Johns Hopkins Study Saying COVID-19 Has 'Relatively No Effect on Deaths' in U.S.

Conventional wisdom is that COVID-19 has caused thousands of deaths in the United States and nearly 1.5 million worldwide. This perception has been directly challenged by a study published by Johns Hopkins University on Sunday, November 22.

Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Johns Hopkins University, critically analyzed the impact that COVID-19 had on U.S. deaths. According to her, the impact of COVID-19 on deaths in the United States can be fully understood by comparing it to the number of total deaths in the country.

According to study, “in contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.”

Wait, what? Really?

That’s what it says. And, it should come as no surprise that not long after the study was published it was deleted within days.

Luckily, a back-up copy remains on The Wayback Machine, and we can still read the study.

So, how exactly did the study conclude that COVID-19 has had “relatively no effect on deaths”? Here’s how the study made this determination:

After retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September, which includes the period from before COVID-19 was detected in the U.S. to after infection rates soared.

Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.

According to Briand, “The reason we have a higher number of reported COVID-19 deaths among older individuals than younger individuals is simply because every day in the U.S. older individuals die in higher numbers than younger individuals.”

Briand’s analysis found that the range of deaths amongst the older population has remained within the range of past years.

So, if COVID-19 has actually had no significant impact on U.S. deaths, why does it not appear that way?

To answer that question, Briand shifted her focus to the deaths per causes ranging from 2014 to 2020. There is a sudden increase in deaths in 2020 due to COVID-19. This is no surprise because COVID-19 emerged in the U.S. in early 2020, and thus COVID-19-related deaths increased drastically afterward.

Analysis of deaths per cause in 2018 revealed that the pattern of seasonal increase in the total number of deaths is a result of the rise in deaths by all causes, with the top three being heart disease, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia.

“This is true every year,” explained Briand. “Every year in the U.S. when we observe the seasonal ups and downs, we have an increase of deaths due to all causes.”

Here’s where things get interesting.

When Briand looked at the 2020 data during that seasonal period, COVID-19-related deaths exceeded deaths from heart diseases. This was highly unusual since heart disease has always prevailed as the leading cause of deaths. However, when taking a closer look at the death numbers, she noted something strange. As Briand compared the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018, she noticed that instead of the expected drastic increase across all causes, there was a significant decrease in deaths due to heart disease. Even more surprising, as seen in the graph below, this sudden decline in deaths is observed for all other causes.

The study found that “This trend is completely contrary to the pattern observed in all previous years.” In fact, “the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19.”

Briand concludes that the COVID-19 death toll in the United States is misleading and that deaths from other diseases are being categorized as COVID-19 deaths.

There have reports of inflated COVID-19 deaths numbers for months. Patients who never tested positive for the disease had COVID-19 as their cause of death on their death certificates. In May, Jared Polis, the Democrat governor of Colorado, disputed official coronavirus death counts, saying even those of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) were inflated from including people who tested positive for the coronavirus but died of other causes. In July, a fatal motorcycle accident victim was listed as a COVID-19 death.

On Thursday, Johns Hopkins University explained that they deleted the article on the study because it “was being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic.”

They did not, however, challenge the accuracy of the data or its conclusions. In other words, the article was deleted because it didn’t fit the proper narrative.

This determination to put theory before the facts is truly malign -- JR

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/11/27/johns-hopkins-study-saying-covid-19-has-relatively-no-effect-on-deaths-in-u-s-deleted-after-publication-n1178930

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

This Thanksgiving, I Choose the Safety of Freedom

Let’s have a little fun thinking about serious things. How about this? The public health aristocracy is advocating lockdowns for the holidays. Don’t travel, don’t associate in groups larger than six. And, don’t have fun.

For months leading up to the holiday season, many Americans have been flying. The flights have been fewer, but the planes have been full. The airports have been moderately crowded. Are the public health orthodocs telling us we shouldn’t be flying at all? Have they discovered that loaded planes are 'superspreaders'?

The short answer is, no.

Further, the mask mandators, who don’t want us flying or traveling, must have forgotten that the most compliant mask wearers are the flying public. In the dozens of flights that I have taken over the past months, I have observed that there is almost 100% compliance in the airport and on the planes.

Virtually everyone slaps a mask on their face from the moment they are dropped off on the airport curb, and continues to wear it until they have reached their destination and climbed into their cars heading away from the airport.

The airlines are strict enforcers of mask wearing.

The question then becomes, if mask wearing is so effective, then why would the public health cabalists insist that travel be verboten. Especially since traveling by plane will result in mask wearing by all on the plane. One would suggest that traveling by plane might be super safe.

Riding in an auto for hours with close friends and family may be the target of the autocrats, but aren’t those the same people who would be together at home for hours on end during the holiday lockdown?

And, how does all of this square with the shackles placed on free America by political leaders who believe they are too elite to live by the rules they make for others? All on the same day, New York Gov. Cuomo tearfully told the world that his out-of-state daughter cannot join his family for Thanksgiving. The world thinks, at last a Democrat leader who applies the same rules to himself that he imposes, by force, on others.

Oops. By mid-afternoon, Cuomo let the cat out of the bag: his 89-year-old mother and two of his other daughters are traveling to join in the holiday fete.

Goodness gracious. By early evening, the feckless one canceled the invitation to his mom and daughters. Illinois Governor Pritzker vacillates even more than Cuomo. He announced that he hasn’t decided if he or family and friends will travel while he locks down the state.

The Barrington Manifesto has more than 49,000 signers who are medical doctors, scientists, and professionals. They decry lockdowns. And, yet the pinnacle of public health pushes that we be locked away, against our will, in homes, apartments, etc., to avoid potentially catching the coronavirus. Yet, the studies are pretty determinative that one is more likely to catch the virus while in the closed settings that accompany lockdowns.

And, that’s not even counting the mental and physical health devastation that accompanies lockdowns. A recent report suggested that more than 50 percent of adolescents and young adults are suffering serious mental health issues, with a substantial increase of suicide ideations. And, seniors are also experiencing similar difficulties.

Isolation, which is the remedy most frequently advocated by our public health gurus, has brought to pass incredibly serious ramifications that many experts believe exceeds the real and serious impacts of the virus.

So, the experts insist that we lockdown and miss Thanksgiving. Miss out on our associations; shut down a brief moment of familial and friendly associations that bring some peace and joy in a season that has brought unprecedented discord in our nation.

I do not advocate that we take unnecessary risks. I am simply saying that each American should assess their risks and act as free, American adults. Make your decisions responsibly. We’ve been told for months that masks are the ultimate security. So, if I’m flying, I wear a mask. I’ll make the determination, with my loved ones, what risk we are willing to take.

If you want to stay locked down, isolated, and avoid whatever risks that associations with friends and family may pose, I support your decision. You, too, are free to make your choices.

I wish you all the best, and a Happy Thanksgiving, whatever your choice may be. If you choose the security of your homes and self-imposed lockdowns, I wish you well.

I, however, choose the safety of freedom, the joy of family associations, and the emotional wellbeing of friends, good food, fine conversations, and the peace of expressing gratitude.

https://townhall.com/capitol-voices/congressmanandybiggs/2020/11/25/thanksgiving-n2580655?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=11/26/2020&bcid=6bed8ec6c23532f964400caf5c21036b&recip=6139244

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

Shocking MRC Study Shows Media Prevented Trump Landslide

A new report from the Media Research Center (MRC) shows the media’s role in thwarting what should have been a landslide win for President Trump in the 2020 Presidential race. The MRC surveyed Biden voters in seven swing states (AZ, GA, MI, WI, PA, NV and NC) and tested their knowledge of popular news topics about Trump’s successes and Biden’s corruption.

MRC found a whopping 82 percent of the voters were completely unaware of Trump’s successes, Biden’s corruption and the far left politics of his running mate, Kamala Harris. One in six, 17 percent, Biden voters said they would NOT have voted for Joe if they had known about one or more of these stories.

Voters were asked if they were aware of Biden’s sexual assault allegations, Hunter Biden scandal, how Harris is the most far-Left Senator, 33.1% economic growth, job creation, Middle East Peace Deals, U.S. Energy Independence, and Operation Warp Speed.

This latest report builds on an earlier post-election poll from MRC and McLaughlin & Associates that found 36 percent of Biden voters were unaware of recent evidence linking the Biden family to corrupt financial deals with China. If they had known these key facts, 4.6% of Biden’s total voters would not have voted for him in the 2020 Presidential race.

In the critical weeks before Election Day, from Oct. 14th – 27th, Media Research Center analysts found out of a total of 113 hours of news programming, ABC, CBS, NBC, these three networks combined spent a grand total of less than 22 minutes talking about the Hunter Biden scandal. God forbid they take a break from insulting President Trump to report the facts and hold a clearly corrupt politician accountable.

The left-wing media will stop at nothing to defend their beloved Biden family. When Biden allegedly interfered in Ukrainian politics last year, they insisted there was “no evidence” and he’d “done nothing wrong.” Then leading up to the election, they claimed Hunter Biden’s laptop scandal was nothing more than a Russian disinformation campaign. I wonder, is the media simply stupid or are they really that slimy to spread such a blatant lie? Someone, let me know.

Twitter of course also helped hide the Hunter Biden scandal. Although Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey eventually admitted they were “wrong” and corrected the issue, their actions are despicable and inexcusable. Too little, too late!

Biden’s B.S. aside, Google manipulated its basic search results to favor the Left. Last night researcher and psychologist, Dr. Robert Epstein was on Tucker Carlson Tonight and explained, “Google’s search results were strongly biased in favor of liberals and Democrats…the bias was being shown to pretty much every demographic group including conservatives. In fact, Conservatives got slightly more liberal bias in their search results than liberals did.”

He further claimed Big Tech’s manipulations, at the bare minimum, “could easily have shifted at least 6 million votes in just one direction.” President Trump tweeted a video of Tucker’s opening monologue and the full interview with Dr. Epstein.

https://dailytorch.com/2020/11/shocking-mrc-shows-media-prevented-trump-landslide/

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

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)

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

Outrage when Trump pardons former national security adviser Mike Flynn

Where was the outrage when Bill Cinton pardoned Marc Rich, a genuine crook? No mention that Trump has used his clemency power less often than any other president in recent history.

The whole need for a pardon was that a Leftist judge refused to let go of Flynn, despite all reasons why he should let go. The pardon was in other words needed to correct a failing in the judicial system -- which is one of the traditional reasons for pardons

The President announced on Wednesday he was granting a full pardon to Michael Flynn, a retired former Army lieutenant general who briefly served in the Trump administration before being ousted for allegedly lying to Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations with the Russian ambassador during the transition.

“It is my Great Honor to announce that General Michael T. Flynn has been granted a Full Pardon,” Mr Trump tweeted. “Congratulations to @GenFlynn and his wonderful family, I know you will now have a truly fantastic Thanksgiving!”

General Flynn simply tweeted “Jeremiah 1:19” – the Bible passage which reads, “‘They will fight against you but will not overcome you, for I am with you and will rescue you,’ declares the Lord.”

The move brings to an end a four-year criminal case, which the Department of Justice had attempted to drop in May this year after an independent review ordered by Attorney-General Bill Barr uncovered prosecutorial misconduct.

General Flynn twice pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, but later reversed course after retaining defence lawyer Sidney Powell, who fought to have the charges thrown out, alleging her client was “set up” by the FBI and Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team.

The case has been tied up in seemingly never-ending legal proceedings ever since, with DC Circuit Court Judge Emmett Sullivan refusing the DOJ’s request to dismiss the case and instead appointing an “amicus curiae”, or friend of the court, to argue against the government’s motion.

Democrats reacted with fury at the announcement, with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff saying in a statement that the President “abused the pardon power to reward Michael Flynn, who chose loyalty to Trump over loyalty to his country”.

“There is no doubt that a President has broad power to confer pardons, but when they are deployed to insulate himself, his family, and his associates from criminal investigation, it is a corruption of the Framer’s intent,” Mr Schiff said. “It’s no surprise that Trump would go out just as he came in – crooked to the end.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the pardon was “an act of grave corruption and a brazen abuse of power”. “Trump is again using the pardon power to protect those who lie to cover up his wrongdoing, just as he did when he commuted the sentence of campaign adviser Roger Stone, who was convicted on seven felony counts,” she said in a statement.

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/donald-trump-pardons-former-national-security-adviser-mike-flynn/news-story/9bd87208ee68e2b2bd5fed743b4d26c9

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

New research suggests immunity to COVID-19 is better than we first thought

Early in the pandemic, many researchers feared people who contracted COVID could be reinfected very quickly. This was because several early studies showed antibodies seemed to wane after the first few months post-infection.

It was also partly because normal human coronaviruses, which are one cause of common colds and are cousins of SARS-CoV-2, do not generate long-lasting immunity, so we can get reinfected with them after 12 months.

But new preliminary research suggests key parts of the immune system can remember SARS-CoV-2 for at least eight or nine months, and possibly for years.

When a country is invaded by an enemy, it rallies its forces, fights the war and hopefully repels the invaders. While the enemy has disappeared back to their own territory, a smart country sets up watchers to look for any signs of a new invasion.

Our immune system is exactly the same. Whenever we fight a bacterial or viral infection we leave behind certain cells that remember exactly what this invader looks like.

These are called memory cells and their job, in the event of another "invasion", is to warn our immune system early and ensure the right sort of response is mounted.

It means we don't have to start all over again to make a new response, and so reinfection is either eliminated or the time to recovery is much reduced.

This long-lived memory response can last a lifetime for some viruses such as measles.

We have two main parts of our adaptive immune response: B cells and T cells. Both of these cells can generate "memory".

We'll talk about B cells first. They make antibodies, which latch onto and destroy disease-causing agents such as viruses and bacteria.

A team of researchers from Australia, led by Menno van Zelm at Monash University, published a preliminary study last week showing the body can generate memory B cells specific to SARS-CoV-2. The research showed these cells last at least eight months, and likely even longer. This means these memory B cells could still rapidly produce antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 eight months post-infection, if the person were to be exposed to the virus again (although this work has not yet been peer-reviewed so should be treated with caution).

Other researchers from the United States showed memory B cells lasted at least six months, in a preliminary study also released last week.

While the researchers from Australia saw a drop in circulating antibodies against the virus after two months in the blood of the 25 patients they looked at, they found memory B cells against two important parts of the virus: the spike protein (what most vaccines are designed to target) and the "nucleocapsid", another structural protein of the virus.

They say this should give long-lasting immunity.

But we can't directly prove this, because that would involve reinfecting patients, which would be unethical. So to study this further, we have to rely on natural reinfections.

There have been just 26 confirmed cases of reinfection reported worldwide so far, according to a COVID reinfection tracker by Dutch news agency BNO News (although the true tally is likely higher). With 60 million people infected globally so far, reinfection therefore seems to be a very rare event.

What about T cells? These are cells that bind directly to infected human cells within the body and destroy them. All infected cells smuggle out bits of the invading pathogen onto their surface, as a kind of "SOS" signal that allows T cells to find the hidden enemy.

Researchers from the University of Oxford published a study in September showing memory T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2. This means certain T cells could remember how to respond to virus-infected cells, long after the initial infection was cleared —although there was no data on how long this may last.

A more recent study, published as a preliminary report last week from researchers in China and Germany, answers this question.

They studied patients from Wuhan, where the first reported COVID cases occurred, and who therefore have the oldest immune responses. They showed T cell memory responses were still present nine months after infection.

It would seem SARS-CoV-2 is not like its normal common cold coronavirus cousins. People's immune responses to common cold coronaviruses typically don't last very long, meaning we typically get reinfected by 12 months.

But it's clear people's immune systems can "remember" and respond to SARS-CoV-2. Interestingly, more severe coronavirus infections SARS and MERS appear to elicit longer-lasting responses up to three years.

So, people who've been naturally infected with SARS-CoV-2 can expect reinfection to be rare. If it does occur it will probably result in very mild disease, but otherwise they should be fully protected for at least eight or nine months after their first infection.

But we still don't know what would happen if someone was re-exposed after this timeline — only time will tell.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-26/new-research-immunity-to-covid-19-better-than-first-thought/12920668

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

America’s Two Largest Republican States Announce They Will Have No More Lockdowns

America’s two largest Republican states — Texas and Florida — have announced that they will not be going into any more lockdowns as coronavirus cases surge across the country. The news comes as 45 out of 50 states have seen at least a 10% increase in coronavirus cases from the previous week.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott “said in an interview that there won’t be ‘any more lockdowns’ in the state and he wants to focus on ‘working to heal those who have Covid’ so they can leave the hospitals and get back to their normal routines,” NBC News reported. “A spokesperson for the governor told NBC News on Wednesday that Abbott’s plan to slow the spread of the virus will rely on ‘the data-driven hospitalization metrics used by doctors and medical experts.'”

Renae Eze, a spokesperson for Abbott’s office, issued the following statement last week outlining the state’s plan to deal with the spike in cases:

As some communities experience a rise in hospitalizations, the state of Texas is working closely with local officials to quickly provide the resources needed to address these spikes and keep Texans safe. The state’s coordination efforts go hand-in-hand with enforcing the existing protocols, a strategy that proved effective in slowing the spread over the summer and containing COVID-19 while allowing businesses to safely operate. The protocols work, but only if they are enforced. The reality is, COVID-19 still exists in Texas and across the globe, and Texans should continue to take this virus seriously and do their part by social distancing, washing their hands, and wearing a mask. These best practices, coupled with the governor’s metrics to monitor COVID-19 hospitalizations and local enforcement of protocols, are key to mitigating this virus and keeping our communities and our people safe.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis also dismissed the notion of shutting down his state as cases surge around the country.

“Today we are back down to 4,500 [cases] and a 7.3% positivity rate,” a spokesperson for Governor DeSantis told CBS12 News. “We believe yesterday’s high number was due to a large submission file and skewed the numbers for that day. The Governor will not lock down and hurt families who can’t afford to shelter in place for 6 weeks. Especially not for a virus that has a 99.8% survival rate. One area of concern is Assisted Living Facilities. Since those over 70 face the greatest threat from [COVID] the Governor is monitoring those numbers daily and is prepared to move therapeutic and prophylactic assets to those facilities as needed.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/americas-two-largest-republican-states-announce-they-will-have-no-more-lockdowns

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

IN BRIEF

Trump vows he'll "never concede" despite administration starting transition move (Washington Times)

Pennsylvania, Nevada, North Carolina, and Minnesota certify their election results (NYT)

Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Arizona legislatures will hold hearings on election fraud (LifeNews.com)

GOP poised to flip four House seats in deep-blue California, more than any other state (Fox News)

Biden will immediately move to give citizenship to millions of illegals (Daily Wire)

The Dow surpasses 30,000 for the first time ever (Bongino.com)

Home prices see biggest spike in six years in September (CNBC)

Restaurant employees out of work again as virus surges anew (AP)

Airlines absurdly discussing requiring proof of COVID vaccination for passengers (The Hill)

Seattle city council slashes police budget (Free Beacon)

California inmates part of a $1 billion unemployment fraud schemes (Politico) But remember: Voter fraud isn't a thing.

"Transhood" documentary despicably shows parents brainwashing four-year-olds (The Federalist)

Young kid get "baptized" into transgenderism at a woke "church" (Not the Bee)

"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." —Matthew 18:6

Outdoor dining during COVID is starting to look suspiciously like indoor dining (Not the Bee)

Pete Davidson to lead all-star version of "It's a Wonderful Life" (NY Post)

Our Andrew Culper observes: "Davidson is trying to fill the shoes of Jimmy Stewart, a literal war hero. What a joke!"

Here's what a few notable communists would look like with bangs (Not the Bee)

Dude goes to a restaurant that's about to shut down, buys one beer, leaves a $3,000 tip (Not the Bee)

Policy: Socialism failed miserably for the Pilgrims, just like it does everywhere (The Federalist)

Policy: Americans should be free to decide how to celebrate Thanksgiving (Daily Signal)

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

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)

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

Face Masks Are A Religion Now. All Hail The Almighty Mask!

Most religions, including Christianity, must by definition give the Almighty the benefit of any doubt when things don’t work out the way we mere humans would like. He is, after all, the creator of the universe. Who are we to question, right? A prayed-for sick loved one dies. God is good. An election doesn’t go our way? God is still good. A tsunami wipes out half a country? Well, you get the picture.

Real religions as an attempt to explain mankind’s greatest and oldest questions are one thing. However, turning an unproven scientific hypothesis into a de facto religion as a way to tarnish detractors as heretics and stifle debate is quite another, and anyone who doubts the fact that face masks have become just such a de facto religion should consider how they too ALWAYS get the benefit of any doubt. When COVID-19 spikes sharply in an area that’s already at ~100 percent mask compliance, the solution is always, always, always to “MASK HARRRDDDDERRRRR!” And when that inevitably doesn’t work, they call for lockdown measures, all the while never daring to question the efficacy of the sacred mask.

Masks can’t possibly have ANY negative side effects on health or society, we are told, even as social media giants censor legitimate medical professionals who conduct studies that suggest otherwise. In their zeal to worship the Almighty Face Mask, zealots even insist that high school athletes cover their faces with what soon becomes a wet washcloth while competing outdoors in the rain, their omnipotent power and glory being such that no negative health ramifications will ever occur. Masks are the “best tool” we have to “stop the spread of COVID-19,” our overlords constantly tell a population that is ALREADY well above the 80 percent mask compliance so-called "experts" once promised in May it would take to make cases “plummet.”

But cases aren’t "plummeting," now are they? Quite the contrary, they are exploding all over Europe and the U.S., despite the fact that Joe Biden once insisted that if only the Trump administration would have been more like Europe we would have stopped this virus in its tracks, or something. Now, media "geniuses" marvel at how European countries that supposedly "did EVERYTHING right (!!)" are nevertheless slammed with COVID-19 cases, yet not one of them will admit that perhaps "everything right" could just be … WRONG. They aren’t capable of questioning their previous assumptions and beliefs, in no small part because, again, those beliefs have become a religion.

Consider the puzzlement contained in this Daily Beast article about Italy’s recent spike: “What's particularly troubling about the return of COVID in Italy is that the country has done everything experts like Dr. Anthony Fauci have been advising,” writes Barbie Latza Nadeau. “Face masks in public places have been compulsory for months, social distancing is strongly enforced, nightclubs have never reopened, and sporting arenas are at less than a third of capacity. Children who are back at school are regularly tested and strictly social-distanced, and yet, the second wave seems completely unstoppable.”

The Daily Beast is shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that human measures touted for months have been almost entirely futile. Despite instituting an outdoor, 1,000 euro fine-enforced mask mandate, the virus nevertheless stubbornly insists on virusing. Italy had 37,237 cases Friday (the equivalent to 204,803 in U.S. numbers) and 699 deaths. If that played out in the U.S., it would mean 3,844 dead in one day alone, a number never reached even in the spring. It's almost like it doesn't really matter what humans do, short of draconian, destructive lockdowns that harm millions and delay the inevitable.

Democratic Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak, like most of these power-hungry wanna-be dictators, was in the “it’s all your fault” camp for months. Chastising Nevadans for COVID-19 spikes like an angry parent threatening consequences for bad behavior, Sisolak, presumably while firmly wagging his finger, scolded, "I'm not going to come back in two weeks and say I'm going to give you another chance." His tone was a bit more humble, however, once news broke that he managed to catch the ‘Rona himself: “You can take all the precautions that are possible and you can still contract the virus. I don’t know how I got it."

Go figure. Viruses keep virusing, and humans keep twisting themselves and their societies into pretzels to little or no avail. A brazen, ridiculous CNN headline last week summarizes the absolute insanity of it all. “Their states are in crisis after they resisted masks and Covid-19 rules,” CNN wrote, referring to Republican governors like South Dakota’s Kristi Noem who have “largely taken a hands-off approach” to the virus. “It hasn’t worked out well,” they smugly write, conveniently leaving out the fact that the virus is spreading significantly in countless places that, like Italy, are supposedly doing “everything right.”

It’s journalistic malpractice, of course. Obviously, the virus was going to spread in the Dakotas, especially since they didn’t really have much of a spike before. It may even be a bit worse per capita for a while because of that, but as Noem has aptly pointed out, hospitals aren’t overwhelmed and they are handling things just fine. Meanwhile, Michigan broke the 10,000 case mark Friday for the first time, and cases are exploding in states like Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, all of which have doubled-down on forced masking as a way to control spread.

Except, it isn’t controlling the spread at all, and the spikes in countries that don’t implement forced masking, like Sweden and Norway, aren’t any worse and are often better than their masked counterparts.

Meanwhile, CNN continues to pee on our legs and tell us it’s raining by citing “research” before the November surge that basically cherry-picks a few rural areas in Kansas where 10 cases would equal a “50 percent spike!!!!” to contend that “mask-mandates work to slow the spread of Covid-19.” All the while conveniently ignoring all the masked areas where cases are exploding.

As Tucker Carlson so eloquently put it on his show last week: “If masks and lockdowns stopped spikes in coronavirus infections, then we wouldn't be seeing spikes in coronavirus infections.” Indeed, if masks work, why aren’t they WORKING?

It would all be a ridiculous joke if they hadn’t succeeded in making it a de facto religion.

https://townhall.com/columnists/scottmorefield/2020/11/23/face-masks-are-a-religion-now-all-hail-the-almighty-mask-n2580495?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=11/23/2020&bcid=6bed8ec6c23532f964400caf5c21036b&recip=6139244

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

It's time to go to bat for market forces

Comment from Australia

It could be the news of not one, but two, COVID-19 vaccines with over 90 per cent effectiveness that could be widely distributed before winter. It could be some economic green shoots, with some forecasters - particularly at the big banks - predicting a far faster recovery than first feared.

It could be just that it's nearly summer time.

Economic optimism is a good thing in more ways than one: it's like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Optimism breeds consumer and business confidence, which itself generates the desired investment and economic growth to beat the pandemic recession.

Of course, given what 2020 has dished out thus far, it might be wise to exercise some caution amid the optimism - lest we next suffer a plague of locusts or some other biblical black swan.

Yet, while the short-term issues associated with the recovery are crucially important, they're not the only serious economic problem we face.

Although it may seem like the sort of dull thing we used to be concerned about back when we didn't have any real problems (circa 2019), you may recall that wage growth leading into the recession was at near record lows, despite a 28-year run of uninterrupted economic growth.

As the Productivity Commission pointed out in its latest report on productivity, stimulating and maintaining productivity growth are the only things that will boost wages in the long term.

There are two roadblocks to rebooting productivity, one on the left and one on the right. From the right, the concern is the re-emergence of economic nationalism and protectionism. From the left, the issue is the strangling growth of regulation.

It took a long time for Australia to move away from protectionism. There is a serious risk that the border safety concerns of the pandemic will drive Australia, and the rest of the world, back towards the insular, protectionist attitudes that were prominent in the 1950s, '60s and '70s.

As the Productivity Commission explained, the "Fortress Australia" approach of protection all around was deeply flawed: "The walls of Fortress Australia were unable to protect us from the economic turmoil of the 1970s and contributed to Australia sliding down the income ladder."

Scepticism of a free trade-led approach to international relations had been growing for years before the pandemic.

In the United States, both sides of politics have been openly expressing hostility to the merits of free trade deals. President Donald Trump has been a strong proponent of economic nationalism: specifically the idea that America is a loser from trade with the rest of the world.

A big part of Trump's pitch to "make America great again" was bringing manufacturing jobs back to America.

Of course, the unexplained flaw in this argument is that most of the jobs were actually lost to automation not trade. And the ability to manufacture far more than we used to, at a lower price, thanks to automation and productivity gains, is one of the most tangible examples of why we should embrace a pro-market agenda.

A pro-market agenda is not a pro-business agenda: it's a pro-consumer agenda. After all, despite what the politicians say, the gains from trade do not primarily arise from chiselling out access to distant markets for producers.

The biggest benefit comes from the competition that foreign producers bring to domestic markets. Competition drives innovation and cuts margins: that means more products and lower prices for consumers.

Competition forces firms to become more efficient to thrive. Firms protected from that competition grow fat and lazy, taking their customers for granted because they have nowhere else to go.

Regulation is a different type of limitation on competition, one that is equally damaging and even more insidious. Whatever lofty language is used to justify them, regulations are primarily about government control over businesses and markets.

Sometimes that control is exercised effectively, for a good purpose; such as regulations around manufacturing standards for medicines and medical devices.

But more often, regulation - regardless of how well-intentioned government is - creates as many problems as it solves. Regulations may create barriers to entry and flow through into unaffordable price rises.

The best example here is childcare, where the National Quality Framework has driven rapid growth in prices and out of pocket costs, despite increasing government subsidies.

Overzealous regulators can also create perverse outcomes, like ASIC's enforcement of responsible lending laws.

And sometimes regulation exists solely for the purpose of protecting vested interests, to the detriment of consumers - such as restrictions on the placement and ownership of pharmacies.

The number and scope of regulations imposed by government has exploded in the last decade or so. It would be convenient to point to the global financial crisis and its supposed failure of capitalism as the genesis of this trend, but in reality a desire to tamper with market forces to control economic outcomes far predates this downturn.

The left of politics in particular has embraced the regulatory state, both because of a discomfort with markets and because the declining power of unions has weakened their ability to push their social and political agenda on business and society through industrial muscle.

The distrust of market forces and the supposed unfairness of the outcomes from free markets are common to both right-wing protectionists and left-wing regulationists. The COVID-19 pandemic has enabled and encouraged the expansion of these attitudes.

Yet, as the Productivity Commission and the governor of the Reserve Bank have both made clear in recent days, freeing up market forces is the key not only to emerging from the COVID-19 recession but to sustained income growth thereafter.

If the green shoots of recovery are indeed more robust than they seemed a few months ago, it will be because Australia's efforts at deregulation and opening of markets in the 1990s and 2000s made our economy one of the most resilient in the world, in spite of the hostility to those ideas that has been growing since then.

It will not be easy to reignite this agenda. A lot of the low-hanging fruit has been picked, and what's left will require taking on entrenched vested interests (particularly in the public sector, where the productivity gains promise to be the greatest).

But if we want broad-based wage growth, then it's time to go to work.

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7020715/its-time-to-go-to-bat-for-market-forces/

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

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)

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

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)

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