covid-19 over the non-vaccinated, especially in the over 30 year old cohort where actual risks begin.

Via Dr Jay Bhattacharya (Professor Stanford School of Medicine. MD, PhD) :

Screenshot : https://twitter.com/DrJBhattacharya/status/1447915204071800838?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1447915204071800838%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fclimatism.wordpress.com%2F

Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1023849/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_40.pdf…

Three in four aged care deaths in NSW’s Delta outbreak were fully vaccinated, data shows

By Amy Greenbank Posted 4h ago

Government data, released to the ABC, has revealed 36 of the 49 aged care residents that died after contracting COVID-19 during NSW’s Delta outbreak were fully vaccinated.

All had underlying health conditions or were in palliative care.

Until now, the overall number last year’s deaths in NSW aged care facilities had been reported weekly by the Federal Department of Health and their vaccination status occasionally mentioned in NSW Health daily updates, but no cumulative figure had been publicly released.

Professor Lee-Fay Low
Deaths from COVID among the elderly are lower this year compared to 2021, says Professor Low.(ABC News)

Professor Lee-Fay Low, who specialises in ageing and health at the University of Sydney, said it shows the elderly were still vulnerable.

“Last year, 33 percent of aged care residents that got COVID-19 died,” Professor Low said.

“This year, it’s come down to 14 per cent but it’s still a lot higher than the 0.4 per cent of Australians that die if they get COVID-19.”

When lockdown lifted in NSW on Monday, new health advice permitted aged care residents two fully vaccinated visitors a day and permission to leave their facilities to attend family gatherings.

Given community transmission of the virus was expected to rise as restrictions ease, Professor Low said residents and families should be asked what level of risk they were willing to accept.

“There’s a balance, if you’re trapped, locked in a home which can’t meet your needs for love and can’t see your grandchildren, how do you balance that against maybe a 14 per cent chance of dying if you get COVID?”

Professor Low was concerned that some aged care facilities were rejecting health advice and enforcing tighter restrictions without consulting families.

“Because it was so catastrophic last year when there was an outbreak in nursing homes, facilities are really scared to reopen, and I think we should shift that risk balance towards wellbeing a bit more.”

Vicki Dowling’s mother Lorna Willmott is a resident at Ashfield Baptist Homes in Sydney’s inner west.

“It’s time to move on,” Ms Dowling said.

“There’s risks in life with everything we do. There’s a risk when we get in the car and cross the road.”

Full article …

Three in four aged care deaths in NSW’s Delta outbreak were fully vaccinated, data shows – ABC News

•••

Covid-19 Related :


UNI QLD LAW PROF : Covid Hysteria Based on Lies, Propaganda and Ignorance

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims
may be the most oppressive.”
– C. S. Lewis

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a
false-front for the urge to rule it.”
– H.L. Mencken

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
– H.L. Mencken

Superb piece from Prof. James Allan.

(5 min read)

Via The Australian

Covid hysteria based on lies, propaganda and ignorance

By James Allan

12:00AM OCTOBER 2, 2021

All the Covid hysteria around most of the democratic world, and especially in Britain, New York state, Canada and here in Australia, is driven by two main things. 

The first is that many people haven’t got a clue about what the relative risks are. Ask them what they think their chances of dying would be should they catch Covid and most get this massively wrong – a good few get the odds wrong by two orders of magnitude (answering 30 per cent when at most it’s about 0.3 per cent). And we’re talking about one’s chances of dying before being vaccinated.

Government propaganda – because there is no other way to describe it – has deliberately tried to scare people senseless and hence to distort their relative-risk assessments. That has been a clear and unmistakeable goal, including of all the daily press conferences with the breathless recitation of cases by politicians without an ounce of concern for freedom-­related issues, and by public-health types.

And for once, government seems to have got something right because its Covid scaremongering has been very successful.

The second problem has been all the models relied upon by the supine political class. It started with the Neil Ferguson modelling coming out of Imperial College in London and spread out from there.

No one in the press corps seems to care that Professor Ferguson has had an unbroken track record of massively wrong predictions with his models, prophesying things that came nowhere near reality. In 2002, his models predicted 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease). In the event there were 177 deaths.

In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million could be killed from bird flu. By 2009, 282 people had died of it. Ferguson was also heavily involved in the modelling around Britain’s foot-and-mouth disease that led to a mass culling of 11 million sheep and cattle in 2001. That time his models predicted up to 150,000 humans would die. You guessed it. There were actually fewer than 200 deaths. And before Boris Johnson’s “Freedom Day” a couple months ago, when the British PM finally summoned up a backbone and ignored the public-health class of fearmongers, Ferguson and a small army of supposed experts (more than 1200 scientists and doctors, including the editor-in-chief of The Lancet) signed a letter predicting carnage if Boris went ahead. All their “this is a murderous, irresponsible opening up” predictions proved woefully wrong.

Ferguson, interviewed later about being off by such a huge margin, replied along the lines that it doesn’t bother him being wrong, as long as he is wrong in the right direction. Let that sink in for a moment. For him, and seemingly the vast preponderance of the modelling caste, the right direction is the one that massively overstates future bad outcomes.

A woman looks at a mural of a health worker with wings holding a globe on International Nurses Day in May. Picture: AFP

A woman looks at a mural of a health worker with wings holding a globe on International Nurses Day in May. Picture: AFP

You can keep your jobs no matter how badly off your predictions are, as long as you’re wrong in the overstated direction. Under-predict by even one death, though, and the fear is some pusillanimous politician will give you the axe.

That same attitude seems to be true of virtually all the modelling, including here in Australia. So many models have implausible assumptions built in, such as that no citizens left to their own devices would change any behaviour without the despotic, mailed fist of government ordering them to do so. You will try in vain to find a ­single model that ended up understating the bad outcomes it ­predicted.

So now turn to Sweden, with a population of just under 10 and half million. It never locked down at all. No small businesses were forced to close and so bankrupted (and no big businesses were thereby incredibly enriched and allowed to have bumper profits under the sort of crony capitalism that lockdowns deliver). Schools never closed. People were trusted to make smart calls. Oh wait, Sweden may have put a limit of 500 people at big events for a while. That was it.

According to the most recent data I can find, Sweden has had about 1.14 million Covid cases and 14,753 Covid deaths (a sizeable chunk of those happening early on in aged care, for which the overseeing epidemiologist, Professor Anders Tegnell, quickly admitted the country’s handling mistakes). Since May of this year Sweden has had one of the lowest rates of Covid in Europe. Its deaths per million across the whole pandemic are now low enough that the press no longer talks about Sweden. The lockdownistas do not want the country to do well.

Meanwhile, a number of British doctors are now predicting that deaths caused by the lockdowns themselves will end up outnumbering the saved Covid deaths by 10 or 20 to 1. And this in a world where the median age of Covid deaths is higher than the country’s average life expectancy for men and for women.

A woman walks through a field of white flags symbolising the lives lost to Covid-19 in the US. Picture: AFP
A woman walks through a field of white flags symbolising the lives lost to Covid-19 in the US. Picture: AFP

It’s a world where (according to the latest Stanford study) the survival rate for the unvaccinated for these age ranges is: 0-19 (99.9973 per cent); 20-29 (99.986 per cent); 30-39 (99.969 per cent); 40-49 (99.918 per cent); and the survival rate doesn’t drop below 99.7 per cent until you get to the over-70s.

In a world with that sort of risk of dying from Covid, if you are under 70 why would you care in the slightest if someone else chooses not to get vaccinated? You started with those great odds and improved them by getting vaccinated yourself. Give anyone under 75 a choice of whether to get Covid or cancer, heart disease or diabetes, and you’re an idiot if you don’t pick Covid.

The whole vaccine-passport mandate position (full disclosure, to have some hope of one day seeing my kids who live overseas I’m double-jabbed) is premised on people having no clue at all of their relative risks. Then add in a dollop of “take the worst imaginable outcome modelling”. Throw in a media and press corps that is either stupid or longs for the reincarnation of Pravda. Stir. And you have Australia, readers.

We’re not the world’s best handlers of Covid. From early on it was plain we were on a trajectory to be the world’s worst. And with every year that passes, that will become ever more obvious.

James Allan is Garrick professor of law at the University of Queensland.

Covid hysteria based on lies, propaganda and ignorance | The Australian

Covid-19 Related :


Perspective : Look Up Your Risk of Dying of COVID-19

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims
may be the most oppressive.”
– C. S. Lewis

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a
false-front for the urge to rule it.”
– H.L. Mencken

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins,all of them imaginary.”
– H.L. Mencken

When the 24-hour mainstream media ‘news’ cycle is intentionally geared to keep you fixated through mechanisms of fear, hysteria and alarm it is perhaps beneficial to be grounded, often, by good old fashioned hard data.

CDC and Stanford University data demonstrating the actual risk of death by Covid may be one way to help defend against the merciless attack on reason, sanity and calm by Covid-19 power-hungry politicians and compliant mainstream media.

Some much needed perspective here via Rational Ground :

(US Covid-19 data via CDC / Stanford)

Perspective: Look Up Your Risk of Dying of COVID-19

Get some perspective folks. Our good friend Phil Kerpen has updated the COVID-19 mortality tables by age – specific age actually! So look up your own risk between you and your peers below.

  • First, find your age on the chart on column #1.
  • Second column: how many people your age have died of COVID-19 since January 2020
  • Third column: the number of people in the U.S. who are that age.
  • Fourth column: the % of the people that age who have died of COVID.


If you’re 49 there have been 3,965 49-yr-olds who have died of COVID-19. There are over 4.3 million 49-yr-olds olds – which means that 0.085% of 49 year olds have died of COVID. As I always note, if you are over the age of 65 strongly consider getting vaccinated as there is acute risk to you. Under the age of 45 there is a near zero statistical risk of mortality. Otherwise – your choice but stay informed!

You might also choose to look up how many people your age have died of ANYTHING since January 2020 and how that gives you perspective on COVID-19 deaths.

Lastly, consider the types of deaths which occur at these ratios. We’ve mapped these to mortality risks provided by insurance companies for comparison.

And of course we provide some perspective on age comparisons. The median age of death of a COVID-19 victim is about 80 years old. The risk tables show that for every 20 years below 80 your risk decreases by 10x. So if you are 60 your risk is 10x lower than that of an 80 year old. If you are 40 your risk is 100x lower and if you are 20 your risk is 1000x (ONE THOUSAND!) times lower than an 80 year old.

Rational Ground – Clear Reasoning on National Policy for COVID-19 » Perspective: Look Up Your Risk of Dying of COVID-19

•••

Related :


COVID-19 : A Shocking New Study Emerges

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims
may be the most oppressive.”
C. S. Lewis

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a
false-front for the urge to rule it.”
H.L. Mencken

Covid-19, targets a very specific sub-set of the population. In fact, 99.9% of anyone under the age of 90, without severe underlying health conditions, survives. 

An overdue article out of the hard-left, fear-porn-loving Atlantic, bells-the-cat on another high level hoax that came out of the ‘pandemic’, in order for you to submit and comply — “hospitalisations.”

Why is The Atlantic publishing this? Because they need to show history (what will be left of it) that they knew, ‘before anyone’, that Covid-19 was used, maliciously, by the MainstreamMedia, inept politicians and useful idiots, as a tool of fear and panic to wrought (“Build Back Better”) ‘change’.

Change in their own image. Not in yours, or, by yours.

Read on …

via The Atlantic :

(Climatism bolds)

Our Most Reliable Pandemic Number Is Losing Meaning

A new study suggests that almost half of those hospitalized with COVID-19 have mild or asymptomatic cases.By David Zweig

At least 12,000 Americans have already died from COVID-19 this month, as the country inches through its latest surge in cases. But another worrying statistic is often cited to depict the dangers of this moment: The number of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the United States right now is as high as it has been since the beginning of February. It’s even worse in certain places: Some states, including Arkansas and Oregon, recently saw their COVID hospitalizations rise to higher levels than at any prior stage of the pandemic. But how much do those latter figures really tell us?

From the start, COVID hospitalizations have served as a vital metric for tracking the risks posed by the disease. Last winter, this magazine described it as “the most reliable pandemic number,” while Vox quoted the cardiologist Eric Topol as saying that it’s “the best indicator of where we are.” On the one hand, death counts offer finality, but they’re a lagging signal and don’t account for people who suffered from significant illness but survived. Case counts, on the other hand, depend on which and how many people happen to get tested. Presumably, hospitalization numbers provide a more stable and reliable gauge of the pandemic’s true toll, in terms of severe disease. But a new, nationwide study of hospitalization records, released as a preprint today (and not yet formally peer reviewed), suggests that the meaning of this gauge can easily be misinterpreted—and that it has been shifting over time.

If you want to make sense of the number of COVID hospitalizations at any given time, you need to know how sick each patient actually is. Until now, that’s been almost impossible to suss out. The federal government requires hospitals to report every patient who tests positive for COVID, yet the overall tallies of COVID hospitalizations, made available on various state and federal dashboards and widely reported on by the media, do not differentiate based on severity of illness. Some patients need extensive medical intervention, such as getting intubated. Others require supplemental oxygen or administration of the steroid dexamethasone. But there are many COVID patients in the hospital with fairly mild symptoms, too, who have been admitted for further observation on account of their comorbidities, or because they reported feeling short of breath. Another portion of the patients in this tally are in the hospital for something unrelated to COVID, and discovered that they were infected only because they were tested upon admission. How many patients fall into each category has been a topic of much speculation. In August, researchers from Harvard Medical School, Tufts Medical Center, and the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System decided to find out.

Researchers have tried to get at similar questions before. For two separate studies published in May, doctors in California read through several hundred charts of pediatric patients, one by one, to figure out why, exactly, each COVID-positive child had been admitted to the hospital. Did they need treatment for COVID, or was there some other reason for admission, like cancer treatment or a psychiatric episode, and the COVID diagnosis was merely incidental? According to the researchers, 40 to 45 percent of the hospitalizations that they examined were for patients in the latter group.

The authors of the paper out this week took a different tack to answer a similar question, this time for adults. Instead of meticulously looking at why a few hundred patients were admitted to a pair of hospitals, they analyzed the electronic records for nearly 50,000 COVID hospital admissions at the more than 100 VA hospitals across the country. Then they checked to see whether each patient required supplemental oxygen or had a blood oxygen level below 94 percent. (The latter criterion is based on the National Institutes of Health definition of “severe COVID.”) If either of these conditions was met, the authors classified that patient as having moderate to severe disease; otherwise, the case was considered mild or asymptomatic.

The study found that from March 2020 through early January 2021—before vaccination was widespread, and before the Delta variant had arrived—the proportion of patients with mild or asymptomatic disease was 36 percent. From mid-January through the end of June 2021, however, that number rose to 48 percent. In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease.

This increase was even bigger for vaccinated hospital patients, of whom 57 percent had mild or asymptomatic disease. But unvaccinated patients have also been showing up with less severe symptoms, on average, than earlier in the pandemic: The study found that 45 percent of their cases were mild or asymptomatic since January 21. According to Shira Doron, an infectious-disease physician and hospital epidemiologist at Tufts Medical Center, in Boston, and one of the study’s co-authors, the latter finding may be explained by the fact that unvaccinated patients in the vaccine era tend to be a younger cohort who are less vulnerable to COVID and may be more likely to have been infected in the past.

Among the limitations of the study is that patients in the VA system are not representative of the U.S. population as a whole, as they include few women and no children. (Still, the new findings echo those from the two pediatric-admissions studies.) Also, like many medical centers, the VA has a policy to test every inpatient for COVID, but this is not a universal practice. Lastly, most of the data—even from the patients admitted in 2021—derive from the phase of the pandemic before Delta became widespread, and it’s possible that the ratios have changed in recent months. The study did run through June 30, however, when the Delta wave was about to break, and it did not find that the proportion of patients with moderate to severe respiratory distress was trending upward at the end of the observation period.

The idea behind the study and what it investigates is important, says Graham Snyder, the medical director of infection prevention and hospital epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, though he told me that it would benefit from a little more detail and nuance beyond oxygenation status. But Daniel Griffin, an infectious-disease specialist at Columbia University, told me that using other metrics for severity of illness, such as intensive-care admissions, presents different limitations. For one thing, different hospitals use different criteria for admitting patients to the ICU.

One of the important implications of the study, these experts say, is that the introduction of vaccines strongly correlates with a greater share of COVID hospital patients having mild or asymptomatic disease. “It’s underreported how well the vaccine makes your life better, how much less sick you are likely to be, and less sick even if hospitalized,” Snyder said. “That’s the gem in this study.”

“People ask me, ‘Why am I getting vaccinated if I just end up in the hospital anyway?’” Griffin said. “But I say, ‘You’ll end up leaving the hospital.’” He explained that some COVID patients are in for “soft” hospitalizations, where they need only minimal treatment and leave relatively quickly; others may be on the antiviral drug remdesivir for five days, or with a tube down their throat. One of the values of this study, he said, is that it helps the public understand this distinction—and the fact that not all COVID hospitalizations are the same.

But the study also demonstrates that hospitalization rates for COVID, as cited by journalists and policy makers, can be misleading, if not considered carefully. Clearly many patients right now are seriously ill. We also know that overcrowding of hospitals by COVID patients with even mild illness can have negative implications for patients in need of other care. At the same time, this study suggests that COVID hospitalization tallies can’t be taken as a simple measure of the prevalence of severe or even moderate disease, because they might inflate the true numbers by a factor of two. “As we look to shift from cases to hospitalizations as a metric to drive policy and assess level of risk to a community or state or country,” Doron told me, referring to decisions about school closures, business restrictions, mask requirements, and so on, “we should refine the definition of hospitalization. Those patients who are there with rather than from COVID don’t belong in the metric.”

The Atlantic’s COVID-19 coverage is supported by grants from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
David Zweig is a writer based in New York. He is the author of the nonfiction book Invisibles and the novel Swimming Inside the Sun.

Related :


COVID-19 : The Authoritarian Left’s Overt ‘Denial of Science’ In A Single Tweet

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims
may be the most oppressive.”
– C. S. Lewis

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a
false-front for the urge to rule it.”
– H.L. Mencken

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins,all of them imaginary.”
– H.L. Mencken

At some point, the majority will conclude that the Left’s pet, and intentionally emotional causes; climate, Covid, race, gender etc., have absolutely nothing to do with the subject and the people involved, rather, about the clever, tactful and intentional use of highly emotive issues designed to divide and polarise the masses (you and I), in order for absolute power and control by them (the elites).

This simple tweet via VP Harris, perhaps an insightful example.

“Protecting the vaccinated…”

Huh?

Think about it. If the vaccine works, as they assure us that it does – with anyone who dares question efficacy; punished, silenced and cancelled accordingly – then how can the unvaccinated possibly pose a threat to the vaccinated? 

Who then are the real “science deniers”?

What exactly is the risk to the vaccinated from the unvaccinated? 

Your ruling class, Jo Biden, Kamala Harris, CDC, AMA, Scott Morrison, mainstream media et al., will not tell you. 

Why? Because they’re lying to you.

No one knows. There is no answer. 

The entire; vaccine, mask, lockdown argument by ‘science’, for your ‘protection’, is transparently absurd. 

And once you realise that, you realise that none of the endless talking about “public health”, at this point, is really about “public health”.

If it was about “public health”, everyone pushing the vaccine so feverishly would simply make the vaccines available to the infirm, the elderly-infirm, to high risk categories, and anyone else who wanted it, then celebrate, and leave it there.  

But that’s not what it’s about.

It’s about power. 

Forcing you to accept something without complaint is the whole point of the exercise. It’s a form of sadomasochism — dominance and submission. 

It’s all about power, obviously. Power, either newly found, or conveniently manipulated and maintained.

If they can make you take experimental medicine that you don’t want, or need, then they’ve won. They then own you. You belong to them. 

Things are certainly moving fast, and they are heading in a specific direction. 

Which direction? 

You be the judge.

(That is, if you’re still even allowed to formulate thought or opinion, less be cancelled or fined, under the statute of ‘forbidden’).

Related :


Corona Perspectives From Swiss Policy Research

In times of collective moral panic and peak hysteria – manufactured for political power, or otherwise – it may be useful to refer to the sage quotes of cooler heads gone by

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims
may be the most oppressive.”
– C. S. Lewis

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a
false-front for the urge to rule it.”
– H.L. Mencken

If all else fails, simply refer to hard, unadulterated, scientific data…

Science Matters

Swiss Policy Research has been tracking the Covid pandemic and provides a number of graphics that put the experience into historical perspective.  Below are a selection from what is on offer at their website Facts about Covid-19

Sweden: Mortality Since 1835

US: Monthly Mortality in Deaths per Million since 1900

Monthly Covid Deaths in Germany bottom right corner.

Ivermectin vs. Covid19

View original post


COVID19 : Lies, Damned Lies, And Vaccine Salesmen

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a
false-front for the urge to rule it.”

– H.L. Mencken

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims
may be the most oppressive.”

– C. S. Lewis

A quick, clear and precise presentation by Tony Heller on the current (politicised) state of Covid-19, vaccinations and herd immunity.

Who has taken the most logical, sane, non-politicised, reasoned and scientific approach? The hysterical Western world, driven by Lord Fauci, Big Pharma, Big Tech, and the Mainstream Media? Or, Sweden and Afghanistan?

You decide …

Via Real Climate Science :

COVID-19 vaccines are failing badly and vaccine injury reports are up 1000% this year, yet governments are trying to force the population to receive them.

ClickToWatch>>

Related :