“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.
- COVID-19 : The Authoritarian Left’s Overt ‘Denial of Science’ In A Single Tweet | Climatism
- COVID-19 : A Shocking New Study Emerges | Climatism
- EVERY Crisis Becomes A Religion If It Lasts Long Enough | Climatism
- MUST WATCH : Gaslighting, Unending Lockdowns And Climate Change | Climatism
- SURPRISE, SURPRISE! Global Lockdown Every Two Years Needed To Meet Paris CO₂ Goals | Climatism
- COVID19 = CLIMATE CHANGE : The More Afraid You Are, The More You Will Accept | Climatism
- SWEDEN : The Winning Case Against COVID-19 Lockdown Dystopia | Climatism
- Corona Perspectives From Swiss Policy Research | Climatism
THESE charts certainly help to put things in context. Perspectives that are needed when hysteria — healthy or otherwise — threatens to eviscerate the global economy, causing far more damage than COVID ever could.
*Immediate disclaimer: saying something is a panic is not denying, minimising, or ignoring it. (Jamie)
H/T Vaughn Pratt for pointing to this graphic providing context for the current pandemic.
For each COVID-19 death per average day, 215 people die of worse diseases as measured by average daily death rate.
This is the 9th graphic in the Covid 19 Coronavirus Infographic Datapackat Information is Beautiful.
DEAR Climate Change Alarmists, We Are Doing Just Fine Thanks, And So Is Our Sea-Ice! Regards, Polar BearsPosted: March 27, 2019
“Public safety concerns, combined with the effects of
polar bears on other species, suggest that
in many Nunavut communities, the polar bear
may have exceeded the co-existence threshold.”
– Nunavut’s polar bear population is unsafe,
government document says – The Globe and Mail
DIRE predictions of an “ice-free” Arctic have remained popular on the climate change fear-mongering circuit, owing to the psychological and political currency of all things melting and not least the emotional relevance applicable to the fate of the Arctic’s most famous resident and ‘global warming’ mascot – the polar bear.
SOME of the failed Arctic sea-ice predictions by alarmists ‘scientists’ and the fake news media over the years :
- “Arctic summers ice-free by 2013” (BBC 2007)
- “Could all Arctic ice be gone by 2012?” (AP 2007)
- “Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?”(National Geographic 2007)
- “Imagine yourself in a world five years from now, where there is no more ice over the Arctic” – Tim Flannery (2008)
- “North Pole could be ice-free in 2008” – Mark Serreze (New Scientist 2008)
- “Gore: Polar ice cap may disappear by summer 2014” (USA Today 2009)
- “Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within 4 years” (Guardian 2012)
- “Say Goodbye to Arctic Summer Ice” (Live Science 2013)
- “Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist” (The Guardian 2013)
- “Why Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013” (Sierra Club 2013)
- “Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’” – Peter Wadhams (The Guardian 2016)
CURRENT STATE OF THE ARCTIC
MINIMUM sea-ice extent has been trending up over the past twelve years. The EXACT opposite of what the mainstream media and ‘97% experts’ have been telling you :
MINIMUM Arctic sea-ice volume has been rising, not declining, since 2007 :
ARCTIC SEA-ICE EXTENT TO DATE
ARCTIC sea-ice extent is very close to the 1981-2010 median :
ARCTIC TEMPS & MELT CYCLES
ARCTIC temperatures and melt cycles correlate almost perfectly with ocean circulation cycles (AMO), and show no correlation with atmospheric CO2 levels :
NO other icon of ‘Global Warming’ epitomises its very own false narrative like the polar bear does for ‘Climate Change’.
WITH deadly irony, polar bear numbers have grown dramatically as carbon dioxide emissions have risen in lock-step. A CO2 correlation, at last!
INDIGENOUS Inuit’s of Northern Canada are now facing the very real task of having to cull the population as “the polar bear may have exceeded the co-existence threshold.”
“Inuit believe there are now so many bears that public safety has become a major concern,”
“Public safety concerns, combined with the effects of polar bears on other species, suggest that in many Nunavut communities, the polar bear may have exceeded the co-existence threshold.”
POLAR BEAR POPULATION (1981 – 2015)
POLAR BEAR POPULATION – THE LATEST COUNT!
via Susan Crockford PhD :
Susan Crockford is zoologist with more than 35 years experience, including published work on the Holocene history of Arctic animals. She is currently an adjunct professor at the University of Victoria, British Columbia.
Latest global polar bear abundance ‘best guess’ estimate is 39,000 (26,000-58,000)
It’s long past time for polar bear specialists to stop holding out for a scientifically accurate global estimate that will never be achieved and determine a reasonable and credible ‘best guess’. Since they have so far refused to do this, I have done it for them. My extrapolated estimate of 39,000 (range 26,000-58,000) at 2018 is not only plausible but scientifically defensible.
In 2014, the chairman of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) emailed me to say that their global population size number ‘has never been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.’
In my new book, The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened, I contend that this situation will probably never change, so it’s time to stop holding out for a scientifically accurate global estimate and generate a reasonable and credible ‘best guess’. Recent surveys from several critical polar bear subpopulations have given us the information necessary to do this.
These new numbers make it possible to extrapolate from ‘known’ to ‘unknown’ subpopulations within so-called ‘sea ice ecoregions’ (defined in 2007 by polar bear scientists at the US Geological Survey, see Amstrup et al. 2007), as shown below, to update old estimates and generate new ones for never-studied areas.
Since the PBSG has so far refused to take this step, I took on the challenge. I contend that an estimate of about 39,000 (range 26,000-58,000) at 2018 is not only plausible but scientifically defensible. See the graph below from my new book:
This new estimate for 2018 is a modest 4-6 fold increase over the 10,000 or so bears that existed in the 1960s and after 25 years, a credible increase over the estimate of 25,000 that the PBSG offered in 1993 (Wiig et al. 1995).
However, my new estimate is much larger than the improbable figure of about 26,000 (range 22,000-31,000) offered by PGSG biologists in 2015 (Regehr et al. 2016; Wiig et al. 2015). The scary question is this: what do Arctic residents do if there are actually as many as 58,000?
See my new book (Crockford 2019) for the full rationale and references used to arrive at this figure.
The bottom line: it is scientifically unacceptable for the PBSG to continue to refuse to provide an extrapolated ‘best guess’ global estimate for polar bears, given that the scientifically accurate estimate they crave is essentially unattainable. An estimate of about 39,000 (range 26,000-58,000) at 2018 is not only plausible but scientifically defensible. Read the rest of this entry »