3rd major COVID-19 vaccine shown to be effective and cheaper

Drugmaker AstraZeneca says that late-stage trials show its COVID-19 vaccine is highly effective, buoying the prospects of a relatively cheap, easy-to-store product that may become the vaccine of choice for the developing world

The results are based on an interim analysis of trials in the U.K. and Brazil of a vaccine developed by Oxford University and manufactured by AstraZeneca. No hospitalizations or severe cases of COVID-19 were reported in those receiving the vaccine.

AstraZeneca is the third major drug company to report late-stage data for a potential COVID-19 vaccine as the world waits for scientific breakthroughs that will end a pandemic that has pummeled the world economy and led to 1.4 million deaths. But unlike the others, the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine doesn’t have to be stored at freezer temperatures, making it potentially easier to distribute, especially in developing countries..

“I think these are really exciting results,” Dr. Andrew Pollard, chief investigator for the trial, said at a news conference. “Because the vaccine can be stored at fridge temperatures, it can be distributed around the world using the normal immunization distribution system. And so our goal … to make sure that we have a vaccine that was accessible everywhere, I think we’ve actually managed to do that.”

The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine was 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in one of the dosing regimens tested; it was less effective in another. Earlier this month, rival drugmakers Pfizer and Moderna reported preliminary results from late-stage trials showing their vaccines were almost 95% effective.

While the AstraZeneca vaccine can be stored at 2 degrees to 8 degrees Celsius (36 degrees to 46 degrees Fahrenheit), the Pfizer and Moderna products must be stored at freezer temperatures. In Pfizer’s case, it must be kept at the ultra-cold temperature of around minus-70 degrees Celsius (minus-94 Fahrenheit).

The AstraZeneca vaccine is also cheaper.

AstraZeneca, which has pledged it won’t make a profit on the vaccine during the pandemic, has reached agreements with governments and international health organizations that put its cost at about $2.50 a dose. Pfizer’s vaccine costs about $20, while Moderna’s is $15 to $25, based on agreements the companies have struck to supply their vaccines to the U.S. government.

All three vaccines must be approved by regulators before they can be widely distributed.

Oxford researchers and AstraZeneca stressed they weren’t competing with other projects and said multiple vaccines would be needed to reach enough of the world’s population to end the pandemic.

“We need to be able to make a lot of vaccine for the world quickly, and it’s best if we can do it with different technologies so that if one technology runs into a roadblock, then we’ve got alternatives, we’ve got diversity,” professor Sarah Gilbert, a leader of the Oxford team, told The Associated Press. “Diversity is going to be good here, but also in terms of manufacturing, we don’t want to run out of raw materials.”

AstraZeneca said it will immediately apply for early approval of the vaccine where possible, and it will seek an emergency use listing from the World Health Organization, so it can make the vaccine available in low-income countries.

The AstraZeneca trial looked at two different dosing regimens. A half-dose of the vaccine followed by a full dose at least one month later was 90% effective. Another approach, giving patients two full doses one month apart, was 62% effective.

That means that, overall, when both ways of dosing are considered, the vaccine showed an efficacy rate of 70%.

Gilbert said researchers aren’t sure why giving a half-dose followed by a larger dose was more effective, and they plan to investigate further. But the answer is probably related to providing exactly the right amount of vaccine to get the best response, she said.

“It’s the Goldilocks amount that you want, I think, not too little and not too much. Too much could give you a poor quality response as well …,” she said. “I’m glad that we looked at more than one dose because it turns out to be really important.”

The vaccine uses a weakened version of a common cold virus that is combined with genetic material for the characteristic spike protein of the virus that causes COVID-19. After vaccination, the spike protein primes the immune system to attack the virus if it later infects the body.

Peter Openshaw, professor of experimental medicine at Imperial College London, said the finding that a smaller initial dose is more effective than a larger one is good news because it may reduce costs and mean more people can be vaccinated with a given supply of the vaccine.

“The report that an initial half-dose is better than a full dose seems counterintuitive for those of us thinking of vaccines as normal drugs: With drugs, we expect that higher doses have bigger effects, and more side-effects,” he said. “But the immune system does not work like that.”

The results reported Monday come from trials in the U.K. and Brazil that involved 23,000 people. Of those, 11,636 people received the vaccine — while the rest got a placebo.

Overall, there were 131 cases of COVID-19. Details on how many people in the various groups became ill weren’t released Monday, but researchers said they will be published in the next 24 hours.

Late-stage trials of the vaccine are also underway in the U.S., Japan, Russia, South Africa, Kenya and Latin America, with further trials planned for other European and Asian countries.

Researchers said they expect to add the half dose-full dose regimen to the U.S. trial in a “matter of weeks.’’ Before doing so they must discuss the changes with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The AstraZeneca trials were paused earlier this year after a participant in the U.K. study reported a rare neurological illness. While the trials were quickly restarted in most countries after investigators determined the condition wasn’t related to the vaccine, the FDA delayed the U.S. study for more than a month before it was allowed to resume.

AstraZeneca has been ramping up manufacturing capacity, so it can supply hundreds of millions of doses of the vaccine starting in January, Chief Executive Pascal Soriot said earlier this month.

Soriot said Monday that the Oxford vaccine’s simpler supply chain and AstraZeneca’s commitment to provide it on a nonprofit basis during the pandemic mean it will be affordable and available to people around the world.

“This vaccine’s efficacy and safety confirm that it will be highly effective against COVID-19 and will have an immediate impact on this public health emergency,’’ Soriot said.

British Health Secretary Matt Hancock said he felt “a great sense of relief” at the news from AstraZeneca.

Britain has ordered 100 million doses of the vaccine, and the government says several million doses can be produced before the end of the year if it is approved by regulators.

Just months ago, “the idea that by November we would have three vaccines, all of which have got high effectiveness … I would have given my eye teeth for,” Hancock said.

From the beginning of their collaboration with AstraZeneca, Oxford scientists have demanded that the vaccine be made available equitably to everyone in the world so rich countries can’t corner the market as has happened during previous pandemics.

Leaders of the world’s most powerful nations on Sunday agreed to work together to ensure “affordable and equitable access” to COVID-19 drugs, tests and vaccines.

“If we don’t have the vaccine available in many, many countries, and we just protect a small number of them, then we can’t go back to normal because the virus is going to keep coming back and causing problems again,” Gilbert said. “No one is safe until we’re all safe.”

https://www.breitbart.com/news/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-highly-effective-prevention/

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

Biden’s ‘Build Back Better’ Plan Is Central Planning on Steroids

For more than two centuries, the American economy has been predicated upon free-market capitalism, which has led to the United States becoming the most prosperous and innovative nation in the history of the world.

However, the free-market engine that has fueled unprecedented American ingenuity and wealth creation could be in jeopardy. And it might happen sooner than you think.

According to Joe Biden’s economic agenda, known as the Build Back Better plan, “This is the moment to imagine and build a new American economy for our families and the next generation.”

Biden’s new American economy would be made possible via an influx of government spending, central planning, and regulations on the fossil fuel industry, among others.

However, to actually build a new American economy, it would also include dispensing with many of the principles and policies that created the current American economy. This would be unwise.

To accomplish these joint objectives, Biden has laid out an audacious agenda, which he claims “will mobilize the American people in service of four bold, national efforts to address four great national challenges.”

Before diving into his four bold, national efforts, it is disconcerting that Biden believes the national government, which has a long track record of failed economic interventions, would be capable of accomplishing such a monumental (and unnecessary) task.

Among his four bold, national efforts, first and foremost, Biden plans to “build a strong industrial base and small-business-led supply chains to retain and create millions of good-paying union jobs in manufacturing and technology across the country.”

As stated above, this would be best accomplished by the free-market instead of the national government. Time after time, the federal government has attempted to “create millions of good-paying jobs” and almost all of these attempts have failed.

From FDR’s New Deal policies to alleviate the Great Depression to Obama’s massive stimulus to cure the ails of the Great Recession, the national government has been unable to jumpstart the economy. In the midst of the pandemic-induced downturn, this same logic would apply.

Second, Biden plans to “meet the climate crisis, build a clean energy economy, address environmental injustice, and create millions of good-paying union jobs.”

Again, this is outside the purview of the national government. And if history is any guide, the national government’s recent attempts to subsidize green energy projects, such as Solyndra, have been less than stellar. Innovation is best accomplished through tinkering and trial-and-error, not via bureaucrats with gobs of money to waste.

The third pillar of Biden’s Build Back Better plan would provide free childcare, enhanced compensation for teachers, and more resources for those who care for the elderly.

Although this is laudable, it would do little to reignite America’s economy. And the nation cannot afford it, given our national debt exceeds $27 trillion.

The fourth and final part of his plan is perhaps the most insidious. According to his website, Biden would “pursue a dedicated agenda to close the racial wealth gap, to expand affordable housing, to invest in Black, Latino, and Native American entrepreneurs and communities, to advance policing and criminal justice reform, and to make real the promise of educational opportunity regardless of race or zip code.”

As covered previously, the federal government can ill afford to expand upon its already extensive social safety net programs. And like most of his proposals, much of these would be much better accomplished at the local level. And if Biden is concerned with educational opportunity, especially in minority communities, he would advocate for school choice, instead of doubling-down on failed government schools.

Biden’s Build Back Better plan is heavy on the rhetoric, light on specifics, and hopelessly misguided. If implemented in full, it would add more federal government oversight and spending in a time when the opposite approach would be a better path.

Instead of cajoling Americans into pursuing four bold, national agendas, we would all be better off if we were left to our own devices, while pursuing our own life, liberty, and happiness.

https://townhall.com/columnists/christalgo/2020/11/17/bidens-build-back-better-plan-is-central-planning-on-steroids-n2580190

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

IN BRIEF

Trump campaign appeals Pennsylvania judge's decision to dismiss lawsuit that seeks to delay certifying election results (CBS News) and also requests second Georgia recount (NR)

Trump is running out of time as key states set to certify Biden victory (NPR)

Joe Biden to name Antony Blinken as secretary of state (USA Today)

Ilhan Omar suggests Biden should "reverse" Trump's Middle East agreements (Fox News)

Despite CDC travel warnings, one million pass through U.S. airports Friday (USA Today)

Operation Warp Speed advisor expects vaccine to ship mid-December, herd immunity by May (NY Post)

Mike Pompeo meets Taliban leaders ahead of planned U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan (Free Beacon)

Saudi Arabia should be a "partner" on any future nuclear deal with Iran, foreign minister says (CNBC)

U.S. officially pulls out of Open Skies Treaty with Russia over its blatant violations (Washington Times)

Weekend violence in Chicago leaves 47 shot, five dead (Fox News)

Oregon's nanny governor urges residents to tattle-tale by calling cops on shutdown violators (Washington Times)

California's clown governor exempts entertainment industry from COVID restrictions (Daily Wire)

Nevada governor issues three-week "statewide pause" as COVID cases surge (Fox News)

No joke: Andrew Cuomo will receive Emmy for coronavirus TV briefings (NY Post)

Powerful and connected New York City Democrats break COVID rules because they can (Not the Bee)

Appeals court rules Tennessee can outlaw abortions based on "sex, race, or disability" (Disrn)

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

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)

http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC) Saturdays only

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

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

‘Experts’ Listed 27 House Races As Toss-Ups. Republicans Won All 27

On Monday, Burgess Owens, a former NFL player and vocal critic of Colin Kaepernick, was declared the winner of Utah’s 4th Congressional District.

Despite running against an incumbent and trailing by 11% in final polling, Owens prevailed in a race deemed a “toss-up” by Cook Political Report, a “nonpartisan” election and campaign analysis group popular among legacy media outlets.

Ahead of the 2020 election, Cook listed 27 races as “toss-ups,” meaning they were too close to predict one way or the other. Republicans won all 27.

That’s not a typo. Despite being assured by that conservatism was about to drown beneath an impending “blue wave,” Republicans won every single close race.

Republicans also won all 26 races deemed “leaning or likely Republican,” and even picked up 7 of the 36 seats listed as “leaning or likely Democrat.”

Despite nearly unanimous predictions that Democrats would further cement control of the House, they now hold just a 218-204 advantage, with Republicans poised to pick up more seats, as they lead in 8 of the remaining 13 races.

Republican dominance in supposedly 50-50 districts is yet another reminder of just how wrong polls were in 2020, and how wrong they have been for some time. What should embarrass pollsters most, though, is not the fact that they were wrong, but how one-sided they were in the process.

Across the board, pollsters routinely underrepresented support for Republicans while falsely painting a picture of impending Democrat dominance. Are the American people supposed to think that it’s a coincidence that nearly every time a poll missed the mark in 2020 — which was often — it was in favor of Democrats?

How many state and federal races were impacted by incorrect polling that showed stronger support for Democrats than actually existed? Think of the donors who refrained from giving to a candidate because the polls indicated that the race was already over. How many candidates missed out on key endorsements or support from outside entities because they were viewed as a lost cause?

We’ll never know the answer to these questions, but what we do know is that pollsters will continue to mislead and misinform so long as they have a media willing to prop them up. It’s a cycle we’ve seen far too often: the leftist legacy media creates a narrative, then promotes polls which reinforce that narrative. When the polls turn out to be an inaccurate representation of reality — like in 2016, 2018 and 2020 — the media quickly moves on to the next news cycle, never taking responsibility or facing retribution for the error in their ways.

Will the American people ever wake up and demand more? Will they stop funding the legacy media which propagates the failed predictions of pollsters en masse? Right now, it’s hard to say. I guess you could call it a toss-up.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/experts-listed-27-house-races-as-toss-ups-republicans-won-all-27

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

Biden’s ‘Build Back Better’ Plan Is Central Planning on Steroids

For more than two centuries, the American economy has been predicated upon free-market capitalism, which has led to the United States becoming the most prosperous and innovative nation in the history of the world.

However, the free-market engine that has fueled unprecedented American ingenuity and wealth creation could be in jeopardy. And it might happen sooner than you think.

According to Joe Biden’s economic agenda, known as the Build Back Better plan, “This is the moment to imagine and build a new American economy for our families and the next generation.”

Biden’s new American economy would be made possible via an influx of government spending, central planning, and regulations on the fossil fuel industry, among others.

However, to actually build a new American economy, it would also include dispensing with many of the principles and policies that created the current American economy. This would be unwise.

To accomplish these joint objectives, Biden has laid out an audacious agenda, which he claims “will mobilize the American people in service of four bold, national efforts to address four great national challenges.”

Before diving into his four bold, national efforts, it is disconcerting that Biden believes the national government, which has a long track record of failed economic interventions, would be capable of accomplishing such a monumental (and unnecessary) task.

Among his four bold, national efforts, first and foremost, Biden plans to “build a strong industrial base and small-business-led supply chains to retain and create millions of good-paying union jobs in manufacturing and technology across the country.”

As stated above, this would be best accomplished by the free-market instead of the national government. Time after time, the federal government has attempted to “create millions of good-paying jobs” and almost all of these attempts have failed.

From FDR’s New Deal policies to alleviate the Great Depression to Obama’s massive stimulus to cure the ails of the Great Recession, the national government has been unable to jumpstart the economy. In the midst of the pandemic-induced downturn, this same logic would apply.

Second, Biden plans to “meet the climate crisis, build a clean energy economy, address environmental injustice, and create millions of good-paying union jobs.”

Again, this is outside the purview of the national government. And if history is any guide, the national government’s recent attempts to subsidize green energy projects, such as Solyndra, have been less than stellar. Innovation is best accomplished through tinkering and trial-and-error, not via bureaucrats with gobs of money to waste.

The third pillar of Biden’s Build Back Better plan would provide free childcare, enhanced compensation for teachers, and more resources for those who care for the elderly.

Although this is laudable, it would do little to reignite America’s economy. And the nation cannot afford it, given our national debt exceeds $27 trillion.

The fourth and final part of his plan is perhaps the most insidious. According to his website, Biden would “pursue a dedicated agenda to close the racial wealth gap, to expand affordable housing, to invest in Black, Latino, and Native American entrepreneurs and communities, to advance policing and criminal justice reform, and to make real the promise of educational opportunity regardless of race or zip code.”

As covered previously, the federal government can ill afford to expand upon its already extensive social safety net programs. And like most of his proposals, much of these would be much better accomplished at the local level. And if Biden is concerned with educational opportunity, especially in minority communities, he would advocate for school choice, instead of doubling-down on failed government schools.

Biden’s Build Back Better plan is heavy on the rhetoric, light on specifics, and hopelessly misguided. If implemented in full, it would add more federal government oversight and spending in a time when the opposite approach would be a better path.

Instead of cajoling Americans into pursuing four bold, national agendas, we would all be better off if we were left to our own devices, while pursuing our own life, liberty, and happiness.

https://townhall.com/columnists/christalgo/2020/11/17/bidens-build-back-better-plan-is-central-planning-on-steroids-n2580190

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

The red elephants – there is undeniable mathematical evidence the election is being stolen

President Trump does not plan to concede in the event that the media declares Joe Biden the winner of the election, and elected the 46th president of the United States. The Trump campaign and it’s top advisers called for multiple lawsuits on the grounds that the ongoing vote count would result in tallying illegally cast ballots.

The lawsuits will amount to an aggressive effort to highlight anomalies, statistical impossibilities, or other perceived problems that could affect vote counts before a final presidential winner is declared.

Many reporters at press conferences that took place in Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Michigan on Thursday asked his political appointees and supporters for evidence of the wide-scale problems they alleged occurred.

If it is just the mathematical evidence Americans are looking for, there is endless evidence. Here are just the facts.

Statistical Impossibilities in Wisconsin and Michigan
In both Michigan and Wisconsin, several vote dumps occurred at approximately 4 AM on Wednesday morning, which showed that Joe Biden received almost 100 percent of the votes. President Trump was leading by hundreds of thousands of votes in both states as America went to sleep, and turnout in the state of Wisconsin seems to be particularly impossible.

The voter turnout in Wisconsin apparently annihilated the historical record of 66.8% by almost 30 percentage points.

Statistical analysts have noted that this five point deviation was not only a statistical improbability, but a virtual statistical impossibility.

The odds of this occurring are 0.00000189% or one in 52,910,052.

Wisconsin Voter Turnout (foto Red Elephants)
Some claim that this is because of same day registration, however 20 other states allow same day registration, and results within those states were not close to reaching a turnout this unprecedented. Additionally, it is highly dubious that hundreds of wards suddenly doubled their voter registration in a single election year.

With absentee ballots, former vice president Joe Biden was also 60 points in Pennsylvania and almost 40 points in Michigan According to the New York Times. Comparably, Biden was only up single digits in absentee voting in most other battleground states. Wisconsin has not yet been reported.

2020 Absentee (Mail In) Voting Advantage (%) to Biden (foto Red Elephants)
Elections officials in Michigan and Wisconsin could not explain Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s sudden and dramatic vote tally increase that occurred in both states Wednesday morning.

Voter tallies from both states spiked at around 6 AM. in favor of Biden, according to graphs of live tallies posted by FiveThirtyEight (https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/2020-election-results-coverage/).

When asked at a Wednesday press conference how this occurred, Michigan Department of State spokesperson Aneta Kiersnowski told reporters “We cannot speculate as to why the results lean one way or another.”

This is particularly concerning considering republicans led in mail in ballots requested and mail in and in person ballots returned leading up to and at the start of election day

According to NBC News (https://archive.is/xfMQh) on election day before the polls opened, In Michigan, Republicans led 41% to 39% in Mail in Ballots requested. Republicans also led 42% to 39% with Mail in and in person ballots returned.

In Wisconsin on election day before the polls opened, Republicans led Mail in Ballots requested 43% to 35%, and Mail in and early in person ballots returned 43% to 35%. Almost ALL of the ballots found, while most in the country were sleeping, after they officials stated they would stop counting, were for Joe Biden.

Michigan Election Results 2020 (2) (foto Red Elephants)
Some statistically savvy observers noticed other mathematical flaws, as random numbers in statistics should follow a pattern in their distribution. If the numbers are falsified, it is easy to detect.

https://robscholtemuseum.nl/the-red-elephants-there-is-undeniable-mathematical-evidence-the-election-is-being-stolen/

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

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)

http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC) Saturdays only

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

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

US authorities grant emergency approval to Regeneron treatment given to Trump

New York: The Food and Drug Administration has granted emergency authorisation for the experimental antibody treatment given to President Donald Trump shortly after he was diagnosed with COVID-19, giving doctors another option to treat COVID-19 patients as cases across the country continue to rise.

The treatment, made by the biotech company Regeneron, is a cocktail of two powerful antibodies, casirivimab and imdevimab, that have shown promise in early studies at keeping the infection in check, reducing medical visits in patients who get the drug early in the course of their disease. A similar treatment, made by Eli Lilly, was given emergency approval earlier this month.

The emergency authorisation for Regeneron's drug is limited in scope: It is for people who have tested positive for the coronavirus and who are at high risk for developing severe COVID-19. Evidence so far suggests that antibody treatments work best early in the course of the disease, before the virus has gained a foothold in the body. Like Eli Lilly's treatment, Regeneron's is not authorised for use in people who are hospitalised or who need oxygen.

The emergency authorisation raises immediate questions about who will get access to the treatments as an average of more than 168,000 people are diagnosed each day with COVID-19 in the United States and hospitals are running out of beds in some regions of the country. Regeneron has said it will have enough of the drug for only about 80,000 people by the end of November, enough for 200,000 patients by the first week of January, and 300,000 by the end of January. After that, the company said, it will be able to ramp up production thanks to a partnership with Swiss manufacturer Roche.

Regeneron has received more than $US500 million ($685 million) from the federal government to develop and manufacture the treatments. Although the first 300,000 doses will be provided free, patients may be charged for having the treatment administered; it must be infused in a clinic or hospital. For some Medicare beneficiaries, that cost would be $US60, depending on the patient's coverage plan.

Antibody treatments have gotten less attention than vaccines, but health officials have long held out hope that they may serve as a possible bridge until a coronavirus vaccine is more broadly available. Two vaccines, one made by Pfizer and another by Moderna, were recently shown to be more than 90% effective in early analyses. Pfizer, which has completed its trial, submitted an application Friday for emergency authorisation of the vaccine, and Moderna said it planned to apply soon. Still, it will be weeks before a vaccine is available, and even then, access will be limited to people in high-risk groups.

Dr George Yancopoulos, Regeneron's president and chief scientific officer, said in a statement that he was encouraged by the recent vaccine results but that "there remains a need to treat patients who develop COVID-19, especially as some may not have had access to or were not protected by vaccination."

Regeneron enjoyed a burst of publicity in October, when Trump received an infusion of its cocktail and then enthusiastically promoted the drug as lending him a superpower-like feeling. In a video released October 7, the president claimed without evidence that it had cured him and that he had authorised it — something he does not have the power to do.

It remains impossible to know whether the Regeneron treatment helped Trump. He was given multiple drugs while at Walter Reed National Military Medical Centre, and many people recover from the virus on their own.

Since the spring, White House and health officials have been closely watching the development of the antibody treatments. In addition to Regeneron's deal with the federal government, Eli Lilly announced a $US375,000 deal in October to supply the government with 300,000 doses.

A similar antibody treatment that Regeneron developed to fight Ebola was approved by the FDA in October, bolstering confidence that its COVID-19 version would prevail in the ongoing trials of outpatients.

The president and two of his top advisers — Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, and Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law — have called Dr Stephen Hahn, the FDA commissioner, to press for speed in agency reviews. And Dr. Leonard Schleifer, the billionaire co-founder and chief executive of Regeneron, who has known Trump casually for years, has told associates that Trump calls him to ask about the status of the treatment.

Early data released by Regeneron suggest that its cocktail works best in people who do not appear to be mounting an early immune response to the virus, or who have high levels of the virus, and who are therefore at greater risk of faring poorly.

But early evidence also shows that the antibody treatments do not work well once people are sick enough to be hospitalised. Eli Lilly stopped giving its treatment to hospitalised patients in a government-run trial because, it said, it did not seem to be helping those patients. And Regeneron paused enrolling the sickest hospitalised patients in one of its trials.

This causes a challenge for distributing the drugs, since they are only authorised for people who are not hospitalised yet must be infused intravenously in a clinic or hospital.

Regeneron has suggested that the people who benefit the most from the treatment are those who have not yet mounted an antibody response and who also have high viral loads — but learning who those people are would require separate tests that are not routinely given to patients who test positive for the virus. Company executives have acknowledged that at first, such tests may not be available, and the emergency authorisation notes that people at high risk include those who are over 65 or have underlying conditions such as obesity or diabetes.

Getting the treatment to the right people will require quick turnarounds in testing, as well as coordination among federal, state and hospital officials — many of the same challenges that have complicated the U.S. response to the pandemic.

The distributor AmerisourceBergen will deliver Regeneron's treatment on a weekly schedule based on the number of COVID-19 cases in each state. The federal government plans to work with state health officials to determine which hospitals and clinics should receive it.

In a call with reporters this month to outline how the Eli Lilly treatment would be distributed, Janet Woodcock, a top federal drug official, said the administration was working with hospitals and infusion companies, and acknowledged the logistical complexity of a drug that takes an hour to administer, followed by an hour of observation. The hospitals and clinics will also have to figure out how to safely treat infectious patients without exposing other people to the virus.

"We're all going to need to get the word out that people at high risk have a therapeutic option now as outpatients, because until this point people have been told to stay home unless they get very sick," she said.

The emergency use authorisation, or EUA, was previously an obscure corner of regulatory law that mostly escaped broad public attention. But during the pandemic, it has become a centrepiece of the administration's health policy: Since February, the agency has granted hundreds of emergency authorisations related to COVID-19, many for diagnostic tests and others for personal protective equipment, blood-purification devices, ventilators and therapies.

In signing off on the emergency authorisations, FDA scientists in the agency's Office of Infectious Diseases had to weigh the need for clear evidence that the treatments worked with the increasing desperation for useful drugs as the pandemic accelerated again in the United States. Unlike a full FDA approval, which requires a rigorous vetting of clinical trial data showing a drug is safe and effective, an emergency authorisation simply requires the potential benefits of a drug to outweigh its risks.

The emergency authorisation for Regeneron may still have the unintended effect of complicating the role of clinical trials in proving the treatment's effectiveness for different age groups. If the drug becomes available more broadly, fewer people may want to sign up for clinical trials and risk the possibility that they may receive a placebo

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/us-authorities-grant-emergency-approval-to-regeneron-treatment-given-to-trump-20201122-p56gt9.html

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

Masks 'DON'T stop you getting Covid': Top experts criticise 'troubling lack of evidence' to justify wearing them after major Danish study concluded they don't protect the wearer

Top scientists have warned there is a 'troubling lack of evidence' that face masks prevent Covid-19 infection, after a major study in Denmark found they don't protect people who wear them.

Governments around the world — including the UK — have made it mandatory to wear a face covering in indoor public spaces, despite a dearth of rigorous trials into their effectiveness.

The rationale has been that masks must be better than nothing because they block at least some virus being exhaled or inhaled by the wearer.

But a randomised study published by scientists at Copenhagen University, thought to be the best of its kind so far, found no statistical evidence that they offer any protection whatsoever.

Reacting to the finding in a column in The Spectator today, Oxford University's Professor Carl Heneghan and Dr Tom Jefferson said there had been 'a troubling lack of robust evidence on face masks and Covid-19'.

There have only been three 'real life' studies comparing mask-wearers to non-mask-wearers — one in Guinea-Bissau, one in India and the new Denmark study. All have shown masks to have no benefit in preventing the disease.

But the experts added: 'Now we have properly rigorous scientific research we can rely on, the evidence shows wearing masks in the community does not significantly reduce the rates of infection.'

The Copenhagen experts recruited 6,000 volunteers in the spring — before masks were mandatory there — and split the them into two groups, with half wearing masks in public and half not.

After a month, the mask-wearing volunteers were tested for current and previous Covid-19 infection and compared with the control group who didn't wear them.

Results showed that, after one month, 1.8 per cent of the people wearing masks had been infected with the virus.

By comparison, 2.1 per cent of the people in the unmasked group had tested positive for Covid-19. The difference between the two groups was not found to be statistically significant.

'The study does not confirm the expected halving of the risk of infection for people wearing face masks,' the authors wrote in a press release.

'The results could indicate a more moderate degree of protection of 15 to 20 [percent], however, the study could not rule out that face masks do not provide any protection.'

The team, from Copenhagen University Hospital, said the findings should not be used to argue against their widespread use, however, because masks may prevent people infecting others.

The results from the Danish study - called Danmask-19 - mirror the findings of studies into influenza.

Nine other trials looking at the efficacy of masks on influenza have found that masks make little or no difference in whether people catch the virus.

Professor Heneghan and Dr Jefferson added: 'The low number of studies into the effect different interventions have on the spread of Covid-19 – a subject of global importance – suggests there is a total lack of interest from governments in pursuing evidence-based medicine.'

They said the only trials which have shown masks to be effective in stopping airborne diseases have been 'observation studies' which are considered a much less accurate form of research.

In these studies, scientists compare people who normally wear masks with people who say they don't, rather than attempting to create a randomised control group.

The experts said these types of studies are flawed because 'in the heat of a pandemic, not very many people will recall if and when they used masks and at what distance they kept from others'.

Previous studies have concluded similar findings, saying masks provide only limited protection for the person wearing it, but can dramatically reduce the risk to others if the wearer is infected, even when showing no symptoms.

But some experts disagree and say they are weaknesses to the study such as the authors not independently verifying mask use or that users wore them correctly.

'There is absolutely no doubt that masks work as source control,' Dr Thomas Frieden, former director of the CDC, who wrote in an editorial.

'The question this study was designed to answer is: Do they work as personal protection? An N95 mask is better than a surgical mask. A surgical mask is better than most cloth masks. A cloth mask is better than nothing.'

Last week, the CDC updated its guidelines saying masks protect wearers from contracting COVID-19, not just those around them.

Health officials said cloth masks block droplets from being exhaled by the wearer and also provide 'filtration for personal protection' by preventing droplets from reaching others.

The team from the new study says the findings 'should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8966883/Masks-DONT-stop-spread-Covid-experts-criticise-troubling-lack-evidence.html

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

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)

http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC) Saturdays only

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

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

What they DON'T tell you about Covid: Fewer beds taken up than last year, deaths a fraction of the grim forecasts, 95% of fatalities had underlying causes

How accurate were the Government’s grim predictions?

The short answer is: not very. In a July report commissioned by Chief Scientific Adviser Sir Patrick Vallance, scientists estimated that there could be 119,000 deaths if a second spike coincided with a peak of winter flu. Yesterday, that figure stood at 54,286 – less than half that.

In fact, the second peak seems to have passed – over the past week there has been an average of 22,287 new infections a day, down from 24,430 the week before.

In mid-September, Sir Patrick made the terrifying claim that the UK could see 50,000 new coronavirus cases a day by mid-October unless more draconian restrictions were introduced. Yet we have never got near that figure.

What about its prophecies on deaths?

Ditto. Its warnings simply don’t bear any relation to reality.

During the ‘Halloween horror show’ press conference used by Sir Patrick and Chief Medical Officer Professor Chris Whitty to scare the Government into implementing a second lockdown, one of their slides suggested that daily Covid-19 deaths could reach 4,000 a day by December.

With ten days to go, we’re still at less than 15 per cent of that figure. In fact, as the graph above shows, the current death rate is significantly below almost every modelled winter scenario.

Are hospitals close to full capacity?

The answer is ‘no’ – contrary to what the Government experts would have you think after they last month published a chart that gave the impression that hospitals were close to overflowing, when at least half didn’t have a single Covid-19 patient.

Currently, only 13 per cent of NHS beds are occupied by patients with Covid-19.

On Monday this week, 16,271 hospitals beds across the UK were taken up with patients who had tested positive for Covid-19.

This did show a steady rise from the previous Monday, when there were 14,279 patients with Covid.

But to put this figure into perspective, the NHS in England had 101,255 general and acute beds available in March of this year plus 15,392 in Scotland and 10,563 in Wales.

How does it compare with last year? Remarkably, as the graph shows, the number of NHS England beds currently occupied is lower than last year’s average.

On November 5, the most recent date available, there were actually 1,293 fewer patients in hospital beds than last year’s November average.

Surely intensive care beds are full?

Some hospitals are under pressure but that is not the picture everywhere as the chart above shows. On Wednesday, 1,430 people with Covid-19 were occupying beds with mechanical ventilation.

Given that before the crisis there were 4,119 intensive care beds in England plus 269 in Scotland and 153 in Wales, roughly only 31 per cent of ICU beds – not including those which have been recently converted from normal beds – are currently occupied by patients with Covid.

In fact, on November 8, the number of occupied critical beds was actually lower than five-year average for 2015-19.

Even at the height of the first wave in the spring, the percentage of mechanical ventilation beds in existing NHS hospitals that were used never exceeded 62 per cent, according to a study by University College London.

But wasn’t that because of the Nightingale hospitals?

Not at all. In fact, despite all the fanfare surrounding the Nightingale hospitals’ rapid construction, they were never more than 1.23 per cent full.

Moreover, doctors are now far better prepared to treat Covid-19, such as knowing when and when not to put patients on ventilators.

So who is Covid-19 killing?

To put it simply, the victims are overwhelmingly the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions.

Of the 37,470 Covid-19 deaths recorded by NHS England up to November 18, 53.7 percent were of people aged over 80.

In comparison, there have been just 275 deaths (only 0.7 per cent of the total) in people under 40.

And crucially, those who have died from Covid-19 are overwhelmingly likely to have suffered from a pre-existing condition.

Of those who have died from coronavirus, 35,806 people (95.6 per cent of the total) had at least one pre-existing serious medical condition.

In fact, there have been just 42 deaths of people aged under 40 without a pre-existing condition.

Some 27 per cent of them had diabetes, while 18 per cent had dementia – both of which render a person extremely vulnerable to any viral infection.

Are more dying now than in the first wave?

No. The number of Covid-19 deaths is significantly lower than the peak in April as the graph above shows. On April 21, for example, there were 1,224 Covid-19 deaths, and a daily average for the week of 838. Yesterday, 511 new deaths were reported.

Are more dying now than last year?

Despite what the fear-mongers would have you think, deaths are not far above average for this time of year as the graph above shows.

But that hides the fact that in contrast to the spring, when deaths from non-Covid-19 causes were running above average, non-Covid-19 deaths in recent weeks have actually been running substantially below average.

Surely more elderly people are dying than normal?

It doesn’t look like it. According to the latest Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures – for October 2020 – in spite of all the Covid-19 deaths, the average death rate in the over-75s was significantly lower this year than it was last October – 6,901.7 per 100,000 people, compared with 7141.7 for last year.

But isn’t the infection rate now going up?

The latest ONS estimate shows that in the week ending November 14, new infections were already levelling off: one in 80 people in England had the disease that week, compared with 1 in 85 the week before.

And it could now be falling: according to research published this week by scientists at Cambridge University – whose data is used by the Government’s Sage advisory group – infection rates of Covid-19 have actually stopped growing across England.

Indeed, they claim, the R rate – the average number of people infected by somebody with the virus – has fallen to one.

If the figure is below one, the epidemic subsides; above one and it grows; and if it is one, infection rates stay the same.

Couldn’t that just be an anomaly? Actually, that figure for the R rate tallies with a number of other studies.

The Government’s latest estimate – derived from Imperial College London’s REACT study, which has been swabbing tens of thousands of people every week – is that the R number for England as a whole is currently between 1 and 1.2.

Meanwhile, the Covid-19 Symptom Study run by King’s College London, even puts the R number at 0.9 – the lowest it has been since August.

Whatever the truth, data released by the ONS yesterday confirmed that infection rates are levelling off in England and Scotland.

Does it matter when the elderly are more likely to be infected?

That’s the claim of critics of the Great Barrington Declaration – which in October called on governments to abandon one-size-fits-all lockdowns in favour of targeted shielding – who believe that the current wave of infection will tear through the elderly.

Yet the infection rate is actually highest in school-age children and students – the least vulnerable demographics – and lowest among the over 70s.

In the week to November 14, the infection rate among secondary school pupils was 2.03 per cent, while in those over 70 it was just 0.48 per cent and falling.

What about the areas seeing a spike?

There is certainly a regional variation when it comes to rates of infection – with the North generally seeing higher levels than the South.

One of the reasons the figures may seem particularly striking is because, embarrassingly for the Government, the same figures over the autumn were based on a data error, which reported student infections as happening at their parents’ address – predominantly in the South.

At the height of the problem, in September and October, one in eight cases was reported to the wrong local authority.

Isn’t mass testing going to fix all this?

Don’t bet on it. The Government has put a lot of faith in Operation Moonshot – its plan to test the entire population once a week using ‘lateral flow tests’, a type of Covid-19 test that give results in only an hour.

Yet their rapidity comes with a cost: they are not very reliable.

According to a recent study by the University of Oxford and Public Health England’s Porton Down laboratory, the LFT being used in the pilot scheme across Liverpool succeeded in detecting Covid-19 in only 79.2 per cent of cases even when performed by laboratory staff.

Is that really so bad?

Just wait. When used by trained health professionals in the community, the detection rate fell to 73 per cent and when used by self-trained members of the public it fell to just 58 per cent.

Worse, in a way, were the false positives. Overall, 0.32 per cent of people given the tests were falsely told they had the virus.

If the entire population were obliged to take the tests it could mean that 200,000 – a city the size of Portsmouth – would be ordered to self-isolate when they don’t actually have the disease.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8971669/What-DONT-tell-Covid-facts-twisted-strike-fear-hearts.html

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

Biden COVID Advisory Board Member says Indoor Dining, Gyms, and Gatherings in Homes Should Be Targeted ‘for Closures’

During an interview aired on Friday’s broadcast of the Fox Business Network’s “WSJ at Large,” Biden COVID-19 Advisory Board member Dr. Celine Gounder stated that “places that we know are big contributors to transmission are indoor restaurants, bars, gyms, and also private social gatherings of friends and family in the home” “are really the places we need to target for closures” while prioritizing keeping other services, like schools, open.

Gounder said that the advisory board’s “consensus” is that “the draconian lockdowns, shutdowns that we had in the spring,” are unneeded, and that increased knowledge means we can “be much more targeted about how we tighten up some of our measures. I think of it like a dimmer switch, whereas before we had an on and off light switch. So, we can dial up and dial down in a much more granular fashion. So, some of the places that we know are big contributors to transmission are indoor restaurants, bars, gyms, and also private social gatherings of friends and family in the home. So, those are really the places we need to target for closures while keeping other services, for example, schools that are — have not been major contributors to transmission, they’re not zero-risk, but they are much lower risk, and they’re an essential service. And so, we’re really prioritizing keeping schools, for example, open.”

Gounder also emphasized the importance of measures like masking, socially distancing, meeting outdoors instead of indoors, getting tested, and cooperating with contact tracing and stated that it’s “really in everyone’s power to prevent a shutdown if they take those measures.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/11/14/biden-covid-advisory-board-member-indoor-dining-gyms-and-gatherings-in-homes-should-be-targeted-for-closures/

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

IN BRIEF

Biden declares there will be "no national shutdown" (Examiner) | He also discussed a national mask mandate with governors (NR)

Biden transition adviser wanted Congress to probe Brett Kavanaugh last year (Fox News)

Palestinians eagerly anticipate Biden "reset" — by which they mean "anti-Israel policies" (Washington Times)

Nearly a third of Democrats believe the election was stolen from Trump (PJ Media)

Trump tax write-offs are ensnared in two New York fraud investigations (NY Times)

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac overseer seeks to end federal control (WSJ)

CDC pointlessly warns Americans not to travel for Thanksgiving (NR)

Hypocrite Gavin Newsom orders one-month curfew in California (The Hill)

Georgia's Floyd County terminates election director after state audit uncovers uncounted votes (Fox 5)

California school replaces third-grade math class with "anti-racist" curriculum (Not the Bee)

A NYC fight club was broken up by the cops for not social distancing (Not the Bee)

German police arrest popular protester for COVID crimes (Not the Bee)

Chalk sketch found in Italy could be a Da Vinci depiction of Christ (Disrn)

Policy: The pandemic isn't killing cities. Housing regulations are. (NR)

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

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://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)

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

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

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

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

Rigorous New study: Lockdowns & masks are useless and might even increase COVID-19 spread

A recently completed research study by Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in cooperation with the Naval Medical Research Center and published in the New England Journal of Medicine has found that strict quarantine, tightly controlled social distancing, and continuous use of masks did absolutely nothing to contain the spread of COVID-19, and might even have increased its spread.

First, the study used 1,843 Marine volunteers, individuals well trained to follow orders as well as the required procedures. Second, their quarantine took place at Marine facility under the supervision of the military. Both factors meant that the volunteers were going to follow procedures much more correctly than the general public.

Third, no one could enter the study without undergoing 14-days of quarantine beforehand, plus a test to prove they were negative of COVID-19 at the study’s start. The study itself was held in a tightly controlled quarantine campus run by the Marines.

The volunteers then had to follow this incredibly strict quarantine regiment:

All recruits wore double-layered cloth masks at all times indoors and outdoors, except when sleeping or eating; practiced social distancing of at least 6 feet; were not allowed to leave campus; did not have access to personal electronics and other items that might contribute to surface transmission; and routinely washed their hands. They slept in double-occupancy rooms with sinks, ate in shared dining facilities, and used shared bathrooms. All recruits cleaned their rooms daily, sanitized bathrooms after each use with bleach wipes, and ate preplated meals in a dining hall that was cleaned with bleach after each platoon had eaten. Most instruction and exercises were conducted outdoors. All movement of recruits was supervised, and unidirectional flow was implemented, with designated building entry and exit points to minimize contact among persons. All recruits, regardless of participation in the study, underwent daily temperature and symptom screening. Six instructors who were assigned to each platoon worked in 8-hour shifts and enforced the quarantine measures. If recruits reported any signs or symptoms consistent with Covid-19, they reported to sick call, underwent rapid qPCR testing for SARS-CoV-2, and were placed in isolation pending the results of testing.

Instructors were also restricted to campus, were required to wear masks, were provided with preplated meals, and underwent daily temperature checks and symptom screening. Instructors who were assigned to a platoon in which a positive case was diagnosed underwent rapid qPCR testing for SARS-CoV-2, and, if the result was positive, the instructor was removed from duty. Recruits and instructors were prohibited from interacting with campus support staff, such as janitorial and food-service personnel. After each class completed quarantine, a deep bleach cleaning of surfaces was performed in the bathrooms, showers, bedrooms, and hallways in the dormitories, and the dormitory remained unoccupied for at least 72 hours before reoccupancy.

The result? The virus still spread through this population. As they noted in the paper:

Epidemiologic analysis supported multiple local transmission events, including transmission between roommates and among recruits within the same platoon.

None of these strict lock down mandates, including continuous mask use, did anything to prevent transmission.

More significantly, the control group of Marines who did not participate in this study, and thus were not under the same strict lock down rules, actually saw FEWER infections, as shown on the table from the study. While the difference wasn’t very large, it existed nonetheless. One could argue that the overuse of masks probably contributed to the higher numbers in the study group, since even in this tightly controlled setting it is still impossible to expect people to wear masks properly. Even if they replaced them regularly, it is unrealistic to expect people to never touch them while they wear them. Over long periods the masks will become havens for the virus, where the person breathes.

The study also demonstrated once again the relative harmlessness of the disease. Almost all of these young healthy Marine recruits who tested positive were ASYMPTOMATIC, meaning that they wouldn’t have even known they were infected if they had not been participating. Furthermore, it appears no one even got very sick.

Once again, this data continues to reinforce the very very early data from March. COVID-19 is not dangerous to the young or healthy, and it will spread no matter what you do. The best way to beat it and thus protect the vulnerable older and sick population is to have it spread as fast as possible through the young and healthy population, so that it will die out quickly and thus no longer be a threat.

This is how humans have handled these respiratory diseases since time immemorial. Darwin’s rules made us do it that way, with good results. Too bad our bankrupt political leaders and health officials have decided to abandon these well-proven practices. The result has not only been more COVID-19 deaths, but more deaths overall, from the bad consequences of economic loss, depression, reduced medical treatment available for other illnesses, and numerous other issues caused by the lock downs, not the virus..

Sadly, I fully expect that our fans of lock downs and masks will either refuse to read this study, or if they do, will find any excuse to dismiss it.

https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/new-study-lockdowns-masks-are-useless-and-might-even-increase-covid-19-spread/

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

Immunity to the coronavirus may last years, new research indicates

In a study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, researchers found that the amount of “B Cells” in patients infected with the coronavirus had actually increased six to eight months after infection. B Cells are a type of “memory cell” in the immune system that remembers a pathogen. If a person is reinfected with a pathogen, the B Cells will then produce antibodies to fight it.

The study examined 185 men and women ages 19 to 81. It tracked the production of B Cells, coronavirus antibodies, and two types of immune system cells called T Cells. The antibodies showed a modest decline after six to eight months, while the T Cells showed a much smaller decline.

Previous research had found that the number of people with detectable coronavirus antibodies had fallen 26% in three months, suggesting that immunity to the virus was short-lived. However, it is common for antibodies to decline, according to immunologists. Antibodies are just one part of the human body’s immune response.

Shane Crotty, a virologist at the La Jolla Institute of Immunology and one of the researchers on the study, suggested that the increase in B Cells was particularly good news.

“That amount of memory would likely prevent the vast majority of people from getting hospitalized disease, severe disease, for many years,” Crotty told the New York Times.

The results also suggest that a coronavirus vaccine may have long-lasting effects.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/immunity-to-the-coronavirus-may-last-years-new-research-indicates

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

Australian research: Kids’ saliva may be key to fighting COVID-19

It’s long baffled the experts: why don’t children appear to contract or spread coronavirus? New Aussie research may have the answer.

Children exposed to coronavirus from their infected parents have produced antibodies to the virus without testing positive, new research has revealed

A Murdoch Children’s Research Institute expert says an antibody in the children’s saliva could hold the key to explaining why the children were protected.

The case emerged early in the pandemic when the Victorian children had close contact with their symptomatic infected parents, including one child who shared the parents’ bed but never got coronavirus.

“The parents were positive but the children weren’t despite us doing lots of tests,” Associate Professor Nigel Crawford told 3AW on Wednesday.

“But we did find they had an immune response similar to their parents, suggesting they’re getting protection from the virus.”

Dr Crawford said testing showed that the children’s saliva started to produce some immune response.

“They started to show the children were producing antibodies in their saliva, which may have stopped the virus from invading their system and causing more severe disease,” he said.

“So there is evidence saliva is something we need to learn more about. This may even be a way to potentially test for the virus as well rather than the more invasive nasal swab.”

Dr Crawford, who is also a paediatrician at the Royal Children’s Hospital, said the finding could begin to shed light on why children were shielded from the virus.

“We haven’t seen very many children admitted to hospital, certainly not many becoming very unwell or sick, despite the increased numbers with that second wave,” he told the radio station.

“So we can start to unlock the mystery of why children are protected. We may then be able to understand how we can get protection broader in the community, including with vaccination programs.”

The institute is doing an in-depth investigation and monitoring more than 20 families, including some in which parents were COVID-19 infected but their children weren’t, to obtain more detailed findings on protective immunity in children.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/human-body/kids-saliva-may-be-key-to-fighting-covid19/news-story/4367f763c489fe068e13aac20b343dd3

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

Shocked Americans and Europeans cooped up in lockdown marvel at the 52,000 screaming Australian football fans packed into a stadium with no masks or social distancing



Australia is the envy of the world after hosting the biggest crowd at a sporting event since the coronavirus pandemic began.

Thousands around the globe who tuned into the State of Origin decider were stunned to see over 52,000 eager fans packed in Brisbane's Suncorp Stadium with no social distancing and very few face masks.

International viewers watching in countries with hundreds of thousands of active infections marvelled at the spectacle as almost all major sports worldwide are now played behind closed doors or with very limited, spaced out crowds.

But Australia has fought the pandemic so successfully that it has relaxed restrictions so much that big sporting crowds are possible.

Many overseas onlookers praised Australia and the Sunshine State for the pandemic policies which made the event possible.

But some locals were furious and questioned why thousands were allowed to gather at the footy, but they were banned from attending funerals and weddings.

Queensland were too strong for New South Wales and went on to win the brutal match 20 to 14 after surviving a late fightback.

But for a large number of viewers, the contest was not as impressive as the event itself.

Queensland has not had a single community transmission of Covid-19 in months and there are now only 94 active cases in all of Australia - the vast majority oh which were acquired overseas.

'Look at the crowd for the state of origin in Australia. Are they on the same planet as us?' One Twitter user posted.

'Breaks me seeing that and thinking about the state that our sports are in.'

Another said: 'Around 50,000 fans inside Suncorp Stadium for State of Origin III decider this morning. Amazing to see. Makes me very, very jealous to see.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8962231/Americans-Europeans-cooped-lockdown-marvel-State-Origin-crowd.html

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

IN BRIEF

Black former NFLer Burgess Owens flips Utah-4, becomes 12th GOP House pickup (Examiner)

Reparations advocate tapped for Biden team (Disrn)

Biden transition official wrote op-ed advocating free speech restrictions (NY Post)

House leaders urge Democrats not to join the Biden administration to maintain majority (NY Post)

Georgia recount unearths more than 2,600 uncounted ballots in Floyd County (Fox News)

Professor shows students how easy it is to hack a Dominion voting machine in 2018 NY Times video (Bongino.com)

Ilhan Omar calls Trump events "Klan rallies" (Post Millennial)

The Washington Post tries to use data to prove that the Republican Party is authoritarian and it's the stupidest thing ever (Not the Bee)

Suspect filmed beating Trump supporters in DC is a journalism student (Post Millennial)

Portland anarchists attacked a Democrat Party HQ and suddenly vandalism isn't cool anymore (Hot Air)

Even though it kills more than 480,000 American annually, the pandemic has people smoking again (Vox)

Dow Jones sets new record after promising vaccine news (Time)

Thanks to Republican deregulation and corporate tax cut, household incomes increased more in 2018 than in the previous 20 years combined (FEE)

American Spirit: 38% of Americans still planning a big Thanksgiving despite COVID (NY Post)

Nearly 90,000 sex abuse claims filed against Boy Scouts of America (Axios)

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

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://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)

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

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

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

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

Mouthwash can kill coronavirus within 30 seconds, study finds

Mouthwash could become a vital part of people’s daily routine after laboratory tests found it can kill off coronavirus within 30 seconds.

The initial results of a non-peer-reviewed Cardiff University study showed “promising signs” of mouthwashes containing at least 0.07 per cent cetypyridinium chloride (CPC) being capable of combatting the virus.

Scientists carried out tests at the university's laboratory by mimicking the conditions of a person's naso/oropharynx passage and using mouthwash brands including Dentyl.

Their report - titled “The Virucidal Efficacy of Oral Rinse Components Against SARS-CoV-2 In Vitro” - is yet to be peer reviewed but supports another study published last week that found CPC-based mouthwashes are effective in reducing Covid's viral load.

A clinical trial will next examine how effective over-the-counter mouthwash is in reducing the levels of Covid-19 in the saliva of coronavirus patients at the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff. The results are expected to be published in early 2021.

Dentyl is the only UK mouthwash brand to have taken part in the 12-week clinical trial, led by Professor David Thomas from Cardiff University.

Dr Thomas told the PA news agency: "Although this in-vitro study is very encouraging and is a positive step, more clinical research is now clearly needed.

"We need to understand if the effect of over-the-counter mouthwashes on the Covid-19 virus achieved in the laboratory can be reproduced in patients, and we look forward to completing our clinical trial in early 2021."

Dr Nick Claydon, a specialist periodontologist, said he believed the research was "very valuable".

He added: "If these positive results are reflected in Cardiff University's clinical trial, CPC-based mouthwashes such as Dentyl used in the in-vitro study could become an important addition to people's routine, together with hand washing, physical distancing and wearing masks, both now and in the future."

https://www.msn.com/en-au/health/medical/coronavirus-mouthwash-can-kill-covid-19-within-30-seconds-study-finds/ar-BB1b5f3j

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

The Resistance Has Begun

I have to be careful in writing this column, not because I might say something I don’t mean, but because I might say exactly what I mean and the editors will cut it because it’s…well, let’s just say “not quite family friendly.” In “Groundhog Day,” Bill Murray tells Phil the groundhog “Don’t drive angry.” Writing angry is fine, but writing disgusted is something different. So, if you pick up on any subliminal messages in this piece, they are by accident (mostly).

Whatever ends up happening with the challenges in the election (the media called it for Biden and in between the time this is written and published a million accusations will have flown), I didn’t want to write an “I told you so” piece about the people pushing the “Trump in a landslide” lie (but I was right, they were selling themselves to move books, get subscribers and clicks and you should remember that). I was left wondering what do I write about as everyone absorbs the latest news.

Then I noticed that leftists, as they always do, showed the world who they really are, and it was disgusting. And it also made my choice of topic easy.

The “conservative blogger” at the Washington Post, a troll named Jennifer Rubin, tweeted yesterday, “Any R now promoting rejection of an election or calling to not to follow the will of voters or making baseless allegations of fraud should never serve in office, join a corporate board, find a faculty position or be accepted into "polite" society. We have a list.”

Leftists do love their lists, don’t they?

Never one to let something stupid pass her by, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez chimed in with, “Is anyone archiving these Trump sycophants for when they try to downplay or deny their complicity in the future? I foresee decent probability of many deleted Tweets, writings, photos in the future.”

To put it as someone might tweet it, Rubin and AOC: Can’t. Understand. Normal. Things.

Not to be outdone, a group of former Pete Buttigieg’s staffers decided they wanted to make their own list, because when a dumb idea occurs to one liberal is occurs to them all, and they started one – The Trump Accountability Project.

The idea behind it was as simple as the totalitarian philosophy that inspired it – an enemies list to hunt and hound anyone who’d supported President Donald Trump the way a celebrity stalker just can’t get over the fact that the object of their desire has no idea they exist.

According to the group’s website, “We must never forget those who furthered the Trump agenda.” Pretty sick use of Holocaust language there, but leftists always love to embrace, subtly, their history.

“We should welcome in our fellow Americans with whom we differ politically,” the statement on their website continues, magnanimously allowing some Americans to live, at least until the first round of purges are done.

“But,” the message continues, “those who took a paycheck from the Trump Administration should not profit from their efforts to tear our democracy apart. The world should never forget those who, when faced with a decision, chose to put their money, their time, and their reputations behind separating children from their families, encouraging racism and anti-Semitism, and negligently causing the unnecessary loss of life and economic devastation from our country's failed response to the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Think improperly and the left will come for you the second they get a whiff of power.

Their targets are “Individuals who worked for the Trump for President campaign, Republican National Committee, and affiliated PACs in 2016 or 2020,” and “Individuals who worked in any role as a political appointee in the Trump Administration. And finally, “Individuals who used their massive personal wealth and influence to bundle money for Trump.”

Thousands upon thousands of Americans targeted for destruction for working toward a goal Democrats deem unacceptable. Do you think they’ll stop there? Of course not.

What does it say about Joe Biden that former campaign staffers for someone under serious consideration for a Cabinet position in a potential administration would advocate and assemble a list of unacceptable people whose lives must be ruined for the sin of taking a job?

This is who liberals are – the ultimate in conformists, hell-bent on dominance and destruction of anyone they deem unacceptable. Whether it was in Moscow, Berlin, Beijing, or anywhere else “progressive” power has been flexed since it leaped from academia to the realm of politics, they’ve loved their lists. And you never want to be on one of them. It starts off with harassment, but it never ends there. Geography doesn’t matter, ideas do.

The left regularly shows the world who they really are, we’d better start believing them.

https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2020/11/08/liberals-show-us-who-they-really-are-n2579674

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

The 2020 Election Results Look Like a Massive Rebuke of Socialism

Summarizing the key lessons that Democrats should take away from election results that were much less favorable than expected, Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D–Va.) reportedly told fellow members of her caucus during a conference call on Thursday that they shouldn't say the word socialism "ever again."

This would be good policy advice, whether or not it's good political advice. But as it turns out, socialism is looking like a major political loser this election cycle, with the specter of it likely costing former Vice President Joe Biden his chance at winning Florida. Indeed, this could be a rough couple of years for progressives: A Biden presidency coupled with a Republican-controlled Senate—an outcome that is far from certain, but gaining some degree of likelihood—would make it almost impossible for Democrats to push through the structural changes (such as D.C. statehood or an expansion of the Supreme Court) that could allow the left to take power.

This is something of a reversal of fortunes. For democratic socialists, the 2020 election cycle began with great promise; the hard left had not one but two ardently progressive primary candidates in Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), the latter of whom had shown auspicious resilience against Hillary Clinton in 2016. There had also been small, encouraging signs in the years between then and now: the surprise election of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) in 2018, the success of socialist magazines and podcasts, the increasing salience of issues like economic inequality and Medicare for All, the formation of "the Squad."

But neither Warren nor Sanders could overcome Biden, the candidate who had worked hardest to put serious distance between himself and the term socialist. If anything, Biden needed to work even harder at this, since President Donald Trump's reelection campaign was able to tie Democrats to Latin American socialism in the minds of some Florida voters, leading to a surprisingly good showing for Trump among Latino—and particularly Cuban—voters.

Progressives often operate under the assumption that their failure to win elections is a result of malfeasance: More democracy, more activism, and more turnout will produce the broad mandate they need to enact change. They also assume that an increasingly racially diverse electorate will override the white voters who don't support fundamental, revolutionary changes to the economy. But the 2020 results are casting doubt on both of these beliefs: Trump is on track to have the GOP's best showing among minorities in decades, and while he will indeed lose the popular vote to Biden, the unusually high turnout did not lend itself to any sort of blue wave.

Not all of the results are in yet, and it's possible that subsequent election-related developments could change the outlook for progressives. But a GOP-controlled Senate will kill any chances of big, lofty, leftist legislation. The Senate could vote down Biden's judicial picks, and they could thwart liberal Cabinet nominees. Warren's bid for Treasury Secretary will be dead in the water.

"The Biden presidency will be doomed to failure before it starts," writes New York magazine's Eric Levitz, who correctly notes that progressives are on the brink of catastrophe.

Democrats are clearly unhappy with this result, and many blame the excesses of the left for putting them in such a position.

"Democrats' messaging is terrible; it doesn't resonate," Rep. Kurt Schrader (D–Ore.), a moderate Blue Dog Democrat, told The Washington Post. "When [voters] see the far left that gets all the news media attention, they get scared. They're very afraid that this will become a supernanny state, and their ability to do things on their own is going to be taken away."

Former Missouri Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill, now a commentator for MSNBC, told viewers on Wednesday she was worried that far-left positions on issues were scaring potential voters away. Her remarks drew a rebuke from Ocasio-Cortez, who said McCaskill's loss in 2016 means she's no expert on winning elections. (McCaskill might have responded that AOC's own victory in an inner-city House district hardly confers a great deal of political expertise.)

Even some progressives think it's in the party's best interest to at the very least stop using the word socialism.

"I think Republicans did get some traction trying to scare people on this 'socialist narrative,'" Rep. Jared Huffman (D–Calif.), a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told The Washington Post. "What's the point of embracing a phrase like that?"

If a large number of Democrats actually absorbed this message, it would be icing on the cake. Right now, it appears that some of the worst impulses of both parties have been checked, and the next administration will take office with neither a mandate nor an ability to enact transformational economic policy changes.

https://reason.com/2020/11/06/socialism-2020-trump-biden-rebuke-left/

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

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)

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

Democrats may feel smug, but there’s plenty to be worried about with Biden in charge

As has been looking increasingly clear since the morning after election night a narrow win in key states will deliver Joe Biden a comfortable election win in the electoral college. This is much as it was four years ago when Trump won, and much as it looked like it might be for him again when voting first halted on election night, before the late rush of mail-in ballots proved to be even stronger for the Democrats than expected.

The first point to make is that — legal challenges withstanding — this makes it a clear and orthodox presidential victory. Much like our own system often turns on narrow margins in key seats, it is entirely normal for a US presidential result to hinge on relatively few votes in swing states.

Especially given the temporary electoral changes for this election — widely relaxed rules around mail-in ballots that boosted “turnout” and helped deliver victory to the Democrats — Republicans will need uncommon grace to acknowledge and accept the result. That is because the Democrats and large swathes of media commentary have spent the past four years undermining the legitimacy of the Trump presidency, pointing to the nationwide popular vote and the narrow margins in crucial states.

This was nonsense then and is nonsense now — the nationwide popular vote does not matter, it never does, because neither the campaigns nor the voters have an interest in winning it. The bulk of the difference, for instance, is contained in one state, California, and if the national vote mattered it would lead to a very different campaign in that state and give Californian Republicans a much greater incentive to turn out.

Republican supporters must, and most likely will, hold themselves to a higher standard than Democrat supporters who first started smashing widows and burning cars on election night 2016 and did not stop until they won the White House back. Lord knows what will happen when Biden disappoints them.

The Biden win will be attributable to a focused and successful campaign in the states that matter, the states Hillary Clinton ignored and, it must be said, the states Trump did a solid job trying to hold. Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania are key, Georgia was a bonus, and Arizona may well have been gifted to the Democrats thanks partly to Trump’s unforgivable disrespect towards the late senator John McCain — the ghost of McCain had the last laugh.

So, just as it was for Trump, Biden must be chastened and urged on by the realisation that his tenure in the White House hinges on less than 100,000 votes across about five crucial states. This is a political reality that Trump at least understood — it means that to win a second term you must entrench that support and broaden it, something the property billionaire had achieved before this year of the pandemic.

The legal challenges will play out through the tried and tested checks and balances of the US system; that is as it should be. But the role of the mail-in ballots will warrant serious examination by both parties and political analysts.

On first blush it seems to have delivered the highest “turnout” because it removed the burden of having to turn out. On one level this should be welcomed for encouraging more Americans to be involved in their democracy.

But there are questions. There is no doubt it increases the opportunity for rorting. It will also reward greater organisation in encouraging and arranging delivery of votes — did the Democrats and their union and party organisations do this better, and do the Republicans need to improve this element of the ground game?

Some of the changes — allowing any voter to ask for a mail-in ballot for any reason, mailing out mail-in applications to all voters, or extending the time period for such voting — are temporary in most states. Will there be a case and a push to make them permanent?

This could change electoral dynamics forever. Much might rely on what transpires in the investigations and court cases prompted by a president who shows no sign of budging at the moment.

Calm and the rule of law must prevail. January 20 seems a long way away.

Still, if Trump moves on what will we miss? What will we lose?

First, the incessant drama and permanent combativeness around the White House will not be missed. There will be a return to something approaching normality; less fun, fewer stories, less belligerence, more order.

What Trump’s always emotional and often dishonest media critics never acknowledge — fixed as they are on “character” above effectiveness — is how his unpredictability delivered some historic developments in global affairs. Only the volatile and unorthodox approach of Trump could have delivered the breakthrough in the Middle East peace process, the concessions from China on trade and, indeed, the unfinished rapprochement with North Korea.

At home Trump delivered lower taxes and high jobs growth before he was sideswiped by the coronavirus. He also focused on cheap and reliable energy, relieving the US of the multilateral constraints of the Paris agreement.

The US will suffer a tough winter at the hands of the coronavirus; Biden will not be able to change much. Health management rests mainly with the states, just as it does here, and the US social and political dynamic means brutal lockdowns will not be tolerated or respected.

Biden will be less active, less confrontational, and less dynamic. He will be more of a puppet of his party; by contrast Trump used the Republican party like a parasite uses a host.

There is a grave risk that he will be pushed by Bernie Sanders and The Squad of Far Left Democrats. They have publicly proclaimed their intent to make him the most progressive president since FDR.

But the strong Republican showing under Trump will provide some protection. The Democrats should be denied the Senate and their majority in the House has been cut. The Senate should block fundamental changes to the Supreme Court and the political reality of these narrow margins should curb Biden’s activism.

Still, Biden will rejoin the Paris deal and launch an assault on the oil and gas industries the likes of which the US has never seen before. This will attack the very building block of the largest and most innovative economy the world has ever seen.

Biden has also been a captive of identity politics, in all its destructive guises. There is a contest between the police in major cities, against activists, anarchists and protesters, and we should worry that Biden will continue show ambivalence about where he stands. So, there is plenty to be worried about.

It is laughably hypocritical for Biden and his media barrackers to start taking the high moral ground now, calling for unity and respect, when they have spent every day of the past four years questioning the legitimacy of President Trump and calling him everything from a white supremacist to a Russian collaborator. Healing will not be easy — almost half the country’s voters will be aggrieved.

Some Democrats have already been wise enough to recognise the limitations of their victory, the fact that it does not represent a widespread repudiation of Trump’s agenda or an overwhelming endorsement of the Democrat alternative. Much will depend on how Biden handles this period before the inauguration when an outgoing president is usually a lame duck but this time will be more like a wounded bull.

Apart from the dynamic in the Middle East and the strength on China there is one thing about Trump that I will miss most. Like no president before him, even a host of other Republicans who are so reviled by the White House press corps, Trump has taken the vitriol from the media and turned it straight back at them. No president has exposed the jaundice and hypocrisy of journalists so courageously.

He was enabled in this by the tool of social media. Usually a platform for the juvenile Left, Trump used it to reach voters directly and expose the games and dishonesty of the media. Many of us will miss that, especially when we can already see the cosy cabal around a Democrat president-elect and a mainstream media smug about getting the president it wants.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/us-election-2020-democrats-may-feel-smug-but-theres-plenty-to-be-worried-about-with-biden-in-charge/news-story/7d6239c188ab6a186e5ec96782a24163

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

If there's fraud in the 2020 election, then we must find it

There’s more evidence of voter fraud in the 2020 election than there ever was of Russia collusion, so America is owed a legal examination of the election irregularities alleged by the Trump campaign.

It’s not crazy to say this, despite the gaslighting from much of the media. Basically, the election is down to roughly 120,000 votes of almost 150 million votes cast. That’s 0.08 percent, a tiny margin by anyone’s reckoning.

Recounts have been ordered. President Trump’s campaign is challenging hundreds of thousands of votes in the courts.

Five swing states are within 1 percent, all with Joe Biden in the lead.

In Georgia, Biden was ahead on Sunday night by just 10,352 votes.

In Arizona, he was ahead by 19,438 votes.

In Wisconsin, he was ahead by 20,540.

In Pennsylvania, he was ahead by 43,251.

In Nevada, he was ahead by 31,464.

It is not outlandish or unprecedented to accept the possibility that at least some of those margins may be erroneous, whether through human error or, indeed, fraud.

Electoral fraud is not unknown in America. Probably the most famous example was in 1960, when Chicago Mayor Richard Daley allegedly rigged the ballot for John F. Kennedy, dead people were found to have “voted” and 677 election officials were indicted.

Due to the pandemic, around 40 percent of votes in Tuesday’s election were cast by mail, double the percentage in 2016.

Even the New York Times once reported the truth that mail-in voting is the most vulnerable to fraud. This is why most developed countries ban the practice.

So, as you can see, it is perfectly reasonable in such a close election to take seriously allegations of irregularities and suspicious activity.

An honest media would investigate rather than dismissing the allegations out of hand as “baseless,” “false” and “conspiracy theories.”

The Trump campaign’s legal team, led by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, claims that, in Pennsylvania alone, 600,000 ballots are in question because they were counted without any poll-watchers observing to ensure they were legitimate, as state law requires.

In Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Giuliani says that “50 to 60 poll-watchers … will all testify that they were uniformly deprived of their right to inspect any single part of the mail-in ballots … Not a single one was inspected as the law required. Even when a court order was obtained to allow the Republican inspectors to get six feet closer, they moved the people counting the ballots six further feet away.

“It’s really simple. If you have nothing to hide with these mail-in ballots, you allow inspection.”

Giuliani has promised one lawsuit will be filed today and four more by the end of this week.

Another Trump team lawyer, Sidney Powell, claimed yesterday that 450,000 ballots had been found with only votes for Biden and no down-ballot selections, which she regarded as suspicious.

She also claimed in an interview on Fox News that two pieces of software called Hammer and Scorecard were used to flip votes from Trump to Biden in some pre-election voting ballots.

As well, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced Saturday an “issue involving reporting” of votes in Fulton County on Friday, and said he had sent “investigators onsite.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that he will be investigating “all credible allegations of voting irregularities and misconduct” after receiving a sworn affidavit from Pennsylvania postal worker Richard Hopkins alleging that Erie Postmaster Robert Weisenbach had told workers he was “back-dating the postmarks on the ballots to make it appear as though the ballots had been collected on November 3, 2020 despite them in fact being collected on November 4 and possibly later.”

Graham, R-S.C., also yesterday claimed that in Pennsylvania, the Trump team has found “over 100 people they think were dead but 15 people that we verified that have been dead who voted … Six people registered after they died and voted.”

All of this may not amount to a hill of beans. But it deserves to be examined, or otherwise 71 million people who voted for Trump may end up believing the election was stolen.

Whatever comes of the allegations, in reality, nothing is more important than two Georgia US Senate runoffs, on which control of the Senate may depend.

Since neither of the Republicans, David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, has reached the 50 percent threshold in votes required under Georgia law to win outright, there has to be a redo on Jan. 5.

If they both were to lose, the US Senate would be deadlocked 50-50, with the vice president, Kamala Harris, having the deciding vote. In other words, the Democrats would be in control and nothing would impede their radical agenda, including the Green New Deal, packing the Supreme Court and adding two new states.

In the end, it’s worth remembering that the situation we are in today is not unprecedented.

It took 37 days for the legal battles to be sorted out after the very close 2000 election, and George W. Bush to be declared the winner.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/fraud-2020-election-miranda-devine

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

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)

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