Americans Misinformed About COVID Hospitalization

A recent survey found that more than one-third of Americans overestimate by as much as a factor of ten the probability a person with COVID-19 will require hospitalization.

Researchers involved in the Franklin Templeton/Gallup study asked Americans in December what “percentage of people who have been infected by the coronavirus needed to be hospitalized.” The correct answer is not precisely known, the authors note, but the best available estimates place the figure between 1 and 5 percent.

Many people’s perceptions of the data, however, were completely off.

“Less than one in five U.S. adults (18%) give a correct answer of between 1 and 5%,” the study authors said. “Many adults (35%) say that at least half of infected people need hospitalization. If that were true, the millions of resulting patients would have overwhelmed hospitals throughout the pandemic.”

The authors of the study say the conclusion is clear.

“The U.S. public is also deeply misinformed about the severity of the virus for the average infected person,” the study’s authors stated.

Why Are Americans so Misinformed?

The obvious question is why Americans are so wildly misinformed about the true risks of COVID-19.

One possibility is that Americans are receiving information that is skewing their sense of reality, and research confirms this hypothesis.

Studies have shown that US media in particular created a climate of fear by publishing a deluge of negative news in 2020. One Ivy League-led study found that 91 percent of US stories in major media were negative in tone (compared to just 54 percent in non-US media)—even when the virus was in retreat and positive results were being achieved.

‘Those who overestimate risks to young people or hold an exaggerated sense of risk upon infection are more likely to favor closing schools, restaurants, and other businesses,’ the authors note.

“The negativity of the U.S. major media is notable even in areas with positive scientific developments including school re-openings and vaccine trials,” researchers noted. “Stories of increasing COVID-19 cases outnumber stories of decreasing cases by a factor of 5.5 even during periods when new cases are declining.”

As I noted when the study was released, a global pandemic isn’t exactly a cheerful topic. Yet this fact alone doesn’t explain the discrepancy between US media coverage and non-US media. Nor does it explain why negative news trends continue even during positive developments—such as declines in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, as well as vaccine breakthroughs.

The steady drumbeat of negativity was described as “panic porn” by some media critics.

“Enough with the ‘life will never be the same’ headlines,” HBO pundit Bill Maher said back in April. “Everything looks scary when you magnify it a thousand times.… We need the news to calm down and treat us like adults.”

That didn’t happen, however. Months later, as the virus had receded and scientists concluded COVID was not as deadly as previously thought, the media were still engaging in panic porn, characterizing Florida’s laissez-faire approach to the pandemic as a “death march.”

In his work Crisis and Leviathan, the economist Robert Higgs observed that crises have been utilized to mount the biggest government power grabs in modern history.

Why media and public officials engaged in panic porn for months is a discussion for another day. What’s apparent is that the phenomenon severely skewed Americans’ sense of reality as it relates to the actual dangers of COVID-19, a virus that does not require hospitalization for up to 99 percent of those infected.

Unfortunately, authors of the Franklin Templeton/Gallup study say, the disconnect has real-world consequences.

“Those who overestimate risks to young people or hold an exaggerated sense of risk upon infection are more likely to favor closing schools, restaurants, and other businesses,” the authors note.

Lockdowns: A Policy of Panic

The harms of these lockdown policies are well-documented: severe mental health deterioration, mass social unrest, health procedures deferred or foregone, soaring global poverty, increased suicide, extreme loneliness, and many others.

FEE’s Brad Polumbo recently testified before the US Senate on some of these dangers, noting that doctors across the world warn lockdowns have resulted in an “international epidemic” of child suicide.

These were policies born of panic.

“When people feel fear, they’re much more willing to accept anything that makes the world seem a little safer,” Sean Malone noted early in the pandemic in an episode of Out of Frame.

For far too long Americans were told they must sacrifice liberty by embracing lockdowns or risk mass fatalities. This was always a false choice, and a dangerous one. The reality is, passing sweeping legislation during panics is a recipe for bad outcomes. But all too often, that is precisely what happens.

In his work Crisis and Leviathan, the economist Robert Higgs observed that crises have been utilized to mount the biggest government power grabs in modern history. During the Great Depression it was the New Deal. Following the 9-11 attacks it was the War on Terror and the Patriot Act (and everything that came with them). In 2020 it was the lockdowns.

Each of these historic encroachments was driven by mass panic. In each instance, only in hindsight did it become apparent that the greater danger we faced was fear itself.

This isn’t to say there are not real threats in the world. The pandemic, terrorism, and the Great Depression were all genuine threats.

It’s only to say we must reject panic in our decision making, and those who would have us abandon freedom for the false promise of safety.

https://catalyst.independent.org/2021/03/24/americans-misinformed-about-covid-hospitalization/?omhide=true

******************************************

Technology, Not Government, Beat the Pandemic

The legacy of the COVID-19 era is largely characterized by a series of governmental and para-governmental failures. The Chinese Communist Party’s failure to tackle the virus before it became a pandemic, the inability of governments around the world to curb international spread, and the World Health Organization’s concerning behavior with respect to the Chinese government turned what could have been a limited epidemic into a global pandemic of disturbing proportions.

Perhaps most concerning from an American perspective, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was seemingly unprepared for a pandemic, even in the context of two serious and global novel coronavirus outbreaks in as many decades.

The CDC stepped in early to implement widespread testing, but contaminated the very test kits they themselves produced. At every level of government, officials stood by powerless as the virus tore through the population, disproportionately affecting persons of color.

On the state level, we have seen the New York governor bungle his pandemic policies surrounding nursing homes, and then attempt to cover up the unimaginable human suffering which resulted. The Los Angeles mayor boldly declared “Snitches get rewards”, while encouraging citizens to report each other for breaking quarantine. Meanwhile, Hollywood continued business as usual: production of music, films, and television was deemed ‘essential’.

However, though blunted by the dark curtain of the ineptitude of the public sector, the light of private enterprise has continued to shine brightly. Remdesivir, a drug developed by Gilead Sciences originally for investigation in the treatment of unrelated viruses, was found in trials to yield improved outcomes when used to treat moderate to severely ill COVID-19 patients within mere months of the virus going global. The U.S. community hospital system, more than 2/3rds of which is composed of privately-managed facilities, buckled under the strain of the pandemic, but held. Other systems around the world were not so fortunate.

Any vaccine seemed far off in those first few months. The U.S. government, in “Operation Warp Speed,” tellingly turned to the private sector and not their own agencies or proxies to develop a vaccine and other desperately needed COVID-19 technologies; more than $10 Billion was spent across multiple firms. In a monumental scientific achievement, the first ever mRNA-based vaccine to receive regulatory go-ahead was approved in December 2020, just over a year after the virus first emerged. Another mRNA vaccine followed later that very month.

Many have proven squeamish about the new technology in these vaccines, but they may be relieved by recent news. Recently, Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine received FDA emergency use authorization. Although another example of scientific progress in that it is one of the first adenovirus vector vaccines to see widespread use, it induces immunity through a more traditional and direct mechanism than seen in the mRNA vaccines. Administered in a single dose, it will likely see greater compliance. As added bonuses, it is easier to store and transport than the other approved vaccines, and was developed on a not-for-profit basis. As expected, the market has offered consumers choice.

That both the Trump and Biden administrations have botched the rollout of vaccines does nothing to reduce the stunning achievements they represent. The innovation and flexibility of the private sector has proven invaluable through this pandemic, not only through the development of vaccines, but also testing, treatment, and ancillary services. As we enter an era where governments are likely to play a much larger role in healthcare, we would do well not only to remember public sector failures, but also the private sector successes in this era, lest we have a rude awakening during the next global crisis.

https://catalyst.independent.org/2021/03/29/technology-pandemic/?omhide=true

******************************************

IN BRIEF

Supreme Court sits on potentially blockbuster abortion case (Examiner). The case arose after Mississippi passed a 2018 law banning abortions after 15 weeks.

Border Patrol discredits Biden claim on unaccompanied minors (National Pulse)

Addendum I: New photos show what Biden is trying to hide at the border (Townhall)

Addendum II: Donald Trump confirms he'll visit the border "over the next couple of weeks" (Bongino.com)

"Progressive" stumbling block: Moderate Democrats buck Biden tax hikes (Axios)

"We cannot in good conscience take money from a company that repeatedly, and blatantly, suppresses conservative speech": Heritage Foundation judiciously declines six-figure donations from Google and Facebook (Disrn)

Potential 2024 GOP presidential candidates Mike Pompeo, Tom Cotton, Rick Scott, and Tim Scott head to Iowa to canvass voters (Disrn)

New York City foolishly ends qualified immunity for police officers (Fox News)

Los Angeles County ups police funding by $36 million after rise in crime (Post Millennial)

Is this a hate crime? White woman drugged, raped, and found dead in Miami Beach hotel (Fox News)

Church membership falls below majority for first time, further demonstrating that politics is downstream of culture (Gallup)

SolarWinds hack got emails of top DHS officials (AP)

Birds of a feather: Iran and China sign 25-year cooperation agreement (Reuters)

Myanmar forces kill 100+ in deadliest day since coup (AP)

Suicide bomb hits Palm Sunday Mass in Indonesia (Fox News)

Twitter says calling Boulder shooter a "white Christian terrorist" is okay (Newsweek)

Policy: Why DC statehood would be a tragic mistake (National Interest)

Policy: Asset recycling could be the best fix to crumbling national infrastructure (The Hill)

****************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS -- Daily)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

Trump Slams Fauci and Birx for Revisionism

“When I saw what happened in New York City,” said Dr. Anthony Fauci during a CNN interview that aired Sunday, “it was like, ‘Oh my goodness.’ And that’s when it became very clear that the decision we made on January the 10th to go all out and develop a vaccine may have been the best decision that I’ve ever made with regard to an intervention as the director of the institute.”

Who knew the diminutive doc was the Decider-in-Chief and the driving force behind Operation Warp Speed — the life-saving decision to strip away traditional barriers to vaccine development and thereby conceive, create, and begin administering multiple coronavirus vaccines in just nine months rather than the usual three to five years?

Why, it’s as if this guy Fauci is trying to take credit from this guy Biden, who’s trying to take credit from the man who actually delivered a vaccine in record time.

That man, of course, would be Donald Trump — and he doesn’t seem inclined to sit idly by while his two underlings attempt to create a version of history more pleasing to the ear of their new boss.

As Fox News reports, “Former President Donald Trump slammed Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx on Monday, accusing the infectious disease experts of ‘trying to reinvent history’ in televised interviews detailing their roles in combating the coronavirus pandemic. Trump spoke out after Fauci and Birx, who both served as key members of his administration’s coronavirus task force, were interviewed for a CNN special titled ‘COVID WAR: The Pandemic Doctors Speak Out.’”

“Based on their interviews,” said Trump in a statement, “I felt it was time to speak up about Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx, two self-promoters trying to reinvent history to cover for their bad instincts and faulty recommendations, which I fortunately almost always overturned. They had bad policy decisions that would have left our country open to China and others, closed to reopening our economy, and years away from an approved vaccine.”

Trump then gave the two self-promoters a master’s course in self-promotion: “We developed American vaccines by an American President in record time, nine months, which is saving the entire world,” he said. “We bought billions of dollars of these vaccines on a calculated bet that they would work, perhaps the most important bet in the history of the world. Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx moved far too slowly, and if it were up to them we’d currently be locked in our basements as our country suffered through a financial depression. Families, and children in particular, would be suffering the mental strains of this disaster like never before.”

Birx, who history might remember as the wearer of colorful scarves during Trump’s Coronavirus Task Force press briefings, said she had a “very difficult” phone call with the president after she spoke candidly about the severity of an outbreak last August. During the CNN interview, she said the COVID-19 death toll should have been much lower once an initial surge had subsided. “There were about 100,000 deaths that came from that original surge,” she said. “All of the rest of them, in my mind, could have been mitigated or decreased substantially.”

To this, Trump fired back: “Dr. Birx is a proven liar with very little credibility left.”

Trump then gave Birx and Fauci something to discuss the next time they have a quiet moment together. “Many of her recommendations were viewed as ‘pseudo-science,’” said the former president, “and Dr. Fauci would always talk negatively about her and, in fact, would ask not to be in the same room with her.”

As for Fauci, Trump says he was “incapable of pressing the FDA” to get a vaccine produced any more quickly. “I was the one to get it done, and even the fake news media knows and reports this,” he said. “Dr. Fauci is also the king of ‘flip-flops’ and moving the goalposts to make himself look as good as possible.”

In a mud-slinger like this, no one tends to come out looking good. But Donald Trump is at least used to it — five years of battling a vicious and deeply dishonest media have seen to that. He’s also entirely within his right to tell his side of the story — especially when it seems history is being rewritten before his eyes.

https://patriotpost.us/articles/78787-trump-slams-fauci-and-birx-for-revisionism-2021-03-30

*************************************

Corporate America Goes Beyond Redlining Conservatism

Regardless of what you think of South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem’s tactical retreat on protecting women’s sports — and there are good arguments both by those arguing the strategic sense of it and by those saying it was a squishy backtrack — one thing has been made clear in recent years: Big Business is willing to move beyond redlining conservatism. In fact, it’s taking a page from an anti-Semitic campaign.

The boycott, divest, and sanction (BDS) movement has long targeted Israel over measures that are intended to prevent that country’s destruction. In essence, companies are threatened with boycotts, banks and financial institutions are urged to divest from Israel, and sanctions are applied against Israel itself to coerce it into surrendering its security.

Now, the same approach is being used against conservatives.

South Dakota was particularly targeted for this by the NCAA, which threatened legal action if Governor Noem signed a “transgender” bill into law. Noem decided to ask the legislature for modifications and to secure at least protection for girls competing in high school, junior high school, or elementary school, while leaving out colleges in hopes of mollifying the NCAA. The legislation died yesterday due to the impasse.

This has happened before. Remember the battles over Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act? Salesforce’s CEO began helping employees who wished to leave the state, and other companies also threatened to boycott the state. Then-Governor Mike Pence conceded ground.

Similar demands are being made of major companies that call Georgia home, like Coca-Cola, Home Depot, and Delta Airlines, as well as Major League Baseball and the PGA Tour, over Georgia’s new election integrity law. Activists are trying to get MLB’s All-Star Game and the Masters golf tournament moved out of the Peach State to protest the fact that Georgia’s legislature actually cares about fighting voter fraud. President Joe Biden has falsely called the law “Jim Crow in the 21st century,” and nothing sticks like the “racist” label — especially with ignorant consumers of mainstream media lies.

And that brings us to a very harsh reality for grassroots Patriots to confront: Many voters who don’t have our focus on current events tend to vote on the economy. If the economy is (deliberately) cratered, or when economic opportunities are not coming, they tend to vote out the party (i.e., Republicans) they perceive as being responsible for it. This is true whether it’s the Left fighting fracking or when a company pulls a major event over conservative policy.

In 2019, Salesforce announced that it would revoke licenses for users of its software if they sold certain legal firearms and accessories that anti-Second Amendment extremists want banned. On top of that is Operation Choke Point, a form of sanctions for companies that don’t boycott and divest promptly.

The immensely frustrating fact of the matter is that with the dominance of Big Tech and so many major corporations now taking one particular side on hot-button political issues, grassroots Patriots will have to fight smarter than ever. Part of that will be building our own versions of these enterprises, but part of it will also be making corporate America face consequences if companies continue to play political favorites or go along with redlining and this new iteration of BDS.

https://patriotpost.us/articles/78763-corporate-america-goes-beyond-redlining-conservatism-2021-03-30

****************************************

The States Must Resist the Federal Takeover of Elections

Although federal courts certainly played their part, the main malefactors in the sham that was the 2020 presidential election were “the several States.” Through their court mandates, their gubernatorial malfeasance, and, especially their new election laws, the states created the changes by which an election could be stolen and democracy could be subverted. The changes that determined the outcome of the election were primarily in the key battleground states. But now the feds want to get in on the action and impose the 2020 changes to election law of the battleground states on the entire nation.

It’s often noted that the states created the federal government. But in doing so, the states did not surrender their own sovereignty. The federal government under the new Democrat majority in Congress now seeks to federalize elections and to abolish state election laws. That would end the sovereignty of the states. The states need to resist and even preempt this un-American power grab.

On March 3 in a nearly party-line vote of 220-210, the U.S. House passed H.R. 1, the so-called For the People Act. A more appropriate title for this anti-democratic bill would be the “For the Incumbents Act” or the “For the Political Class Act,” for the People don’t figure in this vile bill at all.

The text of “H.R.1 -- For the People Act of 2021” is quite long and few readers will want to wade through it all. The bill’s ideas are unsophisticated, even backward. And that’s especially the case with regard to voter identification and to voter registration. The word “identification” appears 34 times in the bill. The bill would outlaw any state requirement to present voter ID to vote. To counteract this insane provision, the states need to enact much stricter voter ID laws.

Of course, Stacey Abrams will wail that demanding ID is voter suppression and denies access to the ballot box and is racist. Okay, then the states should use as their voter ID an ID that everyone already has -- the SSN.

Members of state legislatures may think they know better and may want to devise their own voter IDs. But they should resist that impulse, for the full nine-digit SSN has built-in capabilities that no new ID could match. For instance, if all the states required the use of the SSN to vote, it becomes possible to easily find those who have voted in more than one state, and then back out their votes.

The word “registration” appears 369 times in H.R. 1. “Rolls,” as in voter rolls, appears twice, but “registry” and its plural don’t appear at all. If the states were to require the SSN to vote, they’d have no need of separate voter registries that they would have to laboriously maintain. That’s because the government, both state and federal, already has our data. They know where we live, and whether we’re eligible to vote. So it’s wasted effort to register voters. Besides, voter registries in these United States are notoriously inaccurate. Democrats push registration because they don’t want elections to depend on accurate databases.

For years now, I’ve been urging the use of the SSN and existing federal databases in elections. I still believe that the complete computerization of voting is the best way to go but consider this: the mail-in voting that was ramped up for 2020 could be made to work properly if, and only if, a unique national ID, like the SSN, were attached to each mail-in ballot. With the SSN on one’s ballot, there’s no need for separate voter registries, as the ballot could be authenticated against already existing government files.

Because the Supreme Court refused to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania due to a supposed “lack of standing,” the states need to get out in front of H.R. 1 and make sure they have standing that is undeniable. One way to do that is for the states to pass laws, right now, that set up a showdown with the feds. Georgia just did that on March 25 when Governor Kemp signed SB 202 into law. There are some good changes in the law, but it doesn’t require the use of the full SSN, only its last four digits. If I could mandate but one change to election law, it would be to require the inclusion of the full SSN on the ballot. With that change, verification of the vote becomes possible.

The “genius” (for Democrats) of the 2020 changes to election law is that they made verification of vote counts even more unobtainable and unknowable. With the corrupt use of mail-in ballots, election results in America became entirely unchallengeable. We must take the word of the authorities that the vote counts are accurate, and they needn’t demonstrate nor prove what the true vote is.

After Trump delivered the best economy in years and multiple vaccines for the Wuhan virus, if Biden really won the election, then this kid would have to say that we’re a nation of ingrates and deserve whatever we get. I tend to believe that the average American has not sunk that low. It seems much more plausible that the Democrats and their criminal operatives stole the election.

But it is possible that Joe Biden won the 2020 election; that is, that he received more legal votes than did President Trump. It’s possible, but not probable. And if Trump received more legal votes than Biden in the key battleground states, then Biden is an illegitimate president and we’re a nation of theft victims. But there’s no way to prove what the legitimate vote count is.

If H.R. 1 makes it through the Senate and our dried-up husk of a president signs it, the Supreme Court “should” find it unconstitutional. But who knows, they may let it slide, just like they let ObamaCare’s individual mandate slide. So the states need to bolster their “standing.” And they need to have systems in place that are much better than what H.R. 1 institutes.

It was “the several States” that brought America the most radical government in history, and the states need to fix that. Even if H.R. 1 were to fail in the Senate or be found unconstitutional by the Court, the election systems in the states are still scandalous and need to be reengineered with genuine election reforms.

It was battleground states in particular that gave us the frailest dimmest oldest president in our lifetimes. Those states must fix the problems they created by setting up election systems that ensure the integrity of the vote. The states need to anticipate and counter the coming encroachments of the feds by enacting new election laws. (They might also consider impeaching judges, like Pennsylvania’s Max Baer, and secretaries of state, like Georgia’s Brad Raffensperger.)

Essentially, H.R. 1 institutionalizes election theft. Some may wonder why such theft needs to be institutionalized. After all, Democrats have been doing a good job of stealing elections without new legislation. Maybe the Dems just want election theft to be easier and surer.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/03/the_states_must_resist_the_federal_takeover_of_elections.html

****************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS -- Daily)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

Good news: Pfizer and Moderna's vaccines are 90% effective at preventing COVID-19 infection after two doses and 80% effective after one shot, real-world study of health care workers finds

Two doses of either Moderna's or Pfizer-BioNTech's coronavirus vaccine are highly effective at preventing infection, a new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) real-world study published on Monday finds.

Researchers looked at vaccination rates among nearly 4,000 healthcare employees, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers from mid-December 2020 to mid-March 2021.

Results showed the risk of infection among fully vaccinated workers was reduced by 90 percent two or more weeks after the final dose - the amount of time it takes to produce antibodies.

What's more, the risk decreased by 80 percent among people who had only received their initial dose of the vaccine.

'This study shows that our national vaccination efforts are working. The authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines provided early, substantial real-world protection against infection for our nation's health care personnel, first responders, and other frontline essential workers,' said CDC Director Dr Rochelle Walensky in a statement.

'These findings should offer hope to the millions of Americans receiving COVID-19 vaccines each day and to those who will have the opportunity to roll up their sleeves and get vaccinated in the weeks ahead. The authorized vaccines are the key tool that will help bring an end to this devastating pandemic.'

It comes as Moderna announced on Monday that it has shipped its 100 millionth dose, out of a 300-million-dose order, to the U.S. government.

At the same time, 10 states plan to open eligibility of vaccines to all adults this week, in line with President Joe Biden's goal of making every adult eligible for a shot by May 1.

So far, just Arkansas and Wyoming -have not yet confirmed plans to expand eligibility ahead of or by the deadline, likely due to clinicians still prioritizing high-risk groups and differences that vary state-by-state in supply and demand of the shots.

For the CDC's study, researchers looked at the vaccination status of 3,950 frontline workers in six states from December 14, 2020 to March 13, 2021.

During that time period, 62.8 percent of workers, or 2,479, received both doses of either the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine, and 12.1 percent, 477 workers, received one dose.

The remaining 25.1 percent of frontline or essential employees were unvaccinated.

Participants were surveyed for symptoms of COVID-19 including cough, fever, chills, shortness of breath and loss of taste or smell through weekly text messages, email or in-person appointments.

The workers received nasal swabs each week, regardless of whether or not they had symptoms, and had an additional swab collected if they reported feeling ill.

Over the course of the study, 172 COVID-19 infections were identified. Of those, 161 were among workers who had not been vaccinated yet.

By comparison, just eight of the partially immunized participants were infected as were three of the fully immunized participants.

This means fully vaccinated workers were 53.6 times less likely to test positive for COVID-19 than those who were not vaccinated.

Even one dose offered substantial protection with partially immunized workers 26.8 times less likely to contract the disease that unvaccinated workers.

According to the CDC, this shows that under real-world conditions, Moderna's and Pfizer's vaccines are 80 percent effective after one dose and 90 percent effective after two doses.

'The findings complement and expand upon these preceding reports by demonstrating that the vaccines can also reduce the risk for infection regardless of COVID-19–associated illness symptom status,' the authors wrote.

'Reducing the risk for transmissible infection..is especially important among health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers given their potential to transmit the virus through frequent close contact with patients and the public.'

On Monday, Moderna announced it had shipped 100 million doses of its COVID-19 vaccine to the U.S. government.

The company says it expects to meet its agreement with the administration and deliver its second batch of 100 million doses by the end of May and the third batch of 100 million by the end of July.

'I would like to thank the millions of people who have put their confidence in Moderna's science and our COVID-19 vaccine,' said Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel in a statement.

'We are encouraged by the fact that more than 67 million doses have been administered in the U.S. and we are humbled to know that we are helping address this worldwide pandemic with our vaccine.

Moderna said its vaccine shipments has risen five-fold - from more than 16 million doses in the fourth quarter of 2020 to 88 million doses in the first quarter of 2021 - since its inoculation received emergency authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in December.

This week, the U.S. government ramped up its shipments of COVID-19 vaccines, about 27 million per week, after about a month of sluggish weekly deliveries, so states can finish vaccinating high-risk groups and make the shots available to all.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9414615/Health-workers-90-likely-catch-coronavirus-fully-vaccinated-CDC-data-show.html

******************************************

The Lockdowns Were One Big Fat Mistake

Like nearly all U.S. states, Georgia imposed a stay-at-home order in March 2020 in response to demands from public health officials claiming a stay-at-home order would lessen total deaths from COVID-19.

But unlike most states, Georgia ended its stay-at-home order after only five weeks, and proceeded to lower other restrictions quickly.

The legacy media responded with furious opposition. For example, an article in The Atlantic declared the end of Georgia’s lockdown to be an “experiment in human sacrifice.” The Guardian approvingly quoted one Georgian who insisted the end of the stay-at-home order was “reckless, premature and dangerous.”

A few weeks later, other states began to end their stay-at-home orders and to end other restrictions as well. Florida was the largest among these states.

Shortly thereafter the Daily Beast declared that the scaling back of restrictions in Georgia and Florida was “terrifyingly premature,” and quoted one expert who insisted, “If you lift the restriction too soon, a second wave will come, and the damage will be substantial both medically and economically. We don’t want to throw away the sacrifices we have made for weeks now.”

All this hyperbole about human sacrifice and recklessness leads us to conclude that states which ended lockdowns quickly must have experienced far worse numbers of deaths from covid than states which maintained lockdowns longer. Indeed, when it came to lockdowns, we were told, the longer the better. Ideally, lockdowns shouldn’t be loosened up at all until everyone can be vaccinated.

But things didn’t turn out that way. Experts have scrambled to come up with explanations for why this is the case, but the fact remains some of the most strict states (i.e., New York and Massachusetts) have covid deaths at far worse rates than the “reckless” states like Georgia and Florida.

Moreover, with little to show for their lockdowns in terms of “public health,” these states with extreme lockdowns also have some of the worst unemployment rates. This occurred in spite of the fact that experts insisted that a failure to impose lockdowns would doom a state’s economy to later economic disaster.

State-to-State Comparisons Aren’t Helping the Prolockdown Narrative

A year after stay-at-home orders began, even the usual media outlets are being forced to recognize the outcomes aren’t what was predicted. The Associated Press reported earlier this week:

California and Florida both have a COVID-19 case rate of around 8,900 per 100,000 residents since the pandemic began, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And both rank in the middle among states for COVID-19 death rates—Florida was 27th as of Friday; California was 28th.

Connecticut and South Dakota are another example. Both rank among the 10 worst states for COVID-19 death rates. Yet Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, a Democrat, imposed numerous statewide restrictions over the past year after an early surge in deaths, while South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, a Republican, issued no mandates as virus deaths soared in the fall….

Like Florida, Missouri had no statewide mask mandate, ended business restrictions last June and has a cumulative COVID-19 death rate similar to California’s.

Even the LA Times was forced to admit this reality, although they insisted that when you consider the higher levels of poverty and “overcrowding” in California—translation: California is a filthy breeding ground for disease—California should have had far worse rates than Florida for covid deaths. Thus, the LA Times concludes, “California better controlled the virus.”

The LA Times goes on to point to the fact Florida’s covid death rate, while similar, is nonetheless 6 percent higher than California’s, and this translates to three thousand deaths that presumably wouldn’t have happened if Florida had adopted lockdown rules similar to California.

But the numbers don’t stack up so well in favor of lockdowns if we use the LA Times‘s method to make other comparisons. For example, New York’s total deaths-per-million rate is 67 percent higher than Florida’s. Translated into raw numbers, that means if Florida were like New York, Florida would have experienced 54,000 deaths instead of the 33,000 that the CDC now attributes to covid in Florida. (New Jersey’s outcomes are even worse than New York’s.)

Similarly, if Florida were like Massachusetts in its outcomes, Florida would have experienced 54 percent more deaths.

If the LA Times is going to claim overcrowding should translate into more death in California, it should also note that Florida fares worse than California in terms of median age and incidence of obesity. Since advanced age and obesity are major factors in covid hospitalizations and deaths, we might conclude it is Florida, and not California, that is primed for especially bad covid numbers.

(According to the CDC, Florida and New York are evenly matched in terms of obesity, Florida has more obesity than Massachusetts, and Florida has the highest median age of them all.)

And what about Georgia, that experiment in human sacrifice? Well, the CDC reports Georgia’s total deaths-per-million rate at 1,720. That’s worse than California’s rate of 1,400, but Georgia is still far and away better than New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, which have rates of 2,530, 2,690, and 2,400, respectively.

What about Economic Performance?

Meanwhile, it is likely that the economies of Florida and Georgia have suffered less. Although the Daily Beast assured us that the “damage will be substantial both medically and economically” if a state ends lockdowns “too soon,” we now find that the unemployment rates in Florida and Georgia are 4.8 and 5.1, respectively.

In California, the picture is quite different, where the unemployment rate now sits at 9 percent. New York doesn’t fare much better, with an unemployment rate of 8.8 percent. New Jersey clocks in at 7.9 percent.

In other words, the dire predictions surrounding states that first canceled stay-at-home orders have been spectacularly wrong. Many lockdown enthusiasts will now do what the LA Times did: quibble over small differences between Florida and California to show that California did a little bit better. New York, of course, will just be completely ignored.

As one doctor at UC San Francisco admitted: “One might’ve expected that the Floridas of the world would’ve done tremendously worse than the Californias of the world… ” Places like Florida and Georgia were supposed to be overwhelmed by an absolute tsunami of death if they were “reckless” in ending COVID restrictions. That didn’t happen.

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/the-lockdowns-were-one-big-fat-mistake/

****************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS -- Daily)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

Covid and cruelty to the aged "for their own good"

Bad as the whole coronavirus charade certainly is, it's hard to find a parallel for the sheer perversity of the propagandists' abuse of the aged. The "experts" are never more self-righteous than when they thunder at us that the smallest deviation from their New Normal prescriptions amounts to killing off our elders. But no one has ever treated the old with more cynical cruelty - or with less justification.

Think of the title of an article published by one Rabbi Shai Held in the Atlantic - one of the most relentless purveyors of coronavirus propaganda - a year ago:

The Staggering, Heartless Cruelty Toward the Elderly."

When I first saw those words, I thought the Atlantic editors had suddenly seen the light and wanted their readers to know about the evils of the harsh nursing home confinements recently ordered by governors-turned-dictators in states like New York and New Jersey.

But no. The Atlantic was only showcasing a spiteful sermon from the rabbi about some obnoxious people - Trump supporters or similar unworthies, I assume - who, it was said, were claiming that COVID19 wasn't really so bad if it only killed old people, who after all were going to die soon anyway.

I don't know of any real people who said such things - not that facts would have mattered to the Atlantic. What I do know - and what the Atlantic's Rabbi Held never mentioned - is that officials like Governor Andrew Cuomo, to the applause of the propagandists, forced old people into crowded nursing homes where they were isolated from friends and relatives, forbidden to leave, told they were surrounded by a deadly disease they could not escape, and otherwise either neglected or "helped" by terrified attendants dressed in space suits - a grotesque scenario that could only have added to their sense of danger and hopelessness.

Not surprisingly, many of those inmates died.

Now that's cruelty.

I'm still hearing stories of people who have not been allowed to visit elderly relatives for months on end; many of us have friends or acquaintances who were prevented from saying goodbye to a dying friend or cousin or grandparent or uncle. This is taken almost for granted nowadays.

Some of the stories I hear are even worse. One man reports being told that his aged mother, a patient last spring at a crowded New York hospital, would not be treated for her COVID19 infection as a matter of "hospital policy" because she had signed a "do not resuscitate" order: since the hospital staff didn't know how to treat COVID19, a nurse told him, they were treating her illness as terminal.

In other words, they would let the old woman die even if they believed that giving her oxygen could save her life.

A policy like that - if indeed it existed - violated New York law. And when propagandists point to the high death rates at those New York hospitals in March and April as "proof" of the dangers of the coronavirus, I can only wonder how many of the patients they have in mind were killed not by an infection but by medical malpractice.

And what about reports - this time not from patients' relatives but from a medical professional with first-hand experience - that another New York "hospital policy" involved excessive use of ventilators, likely resulting in damage to the patients' lungs and possibly hastening their deaths?

The propagandists never mention this; such things, too, are taken for granted.

And these people have the nerve to complain about "cruelty toward the elderly"? If you ask me, they should be giving lessons on the subject.

I'll say it again: I know that lots of younger people are being tortured too. If you want evidence of how bad things really are - and from the horse's mouth - take a look at this sadistic effusion in the Atlantic's February 4 issue, from a woman who watched her husband suffer:

At about 2am on Thursday morning, I woke to find my husband shivering beside me. For hours, he had been tossing in bed, exhausted but unable to sleep, nursing chills, a fever, and an agonizingly sore left arm. His teeth chattered. His forehead was freckled with sweat.

A cautionary tale about the ravages of the "deadly virus"? That's what it would have been if the poor man had tested positive for COVID19 six months earlier. But now her spouse's torment is the cue for a flood of joyous propaganda:

[A]s I lay next to him, cinching blanket after blanket around his arms, I felt an immense sense of relief. All this misery was a sign that the immune cells in his body had been riled up by the second shot of a COVID-19 vaccine, and were well on their way to guarding him from future disease.

Ah, the innocence of ideological purity! For the Atlantic apparatchik, her husband's "misery" meant "an immense sense of relief," just as being burned alive in a bombed building in 1941 moved a British Communist Party member to bless Joe Stalin (as related years later by her friend Teddy Prager):

Isn't it nice to know that indoctrination still works? Long live Pfizer! Long live experimental drugs and human guinea pigs! Hurray for Joe Biden! Who cares what happens to my husband, so long as the corporate bosses and mask-maniacs and police-state enthusiasts get everything they want?

So yes, every detail of this sinister farce is ugly. But the lockdown-lovers have always claimed to be driven by particular solicitude for the aged. And so it is especially disgusting to watch them lie to old ladies in order to make them submit to dangerous drugs, after terrorizing them for a solid year with fictions intended to leave them more vulnerable to the next round of fraud.

And let's not mince words: fraud is the right name for what they've done to my mother (and so many others). The evidence of all-cause mortality figures in the US (and elsewhere) demonstrates clearly enough that COVID19 has had no significant impact on medical death rates, at least since last summer.

On top of that, a study conducted by several prestigious scientists, chaired by the estimable John Ioannidis, recently concluded that the drastic lockdowns imposed in 2020 did not stem the spread of the virus any better than far milder measures would have done. There is no COVID19 emergency - and if there ever was, which is doubtful, the hysterical official response did more harm than good.

And yet most of the United States still languishes - illegally - under quasi-dictatorial rule, with the acquiescence of mainstream media, which apparently never thought ordinary people should be allowed to control their own lives in the first place. One result of this coup (the only accurate word for it) was the election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, engineered in significant part through dishonest COVID19 reporting, and spurred by mail-in voting procedures that almost certainly would not have been approved by the legislative processes required by the relevant state constitutions.

But don't expect any outrage about this political chicanery from the people who regularly denounce illiberal government in places like China or Venezuela. Representative democracy was largely scrapped in the US a year ago, so it just doesn't matter that the presidential voting system was illegally altered in order to promote a Democratic victory - just as it doesn't matter that the mainstream media produced a torrent of worthless claims about Trump's "mishandling" of the virus in order to make voters blame him for 200,000 deaths as they cast their ballots.

Mention these facts and you are a "conspiracy theorist." Pretend not to know them and you are "following the science."

And what if you happen to care about the welfare of elderly people - or of children, whose vulnerability has always been supposed to entitle them to special consideration? Well, if you take your cues from coronavirus propaganda, there's only one right way to treat both groups: cynically exploit them so as to spread the fear porn as thickly as possible.

Consider, for example, a bizarre January "news" story in which children in California were described making tearful apologies to their grandparents as the latter died, allegedly from COVID19, in off-limits hospital rooms.

The "experts" and the reporter just knew those kids must have infected their elders after attending a Thanksgiving or Christmas party. True, there's little real evidence that children function as contagious carriers of COVID19, let alone that any have actually passed the infection to an elderly relative. But why let facts get in the way of cruelty? The kids had to learn a lesson: enjoying an innocent holiday celebration meant killing off Granny.

No one in mainstream media challenged that piece of cynical sadism, as far as I know - just as no one challenged the claims of California "health" officials during the same period that the state was experiencing death tolls from COVID19 of over 400 per day. (In fact, for the week ending January 9, the putative daily death tolls for the state edged closer to 500.)

But was that even true?

According to the all-cause mortality figures shown on the CDC website, during the weeks ending January 2 and January 9 there was a total of 8,958 deaths in California, as compared with a total of 11,761 deaths during the same period a year earlier, before any "pandemic" was declared.

In other words, during the same period when California "experts" were screaming about 400-500 extra deaths each day from a disease that presumably wasn't killing anyone the previous January, the total number of deaths actually decreased by an average rate of 200 per day as compared with the same period a year earlier.

To square California's claimed coronavirus deaths with those facts, we would probably have to suppose that heart disease, cancer, traffic deaths, diabetes and so on were all so drastically reduced in California that their daily death tolls diminished by more than 600 per day since the previous year.

Yes, miracles do happen, as Forrest Gump reminded us. But the more reasonable interpretation is that the COVID19 horror story California "health" officials were telling us in January was a fiction made out of numbers-juggling. Which is pretty much what the whole "deadly plague" story has been from the start - a combination of alarmist and unscientific "projections," unreliable and over-used tests, arbitrary diagnoses, fear-mongering and politically-driven cause-of-death classifications, which were then fanned to hysteria by power-hungry politicians and a compliant "news" media, not to mention corporate behemoths that stood to gain from the panic.

Our country is being torn apart by measures that the public and its elected representatives have never been permitted to debate, let alone to approve

Can I preserve the principles of civil rights in an era when the very notion of freedom is scoffed at from the headlines of every "liberal" newspaper in the West? I don't know. But I can do my best to ensure that it won't happen with my consent, that I won't be an accomplice in my own victimization

The crimes against us all may continue. I will not contribute to them.

https://off-guardian.org/2021/03/25/old-mortality-how-the-corona-coup-tortures-the-elderly-and-everybody-else/

********************************************

FAT as a Covid factor

As it turns out, we don’t hear much about the dirty little secret that obesity easily killed as many people as mask avoidance — perhaps more. The Washington Examiner’s Brad Polumbo did a deep dive into the issue of weight and Covid deaths and found some shocking correlations.

COVID-19 is much more deadly for the elderly and those with preexisting conditions that weaken the immune system. One of those conditions is obesity. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Adults with excess weight are at even greater risk during the COVID-19 pandemic.” The CDC said that of the roughly 900,000 adult COVID-19 hospitalizations from the start of the outbreak to Nov. 18, 30% were attributed to obesity.

Meanwhile, a new study examining over 150,000 adults across 20 hospitals confirmed that obese people are much more likely to be hospitalized or to die from the virus. Severely obese COVID-19 patients were 61% more likely to die and 33% more likely to face hospitalization than their peers at healthy weights.

This isn’t really “news” in the sense that the CDC had been warning obese people since the beginning of the pandemic that they were at higher risk of serious illness and death. So why did so many obese people ignore the warning?

This alarming pre-pandemic crisis and recent acceleration should be setting off enormous alarm bells. But instead, liberal-leaning media outlets and cultural influencers have glorified obesity and downplayed its health risks.

For example, Cosmopolitan ran a series of magazine covers featuring significantly overweight women under the heading, “This is healthy!”

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2021/03/28/the-politically-incorrect-secret-that-may-have-led-to-thousands-of-covid-deaths-n1435529

****************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS -- Daily)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

Non-invasive suport for COVID breathing difficulties

The treatment of COVID patients can create its own difficulties and problems. A treatment that is now avaiable reduces some of those difficulties: Helment ventilation. The study below shows that it can be used with no loss of efficacy

Effect of Helmet Noninvasive Ventilation vs High-Flow Nasal Oxygen on Days Free of Respiratory Support in Patients With COVID-19 and Moderate to Severe Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure

Domenico Luca Grieco et al.

Question: Among patients admitted to the intensive care unit with COVID-19–induced moderate to severe hypoxemic respiratory failure, does early continuous treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation increase the number of days free of respiratory support at 28 days as compared with high-flow nasal oxygen?

Findings: In this randomized trial that included 109 patients, the median number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days was 20 days in the group that received helmet noninvasive ventilation and 18 days in the group that received high-flow nasal oxygen, a difference that was not statistically significant.

Meaning: Among critically ill patients with moderate to severe hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19, helmet noninvasive ventilation, compared with high-flow nasal oxygen, resulted in no significant difference in the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days.

Abstract

Importance: High-flow nasal oxygen is recommended as initial treatment for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and is widely applied in patients with COVID-19.

Objective: To assess whether helmet noninvasive ventilation can increase the days free of respiratory support in patients with COVID-19 compared with high-flow nasal oxygen alone.

Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized clinical trial in 4 intensive care units (ICUs) in Italy between October and December 2020, end of follow-up February 11, 2021, including 109 patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemic respiratory failure (ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ≤200).

Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to receive continuous treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation (positive end-expiratory pressure, 10-12 cm H2O; pressure support, 10-12 cm H2O) for at least 48 hours eventually followed by high-flow nasal oxygen (n = 54) or high-flow oxygen alone (60 L/min) (n = 55).

Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days after enrollment. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who required endotracheal intubation within 28 days from study enrollment, the number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 28, the number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 60, in-ICU mortality, in-hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, 60-day mortality, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay.

Results: Among 110 patients who were randomized, 109 (99%) completed the trial (median age, 65 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 55-70]; 21 women [19%]). The median days free of respiratory support within 28 days after randomization were 20 (IQR, 0-25) in the helmet group and 18 (IQR, 0-22) in the high-flow nasal oxygen group, a difference that was not statistically significant (mean difference, 2 days [95% CI, −2 to 6]; P = .26). Of 9 prespecified secondary outcomes reported, 7 showed no significant difference. The rate of endotracheal intubation was significantly lower in the helmet group than in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (30% vs 51%; difference, −21% [95% CI, −38% to −3%]; P = .03). The median number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation within 28 days was significantly higher in the helmet group than in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (28 [IQR, 13-28] vs 25 [IQR 4-28]; mean difference, 3 days [95% CI, 0-7]; P = .04). The rate of in-hospital mortality was 24% in the helmet group and 25% in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (absolute difference, −1% [95% CI, −17% to 15%]; P > .99).

Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemia, treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation, compared with high-flow nasal oxygen, resulted in no significant difference in the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days. Further research is warranted to determine effects on other outcomes, including the need for endotracheal intubation.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778088?utm_source=silverchair&utm_campaign=jama_network&utm_content=covid_weekly_highlights&utm_medium=email

******************************************

Media Cartel Bill Is Bait and Switch to Strangle Conservative Outlets

The Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JPCA) is a bait-and-switch attempt that claims to help conservative news sources but would instead purge them from the marketplace of ideas, and Congress should reject it for the freedom-killer it is.

JCPA would give media companies—broadcast and print—an exemption from federal antitrust laws, so they can operate in a coordinated fashion to negotiate prices that social media companies like Facebook would have to pay them to carry their content. It would ensure that these tech billionaires would have to direct some of their riches into content providers.

But that’s a Big Boys’ game where the major players could decide who to let into their club. Smaller outlets would be left out in the cold, and the market would suffer.

This is because almost all of the Big Boys are liberal. For print, there’s The New York Times and The Washington Post. For video content providers, you have the networks, CNN, and MSNBC. The twin star performers owned by News Corp—Fox News Channel and the Wall Street Journal—are some of the only ones to the right of the 50-yard line.

The bill’s supporters say it would help small, conservative outlets like the one you’re reading now. No chance. I talk almost daily with friends on Capitol Hill, and I heard from them the names of a couple of hard-charging right-wing outlets who were supposed to be the beneficiaries of this legislation. But then I talked with the CEO of one of those companies and found out that no one had approached him on this bill before it was rolled out. (And for that matter, he opposes it.)

Aside from having done thousands of interviews over the past half-century, I used to be part owner of some radio stations and know how the media industry works. The reality is this: Media companies prefer cartels and monopolies, just like many other businesses.

This provides them a chance to have one without the lean and hungry conservative happy warriors. Offer a bill with the sales pitch that it will protect those citizen journalists, then have the big dogs circle the wagons on terms that the social giants must meet for huge corporations, but then keep those citizen journalists outside the circle.

That’s what this is—a classic bait and switch. News Corp would be fine under the JCPA and with it all of that company’s conservative voices. But there are as many moderates at Fox News and the Wall Street Journal as there are conservatives and more than a few liberals. Facebook couldn’t turn those outlets away, but that company might be the only right-of-center media company at that level. It would effectively give Fox and the Journal a monopoly on news that is not hard-left, which means that “conservative” would be whatever the Murdoch family says it means. People who get all their news from social media—and there’s an increasingly high number of those—would never hear voices like the ones who they are accustomed to reading at this outlet.

So JCPA would allow the liberal big media company to have a cartel with only one non-liberal company. All the plucky, intrepid conservative outlets could form their own cartel, but it would make up such a small slice of the media pie that social media could ignore them altogether.

If Facebook has to negotiate on a rate to carry news from outlets that are stridently conservative, they would just let the conservative outlets name a price—any price—agree to that price per piece, then rarely or never take any of their pieces. In theory, everything is okay because they have an agreement, but the big tech titans would just never pick up any content under the agreement.

https://townhall.com/columnists/kenblackwell/2021/03/24/media-cartel-bill-is-bait-and-switch-to-strangle-conservative-outlets-n2586809

********************************************

IN BRIEF

"Absolute power grab": Democrats' election overhaul extends far beyond ballot box (Washington Times)

Benefiting from chaos: Insurance companies, reaping shareholder benefits from protests, get in line with Black Lives Matter (Free Beacon)

Who actually wears the pants: White House elevates VP with "Biden-Harris Administration" directive in public communications (Washington Times)

Friendly fire: Democrat breaks with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on push to overturn Iowa election (Examiner)

GOP mounts defense against DC statehood as bill gets House hearing (Examiner)

Sidney Powell, who totally missed the forest for the trees, seeks dismissal of Dominion lawsuit (The Hill)

U.S. Treasury sanctions two top Chinese officials for "serious human rights abuses" of Uyghur Muslims (Daily Caller)

What a novel idea: Army pulls the pin on "gender-neutral" combat fitness test, creates separate tiers for men and women (Washington Times)

America last: Americans wait for COVID vaccines as U.S. commits millions of doses for neighboring countries (Fox News)

The data shows lockdowns end more lives than they save (NY Post)

Morgan Stanley requests employees fulfill "diversity" quota in job application process (Daily Wire)

Deloitte tells employees "microaggressions" are considered a punishable offense (Daily Wire)

Forty-five black intellectuals demand Smith College apologize to workers wrongly accused of "racial profiling" (National Review)

Policy: Earmarks represent corruption, waste, and The Swamp. Keep the ban in place. (Daily Signal)

On second thought... Majority of voters now want to finish Trump's wall as crisis intensifies (Washington Times)

Administration expelled just 13% of nearly 13,000 family members in past week (Axios)

Non compos mentis: Biden still hasn't nominated commissioner for agency that oversees the border (Examiner)

Montana governor understandably threatens legal action if feds fly migrants from southern border (Examiner)

BLM anarchists mob store in Rochester, New York, trapping 100 customers inside (Daily Wire)

Church of England may impose ethnic quota for clergy (Disrn)

Pandemic unemployment benefits fraud could top $200 billion (Fox Business)

Policy: The everything bubble: How a debt-driven economy creates more frequent crises (Mises Institute)

Double standards: Press Secretary Jen Psaki's sister gets cushy government job despite Biden's "no family members" pledge (National Pulse)

Once held hostage by teachers unions, West Virginia just passed the nation's broadest Education Savings Account program (The Federalist)

As predicted, a significant 5.6 percentage point increase in homeschooling rates in Fall 2020 (Census.gov)

Virginia, with second-most executions, outlaws death penalty (AP)

Workers file 684,000 jobless claims, fewest since the pandemic began (NY Post)

Illinois state senator who sponsored "no cash bail" law upset that man who threatened him with a gun was released on $,1500 "affordable bail" (TTAG)

Kamala Harris to discuss "empowering women" with womanizer Bill Clinton (White House Dossier)

Policy: Abolish the corporate income tax (City Journal)

Bump stocks not "machine guns" and not subject to ATF ban, federal appeals court rules (Washington Times)

Arkansas dignifies women, bans biological men from female sports (UPI)

Washington state to automatically restore voting rights for people on parole and probation (Axios)

San Francisco school board, which wasn't satisfied with her attempts to make amends, strips VP's title after anti-Asian tweets surface (Fox News)

Irony: Abe Lincoln statue vandalized by Black Lives Matter activist in Boise, Idaho (Daily Wire)

USC reaches $852 million sex abuse settlement involving former doctor and 710 female victims (UPI)

High school cancels teacher after she accurately disputes cause of George Floyd death during class (Disrn)

Parler says it repeatedly warned FBI about violence planned for January 6 (Daily Caller)

****************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS -- Daily)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

So much for the cue cards, Joe: Press conference fact check finds Biden made false claims about the border, sending back most migrants, and that Trump's tax cuts mainly benefited the 'top 1%'

The interesting thing about the report below is that it is from the mainstream media. So Biden is gradually losing some of them, it appears. His protective shield is developing holes

President Joe Biden misstated the reality at the U.S.-Mexico border and offered a misleading account of who's getting the most benefits from the Donald Trump tax cuts in his first presidential press conference.

Biden took questions for nearly an hour Thursday, answering multiple queries from the Associated Press, PBS, The Washington Post, ABC News, Wall Street Journal, NBC News, CBS News, CNN, Bloomberg and Univision.

He was grilled on a number of topics, including the situation at the border, the Senate filibuster, working with Republicans, his 2024 re-election plans and Afghanistan - but received no questions on the coronavirus pandemic or on relations with Russia amid rising tensions with the Kremlin or his stumbles as he climbed the Air Force One stairs.

DailyMail.com fact-checked Biden's claims and found many weren't entirely accurate.

ON MIGRANTS AT THE BORDER

BIDEN'S CLAIM: 'Nothing has changed' in the numbers of children coming to the United States since his predecessor, Donald Trump, was in office.

'As many people came - 28 per cent increase in children to the border in my administration; 31 per cent in the last year in 2019, before the pandemic - in the Trump administration,' Biden told reporters Thursday.

'It happens every single solitary year. There is a significant increase in the number of people coming to the border in the winter months of January, February, March. It happens every year.'

THE FACTS: The president erred. Unaccompanied immigrant children have come to the border at a higher percentage than what he said.

According to statistics published by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, authorities encountered 9,457 children without a parent in February, a 61 per cent increase from January, not 28 per cent. The numbers of unaccompanied children did rise 31 per cent between January 2019 and February 2019.

In response, the Homeland Security Department pointed to figures for all border crossings, including adults and families traveling together. There was a 28 per cent rise in all encounters with migrants between January and last month, compared with 31 per cent between the same months in 2019. But Biden specifically noted a rise 'in children.'

Biden correctly noted seasonal trends in migration and a tendency in many years for more border crossings before hot summer months. But while he tried to play down his inauguration as a reason many children and teenagers have decided to migrate to the U.S., people interviewed by The AP have expressed hope that the country would be more permissive to migrants under Biden than under Trump.

BIDEN'S CLAIM: His administration has been sending back the 'majority' of migrant families trying to cross into the US.

'We're sending back the vast majority of families that are coming. We're trying to work out now with Mexico their willingness to take those families back. That's what's happening. They're not getting across the border,' he said.

THE FACTS: Not true, at least not according to last month's figures, CNN reported.

The data shows only 41 per cent of immigrant families were turned away under Title 42, which allows the US Border Patrol to immediately expel any migrant to prevent the spread of COVID-19, in February.

It is true, however, that the majority of single adults, or 79 per cent, were sent back last month.

BIDEN'S CLAIM: That Donald Trump cut a $700 million bipartisan plan to address the root causes of why people are leaving their home countries. Biden said: 'What did Trump do? He eliminated that funding. He didn't use it. He didn't do it.'

THE FACTS: This is partially true, NBC News found. Trump did announce $700 million in aid cuts to Central American countries in 2019, but the State Department later restored the majority of that funding.

ON TRUMP'S TAX CUTS BENEFITS

BIDEN'S CLAIM: Republicans who contend his pandemic relief package is too expensive passed a tax cut favoring the top 1 per cent.

'Do you hear them complain when they passed (a) close to $2trillion Trump tax cut, with 83 per cent going to the top 1 per cent? Do you hear them talk about that at all?' Biden said.

THE FACTS: Biden's comments are misleading. The tax cuts disproportionately favor the top 1 per cent, but not nearly as much as Biden and many Democrats claim.

Biden can cite his figure because many of the Trump tax cuts for families and individuals will expire, unless Congress extends them. If they expire as scheduled, 83 per cent of the tax cuts that remain in place will go to the top 1 per cent of earners in 2027, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center.

But's it's not the case that the highest 1 per cent of income earners are getting 83 per cent of the benefits now or over the next several years. Biden is expected to propose a corporate tax increase that would undo a lot of what Trump achieved in his 2017 overhaul.

ON THE FILIBUSTER STASTICS

BIDEN'S CLAIM: There were five times as many motions to break the filibuster in 2020 than there were between 1917 and 1971.

'Between 1917 and 1971, the filibuster existed, there were a total of 58 motions to break a filibuster. That whole time. Last year alone there were five times that many,' the president said.

THE FACTS: Biden's figures are misleading. In 2020, the number of motions filed to end a Senate debate - a proxy measure for the use of the filibuster - was about double, not five times, the number from 1917 to 1971, CNN found.

According to official Senate data, there were 58 cloture motions filed from 1917 through 1970 and 13 filed in 1971. If Biden was referring to the number of cloture motions filed from 1917 through 1970, he'd be right when he said there were a total of 58 but if the 1971 figures are added in the total number of cloture motions would be 71.

While Biden exaggerated the number of cloture motions filed in the past year, he was accurate on his general point that the number of filibusters has increased. There were 118 cloture motions filed in 2020 alone, closer to double the amount filed between 1917 and 1971.

U.S. Border Patrol agents question asylum seekers after their group of immigrants crossed the Rio Grande into Texas +7
U.S. Border Patrol agents question asylum seekers after their group of immigrants crossed the Rio Grande into Texas

VACCINATION RATE IN THE US VERSUS THE REST OF THE WORLD

BIDEN'S CLAIM: He said that 'no other country in the world has even come close, not even close to what we are doing' on getting COVID vaccines into people's arms.

THE FACTS: The United States has vaccinated more total people than any other country in the world but there are smaller nations that have vaccinated a larger proportion of their total population.

The US has administered vaccines to more than 130 million people but 16 countries - including Chile, Israel and the United Kingdom - have administered vaccines to more people per capita.

THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN AND ECONOMIC GROWTH

BIDEN'S CLAIM: That since his $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan was signed passed a 'majority of forecasters have significantly increased their projections. Now projecting it will exceed 6%, a 6% growth in GDP.'

THE FACTS: It's true that many economists upgraded their 2021 gross domestic product forecasts north of 6% either just before or after the package was passed by Congress, CNN found, but it's hard to say whether a majority did without a survey of all economists.

As it was apparent the COVID relief plan would become law, several economists upgraded their forecasts of 2021 US GDP growth.

RSM chief economist Joe Brusuelas said the legislation would boost GDP by 3 points and is predicting 7.2% growth in 2021.

In March, Goldman Sachs increased its 2021 US GDP growth projection to 7% and Morgan Stanley is now predicting 7.3% growth.

REPUBLICAN SUPPORT FOR BIDEN'S COVID RELIEF PACKAGE

BIDEN'S CLAIM: The president claimed support from Republican voters for his plan even as he didn't garner a single GOP vote in Congress. He said that even if Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell says that 'the last thing I did, this last piece of legislation, is so far left, well, then he ought to take a look at his party. Over 50% of them must be over that edge as well. Because they support what I did.'

THE FACTS: While polls have shown Republicans support the American Rescue Plan multiple surveys have shown that level of support is below the majority level.

A CNN poll in March found 26% of Republican supported the plan while 73% opposed. A Monmouth University poll found Republican support at 33%.

CHEAT SHEETS

Additionally, images taken at the news conference showed Biden using cheat sheets to help him with the questioning.

The 78-year-old is seen holding one sheet that showed the headshots of journalists that he planned to call on.

Another cheat card listed stats about infrastructure, but Biden was still forced to correct himself after mistakenly saying the US ranked 85th in the world in infrastructure.

The bullet point on one of his notes read: 'The United States now ranks 13th globally in infrastructure quality, down from 5th place in 2002.'

The performance has been blasted by former President Donald Trump and a host of media commentators, including Sean Hannity who called it 'embarrassing' and said: 'We really need to ask who is running the show at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?'

Tripping up the stairs and forgetting his Pentagon chief's name: Biden's record of gaffes

AIR FORCE ONE SLIP-UP

Video last week showed Biden tripping up the stairs as he boarded Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews.

Biden grabbed the hand railing to catch his balance, but lost his footing twice more and fell to his knees.

White House Deputy Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre later told reporters that Biden was '100 per cent fine', adding that it was 'pretty windy'.

CALLING KAMALA 'PRESIDENT HARRIS'

Just a day earlier, Biden accidentally referred to Vice President Kamala Harris as 'President Harris.'

'Now when President Harris and I took a virtual tour of a vaccination center in Arizona not long ago, one of the nurses on that, on that tour injecting people, giving vaccinations, said that each shot was like administering a dose of hope,' Biden said.

Later that day, when the White House released the transcript of his speech, Harris's proper title was inserted with brackets.

FORGOT PENTAGON CHIEF'S NAME

In a speech on March 9, Biden seemed to forget the name of his Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin.

'I want to thank Sec - the former general - I keep calling him "General,"' Biden said.

'My - the guy who runs that outfit over there. I want to make sure we thank the Secretary for all he's done to try to implement what we've just talked about, and for recommending these two women for promotion.'

MIXES UP GRANDDAUGHTERS

During an Election Day speech in Philadelphia, Biden trailed off as he told the crowd: 'I want to introduce you to two of my granddaughters...this is my son, Beau Biden who a lot of you helped elect to the Senate in Delaware.'

The then-candidate had meant to introduce the crowd to Natalie, Beau's daughter. But he had also mixed up his granddaughters - having put his arm around Finnegan Biden, Hunter's daughter.

Beau Biden passed away in 2015 after a months-long battle with glioblastoma, one of the deadliest types of brain cancer.

TOLD STATE SENATOR IN WHEELCHAIR TO STAND UP

In 2008, after Biden had been named Barack Obama's running mate, he attended a campaign rally in Missouri. It was there that he called on Missouri state senator Chuck Graham, who passed away last year, to stand up for the crowd.

'I'm told Chuck Graham, state senator, is here. Stand up Chuck, let 'em see you,' Biden said - before realizing Graham was in a wheelchair due to muscular dystrophy.

'Oh, God love you. What am I talking about. I'll tell you what, you're making everybody else stand up, though, pal,' Biden corrected himself.

'I still think the majority of the American people don't like the fact that we are now ranked what, 85th in the world in infrastructure. I mean, look,' he said, before later circling back and clarifying: 'We rank 13th globally in infrastructure.'

Despite the cheat sheets, Biden at several points in the press conference appeared to lose his train of thought.

After speaking for four minutes about the surge of migrants at the border, he remarked, 'And the other thing we're doing, I might add...' before cutting himself off to ask, 'Am I giving you too long of an answer? Because if you don't want the detail …'

'I don't know how much detail you want about immigration,' he continued. 'Maybe I'll stop there.'

At another point, Biden was speaking at length about the Senate filibuster when he lost his train of thought again.

'I've never been particularly poor at calculating how to get things done in the United States Senate. So the best way to get something done, if you hold near and dear to you that you like to be able to…' he said, trailing off.

'Anyway, we're ready to get a lot done,' he then continued.

At another point in the press conference, things turned downright bizarre when Biden made a reference to 'Jim Eagle' when accusing Republicans of trying to restrict voting rights to disenfranchise black voters.

'So I'm convinced that we'll be able to stop this because it is the most pernicious thing. This makes Jim Crow look like Jim Eagle,' he said of voting restrictions.

Observers all seemed to agree that Biden was trying to make the point that restrictions such as voter ID laws are 'worse than Jim Crow' -- but the exact role of Jim Eagle in the analogy was lost on many.

Jim Crow refers to laws that enforced racial segregation in schools, public places, transportation and all aspect of public life in many U.S. states from the 1870s to the 1950s.

Biden's Jim Eagle remarks predictably drew mockery from conservative critics.

'Duh. It's an analogy. Crow, eagle. They're both birds, but an eagle is much bigger than a crow,' said Fox News host Tucker Carlson. 'That means that asking people to show a driver's license when they vote is much more racist than segregation and lynchings.'

'Segregation and lynchings were Jim Crow, voter ID laws are Jim Eagle -- way worse,' he added sarcastically.

Thursday's conversation was his first since he took office on January 20. It was also limited to 25 reporters.

At the one-hour press conference on Thursday, Biden called on just 10 reporters to ask questions, and many of them focused on the migrant crisis at the southern border, leaving little time for other subjects.

Though Biden addressed relations with China at length, he faced no questions about the ongoing investigation of the origins of COVID-19 -- or any other question about his pandemic response and vaccine rollout.

There were no questions about potential tax hikes to fund Biden's reported $3 trillion green infrastructure plan, and relations with Russia were left unmentioned despite recent tensions after Biden labeled Vladimir Putin a 'killer'.

Biden was also not asked to weigh in on New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, his fellow Democrat who faces twin scandals over his handling of nursing homes in the pandemic, and allegations of sexual harassment and bullying. This week, reports emerged he had also prioritized COVID-19 testing for family, including his CNN anchor brother Chris, and friends at the height of the pandemic when ordinary New Yorkers struggled to get access.

Parents desperate to get their children back in the classroom also did not get the chance to hear Biden's plan to reopen schools in the coronavirus pandemic.

Also unmentioned at the presser was a recent report from Politico detailing a 2018 incident in which the Secret Service intervened after president's daughter-in-law Hallie discarded a gun belonging to Hunter Biden in a trash can.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9403721/AP-FACT-CHECK-Biden-skews-figures-border-taxes.html

****************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************

Coronavirus: How the common cold can boot out Covid

The virus that causes the common cold can effectively boot the Covid virus out of the body's cells, say researchers.

Some viruses are known to compete in order to be the one that causes an infection. And University of Glasgow scientists say it appears cold-causing rhinovirus trumps coronavirus.

The benefits might be short-lived but rhinovirus is so widespread, they add, it could still help to suppress Covid.

Think of the cells in your nose, throat and lungs as being like a row of houses. Once a virus gets inside, it can either hold the door open to let in other viruses, or it can nail the door shut and keep its new home to itself.

Influenza is one of the most selfish viruses around, and nearly always infects alone. Others, such as adenoviruses, seem to be more up for a houseshare.

There has been much speculation about how the virus that causes Covid, known as Sars-CoV-2, would fit into the mysterious world of "virus-virus interactions".

The challenge for scientists is that a year of social distancing has slowed the spread of all viruses and made it much harder to study.

The team at the Centre for Virus Research in Glasgow used a replica of the lining of our airways, made out of the same types of cells, and infected it with Sars-CoV-2 and rhinovirus, which is one of the most widespread infections in people, and a cause of the common cold.

If rhinovirus and Sars-CoV-2 were released at the same time, only rhinovirus is successful. If rhinovirus had a 24-hour head start then Sars-CoV-2 does not get a look in. And even when Sars-CoV-2 had 24-hours to get started, rhinovirus boots it out.

"Sars-CoV-2 never takes off, it is heavily inhibited by rhinovirus," Dr Pablo Murcia told BBC News.

He added: "This is absolutely exciting because if you have a high prevalence of rhinovirus, it could stop new Sars-CoV-2 infections."

Similar effects have been seen before. A large rhinovirus outbreak may have delayed the 2009 swine flu pandemic in parts of Europe.

Further experiments showed rhinovirus was triggering an immune response inside the infected cells, which blocked the ability of Sars-CoV-2 to make copies of itself.

When scientists blocked the immune response, then levels of the Covid virus were the same as if rhinovirus was not there.

'Hard winter' ahead
However, Covid would be able to cause an infection again once the cold had passed and the immune response calmed down.

Dr Murcia said: "Vaccination, plus hygiene measures, plus the interactions between viruses could lower the incidence of Sars-CoV-2 heavily, but the maximum effect will come from vaccination."

Prof Lawrence Young, of Warwick Medical School, said human rhinoviruses, the most frequent cause of the common cold, were "highly transmissible".

He added that this study suggests "that this common infection could impact the burden of Covid-19 and influence the spread of SarsCoV2, particularly over the autumn and winter months when seasonal colds are more frequent".

Exactly how all this settles down in future winters is still unknown. Coronavirus is likely to still be around, and all the other infections that have been suppressed during the pandemic could bounce back as immunity to them wanes.

Dr Susan Hopkins, from Public Health England, has already warned of a "hard winter" as a result.

"We could see surges in flu. We could see surges in other respiratory viruses and other respiratory pathogens," she said,

The results have been published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56483445

****************************************

Pfizer and Moderna are safe and effective in pregnant women, provide antibodies to newborns

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are safe and effective in pregnant and lactating women and those women are able to pass protective antibodies to their newborns, according to a new study.

To come to that conclusion, researchers studied a group of 131 reproductive-age women who received the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, including 84 pregnant, 31 lactating and 16 non-pregnant women and found antibody levels were similar in all three groups.

"That's a very important piece of information to our patients," said Dr. Andrea Edlow, co-author on the study which was published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology on Thursday. "We know that this vaccine works for you."

Another common concern among pregnant patients is vaccine side effects. The study found no significant difference in vaccine side effects between pregnant and non-pregnant study participants.

Compared to pregnant women who had recovered from COVID, pregnant women who received the vaccine had "strikingly higher" antibody levels. Interestingly, women who received the Moderna version had greater antibody levels than those who received the Pfizer. Vaccine-generated antibodies were present in all of the umbilical cord and breast milk samples that were tested, which suggests that pregnant and lactating women pass COVID-19 protection to their fetuses or newborns.

"That is the most comforting piece of information that's out there," said Galit Alter, study author and professor of medicine at the Ragon Institute.

The antibodies that researchers found in the mother's blood were what's known as neutralizing, meaning they have the ability to kill SARS-CoV-2 in laboratory tests, but more research needs to be done to determine whether infants have robust immunity after receiving antibodies from their vaccinated mothers. Future research could also help women decide when the ideal time in pregnancy to get a vaccine is for maximum protective benefits and determine whether other vaccines, like Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca, perform similarly to the two in the study.

The study had some limitations. It was small and participants were primarily white health care workers from a single city. On the other hand, it's the largest study of a group that was left out of initial vaccine trials. Leaving pregnant women out of drug trials is a common practice because of safety concerns, but in the case of COVID-19, exclusion left many pregnant women confused about whether it was safe to get vaccinated.

"They're among the most vulnerable and they weren't included," Edlow said of the first vaccine trials.

Pregnancy is considered to be a risk factor for severe COVID-19, including increased risk for hospitalization and death from the virus, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As of March 22, more than 80,500 pregnant women in the United States had been infected with the virus and 88 had died, the CDC found.

Edlow, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, described trying to counsel pregnant patients during the pandemic without data.

"On a daily basis we're taking care of patients who want to know if the vaccine is effective in pregnancy and what the risks are," Edlow said. "Having real scientific data to counsel people on goes a long way toward relieving vaccine hesitancy," she added.

Both researchers hope that examples like their study encourage pharmaceutical companies to offer pregnant women the opportunity to participate in future vaccine studies, even beyond COVID-19.

"Otherwise this population sits at home cowering because they have no idea what to do," Alter said.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/pfizer-moderna-safe-effective-pregnant-women-provide-antibodies/story?id=76675301

*******************************************

The real anti-vaxxers

The clots in Brussels, Berlin and Paris have done far more to cast doubt on the vaccines than any internet troll.

‘Disinformation in times of the coronavirus can kill. We have a duty to protect our citizens by making them aware of false information, and expose the actors responsible for engaging in such practices.’ So said Josep Borell, high representative of the European Union, in June 2020.

Of course, the agents of disinformation this EU luminary had in mind were the kind of people the great and the good want to kick off social media and have beaten up or arrested when they gather in public. But over the past few months, the greatest source of Covid crankery has come, not from a fringe of anti-vaxxers, but from the clots that run Europe from Brussels, Berlin and Paris.

Europe’s leaders have been running a vicious smear campaign against the Oxford / AstraZeneca vaccine. President Macron – Europe’s Karen-in-chief – infamously pronounced the jab ‘quasi-ineffective’ in the elderly, even though it is 100 per cent effective at preventing severe disease from the virus. Similarly, the German government, via a leak to the financial paper Handelsblatt, tried to portray the AstraZeneca vaccine as just six per cent effective on the elderly. Its health agency banned use of the vaccine on anyone above the age of 65. This led the German chancellor Angela Merkel, aged 66, to announce she would not take the jab. She has, only this week, clarified that she would take it.

And in the past few weeks, European governments have hyped up the appearance of blood clots in some recipients of the jab. Despite the repeated insistence of even the European Medicines Agency – the EU health regulator – that the AstraZeneca vaccine is effective and safe, member state after member state suspended their use of the vaccine, supposedly following the ‘precautionary principle’. An Italian health official let the cat out of the bag, however, when he admitted that his own country’s suspension was ‘political’ rather than scientific – Italy was going along with decisions made in France and Germany. The Polish prime minister’s chief of staff went further, warning of a ‘planned disinformation campaign’ against the AstraZeneca vaccine.

The catastrophic consequences of this ‘disinformation campaign’ are now impossible to ignore. Europeans’ confidence in the AstraZeneca vaccine has plummeted in the past few weeks. A shocking 61 per cent of French people believe it is unsafe – up by 18 percentage points since the beginning of March. Majorities in Germany and Spain also – groundlessly – believe the vaccine is unsafe.

The EU’s vaccine rollout has been so badly botched that, according to Germany’s health minister, there aren’t enough doses to avoid a deadly ‘third wave’ of the virus (even as much of the continent remains in, or is returning to, strict lockdown). And yet, stockpiles of unused AstraZeneca vaccines are piling up. Some reports suggest that less than half of the doses in EU countries have actually been put to use, as Europeans cancel their appointments as soon as they learn they could be given the AstraZeneca jab. That compares to 70 per cent of available Pfizer doses which have ended up in Europeans’ arms. Germany currently has 1.4million unused AstraZeneca doses and France has 1.3million. Other EU countries have hundreds of thousands, or tens of thousands, of unused jabs. There is no question that Europe’s leaders have made a bad situation worse.

In an overly cautious Europe, a slower vaccine rollout means longer lockdowns. Longer lockdowns mean yet more economic pain for Europe’s beleaguered citizens. Goldman Sachs, Barclays, ING and Berenberg have all cut their growth forecasts for the eurozone’s economy. Another summer tourist season – vital for southern Europe in particular – could be lost to lockdown. Civil unrest will continue.

To distract from this catastrophe, EU leaders are threatening to block exports of certain ingredients needed for the AstraZeneca vaccine to the UK. Ursula von der Leyen has explicitly taken aim at ‘countries that have higher vaccination rates than us’ — ie, Brexit Britain. Expert analysis for the Guardian suggests that an EU export ban will delay the UK’s rollout by two months, but speed up the EU’s by just one week. Besides, the vaccine von der Leyen and others are desperate to seize is the same one they have been publicly trashing as useless and dangerous.

It’s not just Europe that will pay the price for the EU’s psychotic anti-vaccination crusade. Africa is far more dependent on the AstraZeneca jab than anywhere else in the world. Given its low cost ($3 per dose compared to $6.75 for a Pfizer dose and $10 for a Janssen dose), as well as the ease with which it can be stored and transported, the AstraZeneca jab is the obvious choice for vaccinating the world. As the New Statesman points out, Africa could be where European disinformation does the most damage. Not only does Africa have a great deal of vaccine hesitancy to overcome in some countries, but the African Union also relies on AstraZeneca for three-quarters of its vaccine doses (compared to just one quarter for the EU and the UK).

Africa has already suffered disproportionately during the pandemic, even though the coronavirus itself has killed far fewer people than in rich and middle-income countries. Lockdowns have caused health crises which are orders of magnitude worse than Covid-19. For instance, they have set back the fight against tuberculosis by 12 years. Progress against malaria and HIV has also been disrupted. Thanks to the economic carnage – partly local, partly global – an additional 59million Africans are predicted to fall below the extreme poverty line this year, if the Covid pandemic is not contained. And yet European leaders have recklessly sabotaged the only effective weapon against the pandemic in the developing world.

EU propagandists like to portray their favourite institution as enlightened, open and rational – a defender of science and stability. In reality, the EU has become more deranged and dangerous than any basement-dwelling conspiracy theorist or internet troll.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/03/23/the-real-anti-vaxxers/

****************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*************************************