Is Trump a populist?

Leftist intellectuals are firmly convinced that Trump is a populist. And that accusation does make some sense. But a lot depends on what you think populism is. The general idea is that a populist adopts popular stances that in the end don't work or are destructive. That strikes me as a useful summary of Leftism.

So the term is usually narrowed down to refer to politicians who claim to represent "the people" in opposition to a ruling elite. Trump's attack on "the swamp" is clearly of that ilk. So which is it? Is populism inherently Leftist or is it just one approach to politics?

A useful approach to defining populism has been made by Joe Forgas, a distinguished Australian psychologist who escaped Communist Hungary as a child. Given that origin, his sympathey for the Left is rather limited, unusually for a social science academic.

He equates populism with tribalism and notes that Trump appealed to Americans as a tribe: "Make America great". Forgas also sees the Left as hugely tribal, obsessed with all sorts of tribal identities: Homosexuals, feminists, blacks etc. The Left, too, create tribes with their propaganda.

So Forgas does create a coherent story about populism.

But I think he misses the wood for the trees. He overlooks what British conservative philosopher Roger Scruton devoted his life to pointing out: That patriotism and conservatism are two branches of the same tree. So it was not some sort of narrow tribalism that lay behind Trump's appeal but his conservatism generally.

Trump certainly was patriotic and wanted the best for his country but he also had a whole range of conservative ideas -- he was critical of abortion, he disliked feminism, he sidelined global warming, he was pro-Christian etc. And he most clearly saw the status quo as having some virtue and thought it should be changed only gradually.

Where most thinkers saw the transfer of American industrial jobs to China as desirable on cost grounds, Trump looked to the effect that was having on American industrial workers and tried to halt it. He taught us that money was not everything. Stability had value too

And another change that Trump vehemently opposed was the mass illegal immigration into America by people with very different traditions to Americans. He liked America as it was and wanted population change to be carefully controlled and limited

So "make America great" was only a general rubric for a whole range of conservative policies. He was a thoroughgoing conservative, the first such that Americans had seen in public life for a long time. And that is why he is widely loved by conservatives and widely loathed by non-conservatives. The Left could put up with wishy-washy conservative like George Bush but a real conservative shook them to the core. They had never before been confronted by a real conservative and that generated huge rage

So Trump was a populist in only an incidental sense. The breadth of his appeal was the voice he gave to conservatism across the board. The Left thought that their own limited view of the world was the only one. Trump showed them otherwise

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

Biden, like Trump, embraces the 'Buy American' folly

What Jeff Jacoby says below was for a long time conventional wisdom on both sides of American politics. And it is still largely true. Buying local tends to prop up inefficient producers who really need to find something better to spend their time and efforts on.

Jacoby is however wrong to see Trump as the simplistic "buy American" advocate we have seen in the past. Trump does after all have an economics degree from a prestigious economics school (Wharton) so would obviously be well aware of the problems with a buy American agenda.

So while his rhetoric was at times sweeping, what Trump actually did was finely calibrated. He protected American industries only when the social impact of foreign trade was grievous. The headline example of that is that coal and steel towns got help from Trump when they were suddenly hard-hit by foreign trade. Trump endeavoured to revive coal mining in particular. He recognized, in other words, that there were some cases where buying overseas rather from American producers could be socially disruptive and should therefore be deplored.

Tariffs have long been seen as a legitimate instrument of government and it was simply conservative of Trump to use them to give a breathing space to disrupted communities

But the very distinctive thing about Trump's tariffs was that he actually used them to FREE UP trade. He put tariffs on other countries in order to pressure them into removing their tariffs on American goods. And he did have considerable success at that. So at the end of the day trade was freed up overall, not reduced. He actually used tariffs to promote free trade

Whether Biden will use trade restrictions in a similar intelligent way remains to be seen but it seems unlikely

IN HIS first weeks as president, Joe Biden has been busily undoing much of his predecessor's legacy. On issues ranging from climate to abortion to immigration, Biden has signed executive orders and proposed new regulations aimed at reversing Donald Trump's policies. But when it comes to one of Trump's most damaging economic obsessions — his "Buy American" agenda — Biden is following in Trump's footsteps.

Trump was the most protectionist president of modern times. Hostility to free trade was a key theme of his 2016 campaign and of his inaugural address. "We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs," he declared. "Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength.... We will follow two simple rules: buy American, and hire American."

He was wrong. His protectionist policies failed. Yet now comes Biden, and vows to go even further.

On Jan. 25, the president issued a series of directives toughening Trump's policy of requiring the federal government to buy US-made products. Biden's orders, as summarized by the White House, impose higher hurdles for imported components used in US manufacturing and direct government agencies to "crack down on unnecessary waivers" — i.e., to allow fewer federal agencies to procure foreign-made goods in cases when they determine that a preference for American products would not be in the public interest.

But "buy American" mandates, though popular with the general public, are never in the public interest.

The idea that the federal government should be compelled to buy its products and supplies from US producers and suppliers — or, to put it differently, that the government should be barred from spending taxpayer dollars on goods made abroad — dates back to the Great Depression. On his last full day as president in 1933, Herbert Hoover signed the protectionist Buy American Act, which for the first time required government agencies to give preference to domestic goods for all contracts above a $10,000 threshold. Supporters of the law argued that it would strengthen American industry, fuel job-creation, and boost the fortunes of American workers.

The same argument is still being made by advocates of "buy American" policies. Biden's new executive orders, said the White House, "will ensure that the federal government is investing taxpayer dollars in American businesses—both small and large. These investments will help create well-paid, union jobs, and build our economy back better so that everybody has a fair shot at the middle class."

That may sound patriotic and reasonable. But the effect of Hoover's law, and myriad subsequent domestic-preference statutes and regulations, has been to drive up the cost of goods and services bought with public funds and to prevent jobs from being created. According to one scholarly estimate, scrapping "buy American" restrictions would add $22 billion to the US economy and generate an estimated 363,000 new jobs. Another analysis, by Gary Hufbauer and Euijin Jung of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, calculates that "the annual taxpayer cost for each US job arguably 'saved' by made-in-America [requirements] probably exceeds $250,000."

"Buy American" laws and regulations have driven up the cost of goods and services bought with public funds and prevented jobs from being created.

There is a superficial appeal to the notion that US procurement dollars should be reserved whenever possible for US producers. But like a lot of superficially appealing notions, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. No one would ever insist that officials in Cambridge or Worcester be compelled to buy equipment and materials only from vendors and producers located within their municipal borders. After all, there are so many more options — often less expensive options, higher-quality options, or more reliable options — to be found in other towns. It would be equally absurd to insist that Massachusetts agencies be barred from contracting with firms in Ohio or California. Economic well-being doesn't come from locking up trade behind local or state boundaries, but from expanding it beyond those boundaries. What is true of neighborhoods, cities, and states is equally true of countries.

Protectionist mandates deprive American taxpayers of the benefits that come from access to worldwide supply chains and the broadest possible competition. By sheltering domestic producers from competitors abroad, "buy American" rules reduce the pressure on those producers to innovate, improve quality, and become more efficient. Rare is the American business that is capable of achieving sustained excellence, or of remaining at the cutting edge of its industry, if it never has to face challengers.

Those entrusted with taxpayer dollars should be required not to "buy American," but to buy wisely — to get the highest quality at the most reasonable cost. When American-made products meet that standard, by all means buy them. When imports are available at higher quality and lower cost, that is where taxpayer dollars should go. Surely Biden would agree that Herbert Hoover's policies have done enough harm. This is no time to double down on them.

http://www.jeffjacoby.com/25195/biden-like-trump-embraces-the-buy-american-folly

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

COVID: UK variant up to 100 percent more deadly, study finds

Research reveals the B.1.1.7 strain of the novel coronavirus is significantly more lethal than earlier variants.

A highly infectious variant of COVID-19 first discovered in the United Kingdom is between 30 to 100 percent more deadly than previous strains, researchers have said.

In a study that compared death rates among people in the UK infected with the variant known as B.1.1.7 with those infected with other strains, scientists said the new strain had “significantly higher” mortality.

Published in the British Medical Journal on Wednesday, the UK study revealed infection with what is commonly known as the “UK variant” led to 227 deaths in a sample of 54,906 COVID-19 patients, compared with 141 among the same number of patients infected with other variants.

“Coupled with its ability to spread rapidly, this makes B.1.1.7 a threat that should be taken seriously,” said Robert Challen, a researcher at Exeter University who co-led the research.

B.1.1.7 was first detected in the English county of Kent in September 2020 and has since become the dominant strain in the UK. It fanned outwards rapidly, and more than 100 other countries have reported cases since.

The variant has 23 mutations in its genetic code – a relatively high number of changes – and some of these have made it far more able to spread.

UK scientists say it is about 40-70 percent more transmissible than the first-wave coronavirus.

Its rapid spread in the UK late last year fuelled a surge in cases and deaths and, on January 4, forced a new national lockdown – the country’s third since the pandemic began.

To date, the UK has recorded more than 4.3 million cases of COVID-19. The virus has killed nearly 125,000 people nationwide – one of the world’s worst death tolls.

In a bid to curb the crisis, officials have rolled out a mass inoculation drive which has seen more than 22.5 million people – about a third of the UK’s adult population – receive at least one dose of a vaccine to date.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson last month said he was confident the vaccines currently being used in the UK – produced by Oxford-AstraZeneca and Pfizer-BioNtech – were “effective in protecting against death and serious illness”.

His comments came amid fears over the emergence of two other highly infectious virus strains – the so-called Brazilian and South African variants, known by scientists as 20I/501Y.V2 or B.1.351 and P.1 respectively.

According to the World Health Organization, the COVID-19 vaccines that are currently in development or have been approved in various parts of the world are expected to provide at least some protection against the new variants.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/3/10/uk-covid-19-variant-30-100-more-deadly-study-finds

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

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indisputable Proof That Donald J. Trump Won the Election

On election night Trump was ahead, significantly ahead. By 930pm on election night, it was already a statistical impossibility for Biden to win. Yet, all of a sudden, despite Trump’s substantial margin, Biden was ahead and winning the election, how did this happen? Notice in the graphic below Trump’s lead (top numbers) and then Biden’s fraudulent lead – which occurred within 5 hours, in the middle of the night. Note also that this sudden leap forward for Biden just by chance happened in not one state or even two, but FOUR states, and ALL at the same time. Oh, and they were all swing states, but that’s all just coincidence right?

Notice in the below image that Biden instantly received 23 times the votes that Trump did in Michigan. Not in hours, but in minutes. This is of course impossible.

Look at the above graphic where Trump was ahead by over 100,000 votes. In ONE vote update in Wisconsin, Biden leapfrogs ahead by some 20,000 votes. How can this be? Answer – it CAN’T.

One vote update in Georgia gave Trump 29,000 votes – the same update gave Biden 136,000 votes. Seeing a pattern here?

These abnormal, and unquestionably all but impossible vote count spikes gave Biden the win. Except that based solely on statistics, Biden could not possibly have received this many votes in so short a time, in so many states – at the same time. Neither could any other candidate – ever.

Have you ever heard of 100% of a particular voter precinct actually voting? Well, how about 150% – or over 300% of a voting precinct voting??? Well guess what? This actually did happen, in Michigan.

From Kiwiblog:

“Russell Ramsland of Allied Security Group, LLC of Dallas, TX swore an affidavit concerning a detailed audit his company did on voting machines in Texas in 2018. He wrote in detail of the many serious security inadequacies of the software and then examined the 2020 Presidential vote count in a number of counties in Michigan. He reported that over 3,000 precincts in the state of Michigan reported a vote count between 80 and 350% of registered voters. He lists a number of precincts in his report and in some cases a massive over vote. The vast majority of the precincts on the list were on or about 100%. The whole affidavit makes for interesting reading.

Note again the mention of Dominion, and particular software used to essentially rig the vote. It’s not possible to obtain 350% of the registered vote, that is only common sense and only a fool would deny it.

The Kiwiblog post referenced above mentions other very interesting statistical details such as Trump being the first president in 132 years to have increased his vote total in his reelection bid, and NOT win reelection. I encourage you to read the article; it supports the case that the Democrats cheated – big time.

Judicial Watch reported finding 353 U.S. Counties in 29 States with Voter Registration Rates Exceeding 100%. Seems to me that these counties are fertile areas for vote manipulation.

Pennsylvania was another major playground for vote manipulation.

From Libertas Bella:

“What’s more, Pennsylvania was another state where vote-counting was paused with the Vote Fairy showing up in the middle of the night to drop obscene amounts of ballots, all marked for former Vice President Joe Biden.

Two examples of such dumps were reported on by left-leaning Five Thirty Eight on their Twitter feed: 23,277 votes came in from Philadelphia, all of them for Biden. 5,300 votes in Luzerne County, which includes Wilkes-Barre, with nearly 4,000 of them for Biden. This was on November 4, the day after the election, when the number of outstanding ballots miraculously increased throughout the day.

Another vote dump went for Joe Biden by a 92-8 margin, something that might have been plausible in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, but not so much in the United States.

Pennsylvania law does not allow for mail-in ballots to be counted in advance, which is rather convenient for anyone seeking to rig an election. Simply wait for the other side to count their ballots, then fabricate as many as you need to put your candidate slightly over the top.”

It is worth noting here that the vote dumps for Biden in the above article were reported by a LEFTIST magazine.

Ever hear of weighted race distribution? Yet another way to manipulate votes, via – you guessed it, voting machines. It works like this: the candidate you like, well one vote for that person counts as one and a half, or two votes, because the voting machine is set to weigh the vote in whatever fashion a person sets it for. Conversely, the candidate that you don’t like, each of his or her votes only count as half of one vote for example. All of this happens with none the wiser. Except that now these voting patterns have been caught by some sharp voting sleuths, like Dr. Shiva.

The votes are stored in decimal form, very easy to manipulate. Dr. Shiva also said that the process used by the HAMMER, which we reported on, used to allegedly manipulate votes is EASY to do.

In Wisconsin:

A data scientist who remains anonymous performed a review of the data in precincts in Milwaukee. His conclusion is very similar to Dr. Shiva’s in Michigan in three counties. The more Republican the makeup of a precinct, the more votes that were taken away from President Trump and ‘switched’ to Joe Biden. Also, ironically these votes move in a linear fashion which is very disturbing and highly, highly unlikely. The pattern indicates that these precincts were manipulated and votes were removed from President Trump and allocated to Joe Biden.

Over a period of days, more than a week actually, it was observed that the vote ratios between Trump and Biden in vote tabulation updates were identical – and this happened in more than one state. This is IMPOSSIBLE, there is no way that this could have naturally happened without any interference.

This happened in Florida, Connecticut, and Minnesota among other states. Again, weighted race distribution is mentioned by yet another source – Patriot Intel Report. Watch the video below:

[Rumble Video]

At the State Farm Arena on election night, election workers were supposedly all sent home. Except that there are five workers still present, and these workers are counting votes with some of the votes being counted multiple times. It’s all on video. Watch at about the 5:45 mark in the above video.

How about the woman who was exposed by Project Veritas and busted by Texas law enforcement for harvesting votes for pay in Texas?

Now, in today’s world, the Democrats and the media claim that all information published claiming vote fraud via voting machines (Dominion) or any other way is “dangerous misinformation.”

It wasn’t all that long ago that the Democrats and the media were claiming the very same things are (were) a problem!

“The principle of one person, one vote is the single greatest tool we have to redress an unjust status quo.”

“We’re right to be on guard against voter fraud. Voter fraud would impinge on our democracy. We don’t want folks voting that shouldn’t be voting. We all agree on that. Let’s stipulate to that, as the lawyers say.”

Who do you suppose made the above statements? Barack Obama in 2014.

How about a letter from 4 Democrats stating that voting machines are not secure – in 2019!

“The letter, sent Wednesday, calls on election equipment makers ES&S, Dominion Voting and Hart InterCivic to explain why they continue to sell decades-old machines, which the senators say contain security flaws that could undermine the results of elections if exploited.”

Watch the above video which lays out the case that foreign countries were without a doubt involved in the 2020 election fraud. IP addresses accessed through Dominion machines connected to the Internet were shown to originate in Iran and China.

Even more suspicious, security logs for these machines for 2020 – are ALL missing. Now why would that be do you think?

There were also significant error rates in these voting machines.

From Amac:

“For example, while the allowable election error rate established by the Federal Election Commission (FEC.gov) guidelines is 1 in 250,000 ballots (.0008 percent), ASOG’s forensic analysis observed an error rate of 68.05 percent, which is a significant and fatal error in security and election integrity.” (Bolding mine)

There were also massive amounts of ballots that had to be adjudicated. What does that mean? It means the ballots cast are rejected, and then are sent to election personnel who then make a determination as to who the ballots are credited to – or not. This is done WITHOUT supervision. Vote flipping is the obvious reason here. In the past, votes rejected were low, not anymore, this being just another way for the Democrats to cheat their way to the win.

Consider the following example:

“For example, in Central Lake Township, there were 1,222 ballots reversed out of 1,491 total ballots cast, resulting in an 81.96 percent rejection rate. These reversed ballots are sent to “adjudication” for a decision to be made by election personnel. When such a staggering number of votes require adjudication, the biggest problem includes integrity and chain of custody issues. It makes it easy to “flip” votes without any supervision en masse. In past elections, the rejection rates were so low, this was a minor risk, whereas now, it is a major risk and most likely one of the means of exploitation that took place to defraud one candidate out of a massive number of votes that would have been in his favor. The video below demonstrates how easy it is to cheat at adjudication:”

Mail-in ballots are another huge source of voter fraud. According to a Google search, this is largely untrue. On a Yahoo search, you at least see both sides of the story.

Like how 28 million votes went missing in the last four elections. Or a Democrat operative who says mail-in vote fraud is more the norm than not. These particular elections were overturned because of mail-in (absentee) vote fraud.

Thousands of poll workers and everyday citizens testified via affidavit to illegal activity at the polling places. In Arizona, over 20,000 mail-in ballots were received BEFORE they were even mailed – this also happened in Pennsylvania according to the Geller Report. There is ample evidence of voter fraud, and election fraud – yet the courts refuse to even HEAR the evidence. Voting laws were changed in many states by state officials at the last minute – the problem is that having done this is illegal, only the state’s legislature has the authority to make these changes.

Anyone denying the existence of voter fraud in the U.S. should visit the Heritage Foundation’s online voter fraud database, where they will find 1,311 proven instances of it – including 1,130 criminal convictions.

Remember how the Democrats insisted that in the 2016 election the only reason Trump won was because the Russians “stole” the election from Hillary? These same Democrats now insist that the 2020 presidential (and other elections as well) election was the safest and most secure election ever.

There can be NO doubt that the Democrats cheated, and cheated massively. The numbers of all kinds simply do NOT add up. The evidence that there was massive vote fraud is so overwhelming that it cannot even begin to be contested. I presented a ton of it here, and there is a lot more out there from many different sources.

That last sentence is key – there is evidence from many different sources. A source, or two, or heck even three maybe got it wrong. But not hundreds of sources.

The election was stolen, and Biden IS illegitimate. Trump IS the rightful president of the United States of America.

https://newswithviews.com/indisputable-proof-that-donald-j-trump-won-the-election/

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

Justice for Derek Chauvin

If you were a juror, would you dare to return a ‘not guilty’ verdict?

As I write, jury selection for the murder trial of Derek Chauvin is about to begin in Minneapolis. You remember Derek Chauvin, right? He is the (former) policeman charged with the murder of St George Floyd, race martyr (also drug addict, woman abuser, and career criminal).

First, the video clip that horrified the world was heavily edited. We see Floyd, pinned to the ground by Chauvin, piteously crying ‘I can’t breathe.’ Conclusion? That he can’t breathe because Chauvin is pressing on his windpipe. But a look at the police bodycam footage shows that Floyd was complaining that he couldn’t breathe before he was restrained by the police. Why? Because, as the FBI’s interview with the local medical examiner on July 8, 2020 revealed, Floyd was suffering from pulmonary edema, i.e., his lungs were full of fluid. And why was that? Partly because of an underlying heart condition, partly because Floyd was full to the gills with fentanyl, a drug known to affect respiration and cause pulmonary edema.

Here’s something else. Although Chauvin’s restraint looks brutal, it was actually part of the standard Minneapolis police protocol for dealing with persons exhibiting ‘excited delirium,’ a dangerous, often fatal, condition brought about by too much fentanyl with one’s afternoon tea. According to the medical examiner, Chauvin did not appear to have obstructed Floyd’s airway — Floyd would not have been able to speak if he had — and Floyd did not die from strangulation. Bottom line, George Floyd died from the effects of a self-administered drug overdose, effects that might have been exacerbated by his interactions with the police, i.e., his exertions in resisting arrest. For their part, the police were trying to help Floyd. It was they who called the ambulance because they recognized that Floyd was in extremis.

The real question is whether, whatever security window-dressing may be deployed, Derek Chauvin can receive a fair trial in Minneapolis. As former federal and state prosecutor George Parry has observed, ‘there is no conceivable possibility that Derek Chauvin can receive a fair trial in Hennepin County, simply because it will be impossible to seat an unintimidated jury free from the threat of mob violence. Conducting a trial under these circumstances will serve only to put a thin veneer of pretend due process on what in reality will be a legalized lynching based on a verdict rendered by a properly and quite understandably terrorized jury.’

https://spectator.us/topic/justice-derek-chauvin-george-floyd-minneapolis/

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

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Science, Politics, and COVID: Will Truth Prevail?

By Scott W. Atlas

The COVID pandemic has been a tragedy, no doubt. But it has exposed profound issues in America that threaten the principles of freedom and order that we Americans often take for granted.

First, I have been shocked at the unprecedented exertion of power by the government since last March — issuing unilateral decrees, ordering the closure of businesses, churches, and schools, restricting personal movement, mandating behavior, and suspending indefinitely basic freedoms. Second, I was and remain stunned — almost frightened — at the acquiescence of the American people to such destructive, arbitrary, and wholly unscientific rules, restrictions, and mandates.

The pandemic also brought to the forefront things we have known existed and have tolerated for years: media bias, the decline of academic freedom on campuses, the heavy hand of Big Tech, and — now more obviously than ever — the politicization of science. Ultimately, the freedom of Americans to seek and state what they believe to be the truth is at risk.

Let me say at the outset that I, like all of us, acknowledge that the consequences of the COVID pandemic and its management have been enormous. Over 500,000 American deaths have been attributed to the virus; more will follow. Even after almost a year, the pandemic still paralyzes our country. And despite all efforts, there has been an undeniable failure to stop cases from escalating and to prevent hospitalizations and deaths.

But there is also an unacknowledged reality: almost every state and major city in the U.S., with a handful of exceptions, have implemented severe restrictions for many months, including closures of businesses and in-person schools, mobility restrictions and curfews, quarantines, limits on group gatherings, and mask mandates dating back to at least last summer. And despite any myths to the contrary, social mobility tracking of Americans and data from Gallup, YouGov, the COVID-19 Consortium, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have all shown significant reductions of movement as well as a consistently high percentage of mask-wearing since the late summer, similar to the extent seen in Western Europe and approaching the extent seen in Asia.

With what results?

All legitimate policy scholars today should be reexamining the policies that have severely harmed America’s children and families, while failing to save the elderly. Numerous studies, including one from Stanford University’s infectious disease scientists and epidemiologists Benavid, Oh, Bhattacharya, and Ioannides have shown that the mitigating impact of the extraordinary measures used in almost every state was small at best — and usually harmful. President Biden himself openly admitted the lack of efficacy of these measures in his January 22 speech to the nation: “There is nothing we can do,” he said, “to change the trajectory of the pandemic in the next several months.”

Bizarrely, though, many want to blame those who opposed lockdowns and mandates for the failure of the very lockdowns and mandates that were widely implemented.

Besides their limited value in containing the virus, lockdown policies have been extraordinarily harmful. The harms to children of suspending in-person schooling are dramatic, including poor learning, school dropouts, social isolation, and suicidal ideation, most of which are far worse for lower income groups. A recent study confirms that up to 78 percent of cancers were never detected due to missed screening over a three-month period. If one extrapolates to the entire country, 750,000 to over a million new cancer cases over a nine-month period will have gone undetected. That health disaster adds to missed critical surgeries, delayed presentations of pediatric illnesses, heart attack and stroke patients too afraid to go to the hospital, and others — all well documented.

Beyond hospital care, the CDC reported four-fold increases in depression, three-fold increases in anxiety symptoms, and a doubling of suicidal ideation, particularly among young adults after the first few months of lockdowns, echoing American Medical Association reports of drug overdoses and suicides. Domestic and child abuse have been skyrocketing due to the isolation and loss of jobs. Given that many schools have been closed, hundreds of thousands of abuse cases have gone unreported, since schools are commonly where abuse is noticed. Finally, the unemployment shock from lockdowns, according to a recent National Bureau of Economic Research study, will generate a three percent increase in the mortality rate and a 0.5 percent drop in life expectancy over the next 15 years, disproportionately affecting African-Americans and women. That translates into what the study refers to as a “staggering” 890,000 additional U.S. deaths.

We know we have not yet seen the full extent of the damage from the lockdowns, because the effects will continue to be felt for decades. Perhaps that is why lockdowns were not recommended in previous pandemic response analyses, even for diseases with far higher death rates.

To determine the best path forward, shouldn’t policymakers objectively consider the impact both of the virus and of anti-virus policies to date? This points to the importance of health policy, my own particular field, which requires a broader scope than that of epidemiologists and basic scientists. In the case of COVID, it requires taking into account the fact that lockdowns and other significant restrictions on individuals have been extraordinarily harmful — even deadly — especially for the working class and the poor.

***
Optimistically, we should be seeing the light at the end of the long tunnel with the rollout of vaccines, now being administered at a rate of one million to 1.5 million per day. On the other hand, using logic that would appeal to Lewis Carroll’s Mad Hatter, in many states the vaccines were initially administered more frequently to healthier and younger people than to those at greatest risk from the virus. The argument was made that children should be among the first to be vaccinated, although children are at extremely low risk from the virus and are proven not to be significant spreaders to adults. Likewise, we heard the Kafka-esque idea promoted that teachers must be vaccinated before teaching in person, when schools are one of the lowest risk environments and the vast majority of teachers are not high risk.

Worse, we hear so-called experts on TV warning that social distancing, masks, and other restrictions will still be necessary after people are vaccinated! All indications are that those in power have no intention of allowing Americans to live normally — which for Americans means to live freely — again.

And sadly, just as in Galileo’s time, the root of our problem lies in “the experts” and vested academic interests. At many universities — which are supposed to be America’s centers for critical thinking — those with views contrary to those of “the experts” currently in power find themselves intimidated. Many have become afraid to speak up.

But the suppression of academic freedom is not the extent of the problem on America’s campuses.

To take Stanford, where I work, as an example, some professors have resorted to toxic smears in opinion pieces and organized rebukes aimed at those of us who criticized the failed health policies of the past year and who dared to serve our country under a president they despised — the latter apparently being the ultimate transgression.

Defamatory attacks with malicious intent based on straw-man arguments and out-of-context distortions are not acceptable in American society, let alone in our universities. There has been an attempt to intimidate and discredit me using falsifications and misrepresentations. This violates Stanford’s Code of Conduct, damages the Stanford name, and abuses the trust that parents and society place in educators.

It is understandable that most Stanford professors are not experts in the field of health policy and are ignorant of the data about the COVID pandemic. But that does not excuse the fact that some called recommendations that I made “falsehoods and misrepresentations of science.” That was a lie, and no matter how often lies are repeated by politically-driven accusers, and regardless of how often those lies are echoed in biased media, lies will never be true.

We all must pray to God that the infamous claim attributed to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels — "A lie told once remains a lie, but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth" — never becomes operative in the United States of America.

All of the policies I recommended to President Trump were designed to reduce both the spread of the virus to the most vulnerable and the economic, health, and social harms of anti-COVID policies for those impacted the most — small businesses, the working class, and the poor. I was one of the first to push for increasing protections for those most at risk, particularly the elderly. At the same time, almost a year ago, I recognized that we must also consider the enormous harms to physical and mental health, as well as the deaths attributable to the draconian policies implemented to contain the infection. That is the goal of public health policy — to minimize all harms, not simply to stop a virus at all costs.

The claim in a recent Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) opinion piece by three Stanford professors that “nearly all public health experts were concerned that [Scott Atlas’s] recommendations could lead to tens of thousands (or more) of unnecessary deaths in the U.S. alone” is patently false and absurd on its face. As pointed out by Dr. Joel Zinberg in National Review, the Great Barrington Declaration — a proposal co-authored by medical scientists and epidemiologists from Stanford, Harvard, and Oxford — "is closer to the one condemned in the JAMA article than anything Atlas said.“ Yet the Great Barrington Declaration has already been signed by over 50,000 medical and public health practitioners.

When critics display such ignorance about the scope of views held by experts, it exposes their bias and disqualifies their authority on these issues. Indeed, it is almost beyond parody that these same critics wrote that "professionalism demands honesty about what [experts] know and do not know.”

I have explained the fact that younger people have little risk from this infection, and I have explained the biological fact of herd immunity — just like Harvard epidemiologist Katherine Yih did. That is very different from proposing that people be deliberately exposed and infected — which I have never suggested, although I have been accused of doing so.

I have also been accused of “argu[ing] that many public health orders aimed at increasing social distancing could be forgone without ill effects.” To the contrary, I have repeatedly called for mitigation measures, including extra sanitization, social distancing, masks, group limits, testing, and other increased protections to limit the spread and damage from the coronavirus. I explicitly called for augmenting protection of those at risk — in dozens of on-the-record presentations, interviews, and written pieces.

My accusers have ignored my explicit, emphatic public denials about supporting the spread of the infection unchecked to achieve herd immunity — denials quoted widely in the media. Perhaps this is because my views are not the real object of their criticism. Perhaps it is because their true motive is to “cancel” anyone who accepted the call to serve America in the Trump administration.

For many months, I have been vilified after calling for opening in-person schools — in line with Harvard Professors Martin Kulldorf and Katherine Yih and Stanford Professor Jay Bhattacharya — but my policy recommendation has been corroborated repeatedly by the literature. The compelling case to open schools is now admitted even in publications like The Atlantic, which has noted: “Research from around the world has, since the beginning of the pandemic, indicated that people under 18, and especially younger kids, are less susceptible to infection, less likely to experience severe symptoms, and far less likely to be hospitalized or die.” The subhead of the article was even clearer: “We’ve known for months that young children are less susceptible to serious infection and less likely to transmit the coronavirus.”

When the JAMA accusers wrote that I “disputed the need for masks,” they misrepresented my words. My advice on mask usage has been consistent: “Wear a mask when you cannot socially distance.” At the time, this matched the published recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO). This past December, the WHO modified its recommendation: “In areas where the virus is circulating, masks should be worn when you’re in crowded settings, where you can’t be at least one meter [roughly three feet] from others, and in rooms with poor or unknown ventilation” — in other words, not at all times by everyone. This also matches the recommendation of the National Institutes of Health document Prevention and Prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection: “When consistent distancing is not possible, face coverings may further reduce the spread of infectious droplets from individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection to others.”

Regarding universal masks, 38 states have implemented mask mandates, most of them since at least the summer, with almost all the rest having mandates in their major cities. Widespread, general population mask usage has shown little empirical utility in terms of preventing cases, even though citing or describing evidence against their utility has been censored. Denmark also performed a randomized controlled study that showed that widespread mask usage had only minimal impact.

This is the reality: those who insist that universal mask usage has absolutely proven effective at controlling the spread of the COVID virus and is universally recommended according to “the science” are deliberately ignoring the evidence to the contrary. It is they who are propagating false and misleading information.

Those who say it is unethical, even dangerous, to question broad population mask mandates must also explain why many top infectious disease scientists and public health organizations question the efficacy of general population masking. Tom Jefferson and Carl Heneghan of the University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, for instance, wrote that “despite two decades of pandemic preparedness, there is considerable uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks.” Oxford epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta says there is no need for masks unless one is elderly or high risk. Stanford’s Jay Bhattacharya has said that “mask mandates are not supported by the scientific data… . There is no scientific evidence that mask mandates work to slow the spread of the disease.”

Throughout this pandemic, the WHO’s “Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19” has included the following statement: “At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.” The CDC, in a review of influenza pandemics in May 2020, “did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility.” And until the WHO removed it on October 21, 2020 — soon after Twitter censored a tweet of mine highlighting the quote — the WHO had published the fact that “the widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and harms to consider.”

My advice on masks all along has been based on scientific data and matched the advice of many of the top scientists and public health organizations throughout the world.

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/78213

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

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Accuses Russia of Launching a Disinformation Campaign Against Pfizer Vaccine

U.S. officials believe that Russia is carrying out a disinformation campaign to discredit the Pfizer COVID vaccine. Russian intelligence has been trying to cast doubt on the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine in an effort to boost their own Sputnik V vaccine.

Four publications acting as fronts for Russian intel agencies have been publishing disinformation, trying to convince Americans that the approval of the Pfizer vaccine was rushed and shortcuts were taken.

“We can say these outlets are directly linked to Russian intelligence services,” an official at the State Department’s Global Engagement Center told the newspaper. “They’re all foreign-owned, based outside of the United States. They vary a lot in their reach, their tone, their audience, but they’re all part of the Russian propaganda and disinformation ecosystem.”

Insider:

Russia announced a successful coronavirus vaccine in August, but Sputnik V was approved under questionable circumstances. It was released before it went through phase 3 trials. In the United States, phase 3 is a requirement before a drug or vaccine can be vetted and approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

The rushed timeline led health officials to speculate whether the Kremlin coerced vaccine makers into putting out Sputnik V quickly to gain a leg up in the global race for a cure to the novel coronavirus.

China is still in the game as well, inking vaccine deals with several countries. But it goes without saying that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are the gold standard and are in the most demand around the world.

The problem for other countries is getting their hands on some. The U.S. is “vaccine hoarding” according to the WHO because we are choosing to vaccinate our own citizens before giving it away to others. Here’s where Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine can make inroads in this massive market, and Russian intelligence is doing all they can to help.

Wall Street Journal:

“The emphasis on denigrating Pfizer is likely due to its status as the first vaccine besides Sputnik V to see mass use, resulting in a greater potential threat to Sputnik’s market dominance,” says a forthcoming report by the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a nongovernmental organization that focuses on the danger that authoritarian governments pose to democracies and that is part of the German Marshall Fund, a U.S. think tank.

The foreign efforts to sow doubts about the vaccine exploit deep-seated anxieties about the efficacy and side effects of vaccines that were already prevalent in some communities in the U.S. and internationally. Concern about side effects is a major reason for vaccine hesitancy, according to U.S. Census Bureau data made public last month.

In addition, Russian state media and Russian government Twitter accounts have made an effort to openly disparage and sow doubts about the cost and safety of the Pfizer vaccine.

The Russians have dismissed any idea that the FSB or GRU are engaged in disinformation against the COVID vaccines but the publications mentioned by the State Department have deep ties to Russian intelligence and it’s not likely that they would be conducting this kind of campaign without the approval of top intelligence officials.

Russia can do its worst but its credibility on the vaccine issue leaves much to be desired.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2021/03/07/u-s-thinks-russia-has-launched-a-disinformation-campaign-against-pfizer-vaccine-n1430613

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

As an Industry Faces Destruction, It Grows a Voting Coalition

Imagine if you had a job. A good job, one that required skill and critical thinking and had a broad impact in the community where you lived. A job you didn’t just show up to do. It was a job you were good at, and because of it, you were able to provide a roof over your family’s head, put your children through college or help pay for their wedding, and once a year, it gave you the ability to carve out a week or two to take the family on vacation.

Now imagine that job becomes the center of political debate, one far removed from the Laurel Mountains, where this town sits. Within two decades, your profession goes from being championed by the Democratic Party and labor officials to one that they want to destroy.

John Fisher and Harvey Charles were standing outside of the Acosta Mine mechanic station here in Somerset County. Both still had traces of coal dust on their hands and faces. Both had just finished their shifts and were cleaning up themselves and their equipment. Fisher works in the mine; Charles transports the coal.

Fisher has been doing this job since 1989, when he returned home after serving four years in the U.S. Marine Corps. The 52-year-old says he travels 67 miles one way every day from his home in Cherry Tree in Clearfield County to do his job at the mine.

He describes his day, which begins not with walking into the mine, but crawling.

“I get here, what? 4:30 a.m. Make sure everything’s running. Then, I go underground and fix what’s broken. All over, in the pots, in the slop, in the bad roof, in the good roof.” He explains all the vulnerabilities that exist in a mine that require monitoring and daily repairs.

Here, metallurgical coal gets mined. It is used exclusively for the steel production that supports the construction of bridges, roads, highways, homes, factories, distribution centers, churches and other businesses supporting the country’s infrastructure and economy.

Fisher explains the core business here is producing and selling metallurgical coal to domestic and international steel and coke (a porous fuel) producers: “It’s a good living. I like what I do, or I would not be doing it.”
So does Charles, who says he’s been in the industry since 1987. “Right out of high school, I followed in the footsteps of my father and grandfather.”

“I used to be the maintenance foreman. Now I’m just a truck mechanic,” he said of his job to make sure all of the massive dump trucks used to haul the coal out of the hollow are in working order.

They acknowledge their industry is in the center of a political storm and their fate does not rely on how many improvements the industry does to make it clean. “Politicians and the press need a good guy and a bad guy to either win a race or tell a story. We used to be the good guys that everyone stood up for,” Fisher says and then shrugs.

“Now we are the bad guys.”

Pick up the daily newspaper and you will find mining will get blamed for everything from the growth of the deer tick population to last year’s mild winter (this winter has not been mild).

Several things bother Fisher and Charles regarding how others look upon those in the mining industry. One is the stereotype of anyone in their business as either anti-intellectual or anti-clean environment. The former they consider insulting, the latter ridiculous.

“Not only do we drink the water and breathe the air here, but we also hunt, fish and swim here. We are the first people who want whatever we do here to be safe,” Fisher said. It is a common refrain from energy workers across the country.

The other thing that gets under their skin is when politicians flippantly suggest they can quickly get another job. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg recently said people who lost their job to climate justice might find a climate-conscious job.

And President Joe Biden suggested coal miners should just learn to code. Last year in New Hampshire, in the middle of a brag of how former President Barack Obama had placed him in charge of judging what the jobs of the future would be, he said, “Anybody who can go down 3,000 feet in a mine can sure as hell learn to program as well.”

It is still astounding to witness the contempt and disdain politicians and the press have toward the lives and livelihoods of people who aren’t like them, people who don’t live in their ZIP codes or attend the same universities they did.

People who work with their hands don’t start a conversation by asking you where you work. It is rare to find anyone here who would say your profession is irredeemable and that you need to do something they find worthy. Traditionally, when a job or an industry has a problem, they work on fixing it or correcting it rather than destroying it.

People often asked after the 2020 election what will happen with the Trump voters (Fisher and Charles voted for him twice). The thing is this complex conservative populist coalition existed long before it helped catapult Donald Trump to the presidency in 2016.

His win was, in part, the result of a culture that became detached from the people they served in various institutions, whether it was the government, the entertainment industry or the college campus. Many people ultimately rejected all of them.

But if you never understood that, if you always thought it was about Trump, you never understood who they were and why they vote the way they do.

And you never understood how someone who lives in the suburbs of Arizona or Kenosha, Wisconsin, or Miami could have anything in common with someone who works the mines in Appalachia. And you didn’t understand that because you didn’t care to, because you hoped for its destruction.

There will be two endings to this story. The first is industries such as coal or shale, or the creation of pipelines, will continue to get attacked and dismantled, costing people their jobs. As Fisher said, politicians and the press always need a bad guy.

And the other ending is this coalition will grow — despite the press incorrectly believing one person caused it and having the audacity to think they have the power to dismantle it.

https://pjmedia.com/columns/salena-zito/2021/03/02/as-an-industry-faces-destruction-it-grows-a-voting-coalition-n1429253

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

Blue collar workers going Republican

An NBC News poll released last week reflects one of the most significant political trends of the past 30 years – the realignment of blue-collar workers who’ve left the party of Planned Parenthood and Drag Queen Story Hour for the party of energy-independence, fair-trade deals and border security.

The poll shows that between 2010 and 2020, the Republican share of blue- collar votes rose from 45% to 57%. Within the same demographic, its Hispanic vote went from 23% to 36%, while its black working-class vote went from 5% to 12%.

In 1992, Bill Clinton carried 49% of counties where at least 25% of the workforce was employed in manufacturing. In 2016, Donald Trump took 95%. What used to be one of the left’s most reliable constituencies is now going the way of evangelicals in their flight from a party that’s lost both its mind and its soul.

Writing in The Detroit News on April 10, 2019, Terry Bowman (a 22- year UAW/Ford worker) charges: “While Democrats fight for policies that crush working-class communities, Republicans and our president are fighting for blue-collar jobs and traditional American values.”

The geezer in the White House is becoming a job-killing machine. On Day One, the Keystone XL-Pipeline was axed. And that’s just a down-payment on Biden’s debt to the Greenies. But, not to worry. As John Forbes Kerry assured us, unemployed pipeline workers can get good-paying jobs manufacturing solar panels – in China.

It’s infuriating the way Democrats can speak so nonchalantly about sacrificing the opportunities of others. Campaigning in 2016, the warm and lovable Hillary Clinton boasted, “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business!” This from someone who probably never lifted anything heavier than a nail file.

Under Biden’s welcome-mat policy, the Border Patrol has been ordered not to arrest illegals unless they commit multiple homicides within eyesight. He’s starting to admit the first of 25,000 “asylum” seekers, and blue-collar workers will get to pay for a process that will lead to the loss of more of their jobs.

But jobs isn’t the whole picture.

Most of the white working-class is solidly middle-American: church-going, socially conservative (pro-life, pro-marriage and pro- traditional morality). Many are gun-owners, veterans and reservists, patriotic and not embarrassed to show it and mystified by those who are. And, are you sitting down Nancy, they refuse to apologize for being white.

If a guy drives a pick-up truck with a gun-rack and a tool box in back, and an American flag decal, chances are he isn’t a community organizer who votes Democratic.

In short, workers are everything liberals have come to loathe – an animosity that’s reflected in Obama’s bitter-clingers comment, Hillary’s basket of deplorables and Biden’s dregs of society.

The Democrats have become the party of Alice-in-Wonderland social policy – the party that refuses to criticize Antifa and Black Lives Matter even as they turn our cities into barbecue pits, the party that turns a blind eye to urban riots but sees white supremacy everywhere, the party of defund the police and sanctuary cities, the party of climate-change cultists, the party of “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15,” the party that tried to take an innocuous reference God out of its 2012 platform, the party of abortion up to the moment of birth, the party of LGBTQ, and now, the party of transgenderism.

Bowman writes: “My father, a retired UAW/Ford worker, was a life-long Democrat” who voted for Trump in 2016 and now says “I don’t know the damn Democrat party anymore.” Ronald Reagan used to say he didn’t leave the Democrats; they left him.

Unlike their white-collar counterparts, blue-collar workers didn’t have an opportunity to be indoctrinated by their college professors – but Biden wants them to pay the debts of those who were. They are less likely to heed the so-called experts. They don’t get their news from The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN. They’re not afraid to voice views that get conservatives banned by Facebook and Twitter.

While the GOP is becoming the party of labor, the Democrats are firmly in the hands of coastal elitists.

Business Insider listed the billionaires who bankrolled Biden’s 2020 campaign. It reads like the Fortune 500 and includes the CEOs -- or their wives -- of Microsoft, Google, Lucasfilm, Estee Lauder, Dream Works, Hyatt, J.P. Morgan Chase, Linkedin and Comcast/Universal. Remember when the media used to whine about Republicans as the party of the super-rich?

You think they care about the guy who worries about making this month’s mortgage payment or if he’ll still have a pension when he retires? In a pig’s eye.

Since Jimmy Carter, blue-collar workers have been worked over by the Democrats. Now, they’re returning the favor. With the Republicans, they’ve found their real home.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/03/lunch-box-donald-why-blue-collar-workers-are-don-feder/?utm_campaign=2069283&utm_content=2840889

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

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UK: 35 people deaf and 25 blind after taking mRNA vaccine shots

Among people in the U.K., 35 cases of deafness and 25 cases of blindness have been reported by people who have taken the experimental mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. The numbers are derived from the U.K. Yellow Card vaccine reporting scheme, which is the British equivalent to the American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Oxford/AstraZeneca mRNA COVID vaccines were given temporary authorization in the U.K. by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the former in mid-December 2020, and the latter at the beginning of January 2021. Since then, the Yellow Card scheme has flagged a combined 191,832 individual adverse events, or side effects, of varying degrees of injury. Of the injuries recorded, AstraZeneca’s vaccine consistently performed the worst, accounting for 60% of all adverse events, and 58% of deaf and blind reports. Additionally, of the 402 fatalities, 197 were reported following use of the Pfizer formula, and 205 after taking AstraZeneca’s vaccine.

The latest data, which runs up to February 19 and was published on February 22, reveals a plethora of debilitating side-effects, but this has not alarmed officials at the MHRA who maintain that “no other new safety concerns have been identified from reports received to date.” They conclude from this that the “overall safety experience with both vaccines is so far as expected from the clinical trials.”

The regulator doubled down on supporting the jabs, stating that the “expected benefits of the vaccines in preventing COVID-19 and serious complications associated with COVID-19 far outweigh any currently known side effects,” including deafness, blindness, and death.

The MHRA justified this position by citing the passively analytical nature of recordings on the Yellow Card scheme: It is a self-reporting system. This means that none of the serious injuries, or even the deaths, are confirmed by a licensed doctor, giving the MHRA some leeway to declare that “the available evidence does not currently suggest that the vaccine caused the event.”

Rather, the MHRA favors use of the term “temporally-related” to describe the succession of adverse events from injection with the vaccine, which they describe as “events occurring following vaccination but may or may not be caused by the vaccine.”

John Stone of Children’s Health Defense noted that, despite the passive reporting system used by the MHRA, “[n]evertheless, the very distinct event profiles of two products [COVID-19 vaccines] filtered through the same system after 15 million vaccine administrations [in the U.K.] would suggest that there is something to be investigated and explained.”

A pattern of adverse results has been established regarding use of the Pfizer vaccine, which can be seen by examining its use in the U.S., following the award of “Emergency Use Authorization” by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December. In both the U.K. and the U.S., use of the Pfizer vaccine has brought about similar results, accounting for the majority of post-vaccination injuries in America. VAERS has recorded 19,907 cases of adverse events arising after taking a COVID-19 vaccine, 64% of which are linked to Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine, and 36% attributable to Moderna’s equivalent jab.

In the U.S., VAERS reported 23 cases of complete deafness and 27 of unilateral deafness, with Pfizer’s jab making up 76% of complaints. Additionally there have been 29 cases of partial or complete blindness, over half of which followed the Pfizer vaccine.

Experimental mRNA vaccination programs in Israel, too, are returning grim results, with a new analysis of vaccine-related deaths demonstrating a dramatic rise in both young and elderly people dying after taking the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine over those who have died after encountering the pathogen naturally.

Upon investigating the Israeli Health Ministry’s own data on the nation’s vaccine rollout, Dr. Hervé Seligmann, a member of the faculty of Medicine at Aix-Marseille University, and engineer Haim Yativ revealed that Pfizer’s mRNA experimental vaccine killed “about 40 times more [elderly] people than the disease itself would have killed” during a recent five-week vaccination period.

Among the younger class, the researchers discovered that these numbers are compounded to death rates at 260 times what the COVID-19 virus would have claimed in the given time frame.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/uk-35-people-deaf-and-25-blind-after-taking-mrna-vaccine-shots

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

Would the Real Fascists Please Stand Up?

One of the Left's favorite pejoratives for the Right is completely backwards.

“I do think that [there are] fascistic tendencies” in the Republican Party, pontificates Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who thinks “we certainly saw a lot of fascist sympathizing” at the Conservative Political Action Conference this past weekend, especially from the man she loves to hate, Donald Trump. Worse, AOC added, “There are legitimate white supremacist sympathizers that sit at the heart and at the core of the Republican Caucus in the House of Representatives,” and “American white supremacy” is the driving force of this supposed fascism overtaking the GOP.

This sounds serious.

Or it would if anything AOC said ever made a lick of sense. As usual, however, her historical ignorance is a feature, not a bug, in service to the radical Left’s political agenda. And she’s far from the only leftist spouting such nonsense. It’s coming from other elected Democrats, from their lickspittles in the Leftmedia, and from their intelligentsia in education. Whether it’s offhand comments on cable news shows, “think” pieces littering the Internet, or academic papers and classes, leftists yelling “fascism!” as an inaccurate pejorative for conservatives has a long and storied history in America.

But what is fascism anyway? For all the public school-educated “progressives” out there, perhaps a history lesson is in order, and who better to give it than the esteemed Thomas Sowell. In a 2008 column, he explained it quite simply:

Real Fascism [was] introduced into Italy after the First World War by Benito Mussolini.

The Fascists were completely against individualism in general and especially against individualism in a free market economy. Their agenda included minimum wage laws, government restrictions on profit-making, progressive taxation of capital, and “rigidly secular” schools.

Unlike the Communists, the Fascists did not seek government ownership of the means of production. They just wanted the government to call the shots as to how businesses would be run.

That sure does sound an awful lot like today’s Democrat agenda. Who are the real fascists? The alleged “racists” who want an American melting pot and Rule of Law for everyone, or the ones pushing government takeover of healthcare, energy, finance, education, etc., as well as race-based policies and an aggressive and totalitarian cancel culture?

The Nazis, by the way, were really only adding a racialist and nationalist variation to fascism, which is why American leftists today deliberately distort the meaning of those words and project upon their Republican opponents what they themselves are guilty of doing and perpetuating. It’s why they laughably call their rioting fascist goons “antifa,” which is short for “anti-fascist.”

In fact, conservatives might do better to trade in the word “socialism” for “fascism” to describe Democrat proposals. Few Democrats want the government to literally own the means of production. Instead, as Sowell said in a 2012 column on the subject, “[They want] government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.” That’s the textbook definition of fascism.

The truth is fascism, Nazism, socialism, and communism are all variations on a leftist theme of control and power. Don’t let them tell you that your rejection of that totalitarianism makes you the fascist when reality is quite the opposite.

https://patriotpost.us/articles/78106-would-the-real-fascists-please-stand-up-2021-03-02

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

The Conservative Identity Crisis

When a movement’s flagship publication features a “This We Believe” statement on its cover, as National Review recently did, you know there’s a problem. But the problem itself is not new.

Last summer, The American Conservative published a special edition devoted to the question, “What Is American Conservatism?” The issue drew on essays by dozens of self-identified conservatives, each attempting to define the movement. Reading through them, one might get the impression that conservatism is not one point of view but a whole slew of them. Yet in truth, there is only one important intellectual schism on the right worthy of attention: that between those who embrace the legacy of the European Enlightenment and those who reject it.

The Enlightenment, or the Age of Reason, was the revolution against the institutions of statism and superstition that freed human minds and human relationships in the 16th and 17th centuries. As Steven Pinker has aptly noted, the free minds and free markets that resulted from this revolution are the reason for the relative prosperity and security we enjoy today.

I can only imagine how liberating and exciting it must have been to have lived through that time when David Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and America’s Founding Fathers were overthrowing an old intellectual and political orders and creating new ones. I like to think it must have felt similar to the 1980s of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, when ideas such as the flat tax, school vouchers, private Social Security accounts, deregulation, and privatization were sweeping the globe, promoted with palpable energy and enthusiasm by a raft of newly created conservative think tanks.

A decade later, as the 20th century came to a close, Communism and big government were in retreat, and free-market reforms remained ascendant everywhere. But alas, the 21st century has seen considerable backsliding, which has fueled the rise of those on the other side of the conservative schism: the folks who reject the legacy of the Enlightenment.

This school of thought is aptly represented in What Is Conservatism?, the classic essay collection edited by Frank Meyer and published a little over 55 years ago. I recently reread the book, seeking to find anything in it that might engage a politically agnostic college student, making him eager to be part of the conservative movement. Sadly, I came up empty.

The kind of conservatism pushed by What Is Conservatism? doesn’t just fail to win converts; it also isn’t prepared to solve real-world problems. About the same time that Meyer’s book was published, Milton Friedman published Capitalism and Freedom. The two books are as different as night and day. Whereas the essays Meyer edited are backward-looking, Friedman’s book is forward-looking. Whereas the former lamented change, the latter called for the kind of change that liberates people and makes their lives better.

Friedman was well aware that his approach to public policy was very different from that of conventional conservatives. He even avoided calling himself a “conservative,” preferring to identify with the tradition of classical liberalism. But his ideas came to dominate American conservatism anyway, at least until the development of the movement’s present schism. And for those of us who still believe in them, there is much work to be done going forward.

In every large city in the country, large numbers of low-income minority families are forced to live in substandard housing and send their children to failing schools. They benefit the least from almost every public service, from transportation to health care to public safety. They are also denied job opportunities by medieval-style occupational-licensing laws. These cities are almost always run by Democrats, usually liberal Democrats. A reformist conservative agenda would advocate school choice, the liberation of the housing and job markets, and private alternatives to essential city services.

Likewise, too many American seniors are trapped in antiquated social-insurance schemes that should be an embarrassment to a civilized society such as ours. They are misled on a daily basis by Social Security bureaucrats who encourage them to take early retirement, giving up benefits that are growing at a 3 percent, no-risk, real rate of return every year. Then when they do take a part-time job, they face the highest marginal-tax rates in the nation—as high as 95 percent in some cases. Seniors on Medicare are the only people in the country who cannot have a health-savings account or direct, 24/7 access to a primary-care physician as an alternative to the emergency room. As I argue in my book New Way to Care, we desperately need to reform Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the disability system, and other forms of social insurance that were designed in a different century to meet different needs.

These are only a few of the ways in which an activist conservative agenda could liberate people and markets, reform institutions, and make the world better for the most vulnerable among us. But for that to happen, the conservative movement will first have to decide whether it wants to embrace its Enlightenment roots or reject them.

https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=13412&omhide=true

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

IN BRIEF

Conservative comic strip "Mallard Fillmore" dropped (Washington Times)

A dose of common sense: New York Public Library will keep all of its Dr. Seuss books circulating (Examiner)

Children as young as five forced to have "diversity and inclusion" lessons in New Jersey schools (Daily Wire)

Number of illegal border crossings now six times what Obama considered a "crisis" (Daily Wire)

DOD took hours to approve National Guard request during Capitol riot, commander testifies (NPR)

Damages from February winter storms could be as high as $155 billion (UPI)

Evangelical adoption agency Bethany dangerously opens doors to LGBT families (Disrn)

Governor Andrew Cuomo, who should resign over nursing home scandal, refuses to resign over sexual harassment scandal (Post Millennial)

Hyatt Hotels backtracks, slams CPAC — which it hosted — for "hate" and "hostility" (Disrn)

Arkansas lawmakers send governor near-total abortion ban (Fox News)

Policy: We already have an alternative to massive student-loan cancelation (National Review)

Advisers of Governor Andrew Cuomo altered report on nursing home deaths (Fox News)

Number of child migrants crossing the border is overwhelming HHS (Axios)

Second SUV filled with illegal immigrants catches fire near U.S. border (Disrn)

Senators from both aisles introduce bill to repeal Biden's war powers following Syria strike (Fox News)

The United States is now averaging two million vaccine doses administered per day (NY Times)

Connecticut lifting all capacity restrictions on restaurants, gyms, offices, and houses of worship (Forbes)

Mississippi legislature wisely approves bill banning males from competing against women (Daily Wire)

Supreme Court drops "sanctuary city" cases following Biden DOJ request (Fox News)

Swing and a miss: California high school stupidly gives baseball team two-week suspension for taking a picture without masks (Disrn)

Policy: Biden could overstimulate the economy into a crisis (National Interest)

Policy: Job creation, not a $15 minimum wage, will reduce poverty (Daily Signal)

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

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AstraZeneca vaccine DOES work against Brazil's 'super-covid,' report claims: Unpublished data will show Oxford's shot works against worrisome variant that may weaken others

AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine does protect against the feared Brazilian coronavirus variant, sources close to the matter said of unpublished data from an Oxford University trial.

Preliminary data from a study conducted at the university indicates that the COVID-19 vaccine developed by AstraZeneca is effective against the P1, or Brazilian, variant, a source with knowledge of the study told Reuters on Friday.

The data indicates that the vaccine will not need to be modified in order to protect against the variant, which is believed to have originated in the Amazonian city of Manaus, said the source, who requested anonymity as the results have not yet been made public.

So far, there are at least 13 cases of the Brazilian variant in seven US states, but the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has dragged its feet on the authorization of the AstraZeneca shot, and is not expected to do so until at least next month.

US trials for the AstraZeneca shot are ongoing, and the FDA typically does not accept results from other countries.

But results are in from other nations, including the UK, South Africa and Brazil - all of which have seen variants emerge, and spread across the globe, including to the the US.

In the aggregate of those countries, the AstraZeneca vaccine's efficacy rose to 82 percent after a second dose, given three months after the first.

Earlier data found that the vaccine reduced the risk of coronavirus infection by 78 percent.

That was markedly superior to the performance of the Chinese-made CoronaVac, which was only about 50 percent effective.

Importantly, the AstraZeneca vaccine was 100 percent effective at preventing severe disease and death from COVID-19, according to its data published February 3.

It's difficult to know how prevalent Brazil's P1 variant was in the country during earlier stages of the trial. Now, the variant is dominant there.

The Reuters report suggests that AstraZeneca may soon release data specific to how the vaccine performed in Brazil during the most recent round of trials.

The source did not provide the exact efficacy of the vaccine against the variant. They said the full results of the study should be released soon, possibly in March.

Early results indicated the AstraZeneca vaccine was less effective against the South African variant, which is similar to P1. South Africa subsequently paused the use of the vaccine in the country.

The information comes as a small-sample study suggested the COVID-19 vaccine developed by China's Sinovac may not work effectively against the Brazilian variant.

Responding to a request for comment, Fiocruz, which sent the samples that formed the basis of the study, told Reuters it did not have any information on the study, as it was being led by AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford.

Representatives for AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Brazil is currently confronting a brutal and long-lasting second wave of the coronavirus, hitting a daily record of 1,910 deaths on Wednesday.

The P1 variant is among the factors that epidemiologists believe is contributing to a rise in cases and deaths, and there has been concern in the scientific community about the variant's resistance to vaccines.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9330441/Oxford-study-indicates-AstraZeneca-effective-against-Brazil-variant-source-says.html

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

UK: Facebook is silencing debate on lockdown

Two of the scientists behind the Great Barrington Declaration on their brush with Big Tech censorship.

JAY BHATTACHARYA & MARTIN KULLDORFF

On 2 February, we put up a post in favour of the Covid vaccine on the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) Facebook page. We, as two of the primary authors of the GBD, are firmly in favour of voluntary vaccination, using vaccines that regulatory authorities have carefully evaluated and approved for use. Our post argued for prioritising the elderly for vaccination against Covid-19 as a tool for the focused protection of this vulnerable group. It generated a vigorous debate in the comment section among people against the Covid vaccines and people who agreed with us.

On 4 February, without warning, Facebook deleted the entire Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) page. The only explanation it provided was that the page violated its ‘community standards’, but it did not specify what standards the page violated. A week later, again without any explanation, Facebook restored the page.

The Great Barrington Declaration, now signed by tens of thousands of scientists and physicians, proposes a radically different approach to the Covid epidemic that eschews lockdown in favour of focused protection of the vulnerable. Many governments worldwide have adopted elements of our approach by prioritising the elderly living in nursing homes for vaccination and expanding the set of permitted activities (such as schooling) despite rising cases.

Other governments have adopted draconian lockdowns – including forced quarantines for the healthy and extended closures of schools and businesses – to address the epidemic. In many places, this lockdown strategy has successfully protected the zoom class, who can work from home without losing their jobs, while exposing the working class and the vulnerable to Covid infection.

Given the stakes, the scientific debate between lockdown and focused protection is of intense interest to nearly everyone on the planet. As co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, we are admittedly partisans in this debate. However, we recognise that these are complicated topics that require the open engagement of many minds, even those who disagree with us, to arrive at the truth. For good reasons, the Enlightenment enshrined free scientific inquiry as a primary good. A tolerance for contrary argument is essential if we are ever to exit the intellectual cul-de-sacs we inhabit.

Well, okay, fine, the reader may be thinking. Maybe Facebook made a mistake in suppressing the Covid-lockdown debate, but it recognised its error and corrected the problem within a week. Plus, there are other venues for the scientific debate to take place. What is the harm?

First, for many people, Facebook is a primary source for their news; Facebook banning content has at least a temporary effect on the information they see and the thoughts they have. Second, as should be evident from the debate over vaccination policy that preceded the Facebook ban, the Great Barrington Declaration site itself is followed by people with a diverse set of opinions on key aspects of Covid policy. Shutting down the site led many people to leave the page and closed one of the few venues where civil and open discussion between people with differing views happens on these topics. Most Covid-related policy discussions occur in closed environments, where people and scientists speak with those who already agree with them. The GBD Facebook site is an exception worth preserving.

Third, and most importantly, even a temporary ban imposes reputational harm to the shuttered site and the people behind it. For good or ill, Facebook has taken upon itself the role of hall monitor, and those who violate its editorial standards lose credibility in the eyes of many. The question is whether Facebook deserves its role as arbiter of questions of science and science policy. What are the scientific credentials of the people who censored the site, or (perhaps more relevantly) of the engineers who wrote the algorithms that censored it? Do they really have the omniscience to know that imprinting a scarlet letter on the GBD is good for our society?

Economists have a handy rule of thumb that it is more accurate to infer what people value by their actions and choices rather than from their words. It is useful to apply this rule here, especially since Facebook has not explained its actions beyond its invocation of ‘community standards’. First, Facebook is undecided on whether to permit open scientific debate on its site, at least concerning Covid policy. Second, since it was a pro-vaccine post that preceded the ban, perhaps Facebook community standards oppose the Covid vaccines or at least prioritising vulnerable seniors to receive them?

Facebook, like nearly every company whose success depends on the extensive use of its online services, stands to benefit financially from extended lockdowns. Though this pecuniary motive may not have played a direct, conscious role in its censorship of the GBD site, it certainly must have played some role in its editorial policies and ‘community standards’. Facebook clearly does not know how to use the power it wields to shape public understanding of science responsibly.

The impulse by those who wield the power to suppress their adversaries’ words and ideas stretches back to at least Cain and Abel. This power is usually exercised by repressive regimes, like Mao’s, who sent his Red Guards house to house during the 1966 Cultural Revolution to find and burn books that espoused the old, dangerous ideas opposed by the Communists. Religious and political considerations typically motivate the censors, which often include non-state actors. What is new in the world today is ostensibly progressive technocrats enthusiastically censoring scientific discussion and debate.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/02/15/facebook-is-silencing-debate-on-lockdown

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

Dems Push End to Election Integrity

The Democrats' massive HR 1 election bill is a recipe for tyranny.

It might as well be called the “Ensure Democrat Electoral Victory Act” given what’s in the massive 800-page election overhaul bill put forward by House Democrats. HR 1, which Democrats have ironically dubbed the “For the People Act,” is anything but for the people. Rather than seeking to reestablish and shore up the badly abused state election laws Americans witnessed in the 2020 election, HR 1 would seek to codify the abuses. As Representative Tom Cole (R-OK) observed, “This is a bill that is about preserving the present Democratic majority. It is a bill by the majority, for the majority, and is intended to entrench the majority in power for years to come.”

HR 1 would essentially federalize national elections by mandating that states adopt voting rules such as a right to no-excuse mail-in ballots, elimination of voter ID laws, same-day registration and voting, 10-day post-election day acceptance of mail-in ballots, no laws against ballot harvesting or limits on the number of ballots a person can return, a 15-day early-voting mandate, and giving out-of-prison felons the right to vote — all while also making it harder for states to clean up their voter rolls. These are just a few of the terrible rules entrenched in HR 1, and it encapsulates the Left’s election strategy going forward.

Furthermore, the bill would create a code of conduct for Supreme Court justices, which is an obvious effort to dictate to the High Court how it would be allowed to rule on cases.

In short, HR 1 is a recipe for tyranny.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court refused a perfect opportunity to tackle last year’s election integrity issues — and thus lay a roadblock in the way of HR 1 — when the justices inexplicably declined to hear the case against a Pennsylvania courts’ unilateral judicial rewrite of the state’s election laws, making an end run around the state legislature. Justice Clarence Thomas blasted his colleagues’ decision to pass on the case: “The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling.” And why wouldn’t SCOTUS weigh in now, when we’re free and clear of any pending election? Now is the time to address this, not the 11th hour before an election. Moreover, as Thomas noted, “Changing the rules in the middle of the game is bad enough. Such rule changes by officials who may lack authority to do so is even worse.”

SCOTUS has, however, decided to hear another election case, Brnovich v. DNC. At issue are Arizona’s requirements that voters who cast their ballot on election day must do so in their assigned precinct and the state’s prohibition against ballot harvesting. (Both are common state laws.) Democrats have dubiously argued that Arizona’s laws violate the Voting Rights Act by creating a standard that infringes on minorities’ right to vote. A federal judge has ruled there is no evidence to support the Democrats’ claims, a decision that a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel agreed with but was then overruled by the full court.

It appears likely that SCOTUS will find in Arizona’s favor by ruling that the Ninth Circuit was in error in overturning the decision, though as narrow rulings are the wont of Chief Justice John Roberts, it’s probable that the Court will avoid ruling on the merits of Arizona’s election laws, or to truly clarify the Voting Rights Act. If they take the narrow path, the justices will only be kicking the proverbial can down the road. Repairing the gaping holes caused by Democrats and lower courts in the nation’s election integrity will remain left undone. A fair election system should matter to all parties, but clearly for Democrats, the only concern is working to establish a system that ensures their victory.

https://patriotpost.us/articles/78108-dems-push-end-to-election-integrity-2021-03-02

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

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Early signs COVID-19 vaccine jab ‘clobbers’ more transmissible variants

British researchers say there is growing evidence that the full two courses of existing vaccines will “clobber” the more transmissible strains of COVID-19 — a development that could help unlock international travel and help relieve millions of people from lockdowns.

The emergence of strains in countries with major coronavirus outbreaks, including Britain, Brazil and South Africa, have led to further international travel restrictions and measures. Governments have feared the strains would be resistant to the vaccines that were designed before their discovery.

This week the Australian government extended the international border closure by another three months, citing the more transmissible strains that had emerged overseas.

Britain has also introduced hotel quarantine for travellers from countries where the strains are prevalent and stopped recreational international travel.

Professor Tim Spector, from King’s College London and principal investigator with Britain’s ZOE COVID Symptom study – where millions of Britons log their symptoms and vaccine side effects – told an online webinar that early fears about the variants’ resistance to vaccines might prove to be unfounded.

“There’s been some more reassuring data showing that once you’ve had the second dose, it really clobbers all the variants; we just need time to show that,” Spector said.

Ellie Barnes, a professor in hepatology and experimental medicine at Oxford University and member of the UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium, said there was data showing the jab worked well against the South African variant, but only after the second dose.

“We’ve got Oxford data which basically shows that after one dose your antibody titre [concentration] is not so high – it’s high but it’s not super high – and that is not enough to neutralise the South African [variant],” Barnes said.

“After you give the second dose you get really robust neutralisation of the South African variant, so I think we can be reassured of that.

“And even after a single dose the data from these vaccines in South Africa itself shows a single dose prevents you from hospitalisation and severe infection. “But you do need the second dose to get fully protected.”

Barnes said the same outcome was likely against the Brazilian variant, which is similar to the strain that emerged in South Africa. She said the next generation of COVID-19 vaccines would be specifically designed to counteract the South African variant and said she was not sure that annual vaccines would be required, as has been previously touted.

“There’s only so many mutations a virus can make before it’s no longer able to infect cells; it’s unlikely to go on indefinitely,” she said. “SARS-CoV-2 is not the same as influenza. I’m not sure we’ll need vaccines every year; we’ll see, time will tell.”

Barnes said there was emerging data to support anecdotal reports of people who had previously had COVID-19 experiencing stronger side effects to the vaccine.

She said this was because the body’s T-cells were activated by the COVID-19 infection and their memory was able to respond “very rapidly” to vaccination.

“So if you’ve been infected before and then you get a first dose of vaccine, you have a really excellent response to that single dose comparable to someone that wasn’t infected before and was on their second dose - that’s the data that’s just coming out in pre-prints,” she said.

She said it was for this reason that it is recommended people wait one month after being infected with COVID-19 to receive their vaccine.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/early-signs-covid-19-vaccine-jab-clobbers-more-transmissible-variants-20210304-p577ll.html

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

Are Liberals Really More Egalitarian?

Recent studies find conservatives treat others more equally than liberals

Recent experiments reveal that in some cases it is liberals who tend to treat information and people more unequally on the basis of sex, race, and group status.

In a set of studies, liberals wished to censor written passages that portrayed low-status groups unfavorably more than identical passages that portrayed high-status groups unfavorably, whereas conservatives treated the passages more comparably.

This does not necessarily mean that liberals are not egalitarian. It might be that liberals prioritize equality of outcomes and view unequal treatment (at least for a time) as a means of attaining equal outcomes.

On personality measures, liberals are more egalitarian than conservatives. This preference for equality is often measured with the Social Dominance Orientation Scale, which contains items about both equality of treatment (e.g., “We would have fewer problems if we treated people more equally”) and equality of outcomes (e.g., “We should strive to make incomes as equal as possible”).

However, sometimes personality scales do not map onto behavior in expected ways. For example, despite the fact that conservatives score higher in epistemic needs for certainty, they appear to be no more politically biased than liberals (i.e., no more likely to evaluate politically congenial information more favorably than otherwise identical politically uncongenial information). A paper forthcoming in the American Journal of Political Science replicated this “symmetrical bias” pattern in two nationally representative studies, finding that epistemic needs for certainty actually did not predict political bias.

So, consistent with liberals’ self-reported support for equality, do they treat people and groups more equally than conservatives? Several recent studies over the past few years cast doubt on this proposition.

Scholars test for unequal treatment (sometimes also called bias) by presenting participants with identical or very similar stimuli (for example, a scientific finding, a resume) and manipulating whom or which group that piece of information is about (for example, a scientific finding about men or women, a resume for a Black or a White job applicant), and then having participants evaluate the piece of information. To the extent that people treat the stimuli differently in the different sex or race conditions, this is considered unequal treatment or a bias. If people rated a male candidate as more qualified for a job than a female candidate with the exact same resume, this would be considered an unequal treatment or bias in favor of men (or against women).

Recent experiments and quasi-experiments of this kind suggest that, at least sometimes, it is liberals who tend to treat information and people more unequally on the basis of sex, race, and group status.

Evaluations that favor or disfavor some groups

For example, two sets of studies by two different research teams found that participants evaluated science on sex differences more favorably when women were portrayed more favorably than men (as better drawers and less prone to lying and as more intelligent) than when men were portrayed more favorably than women. In both of these sets of studies, these tendencies were stronger as participants were more politically liberal.

Similarly, in a more naturalistic study on Twitter, liberals were more likely to amplify the successes of female and Black athletes than male and White athletes, whereas conservatives treated the successes of groups more similarly.

In another set of studies, White liberals presented less self-competence to Black than White interaction partners, whereas White conservatives treated Black and White interaction partners more similarly. And in another set, liberals had stronger desires to censor passages that portrayed low-status groups unfavorably than identical passages that portrayed high-status groups unfavorably, whereas conservatives treated the passages more comparably.

Other teams of researchers have found similar patterns in other domains. For example, people had more generous acceptance criteria for admitting Black than White candidates to an honor society, and this tendency was stronger among liberals. Whereas those high in social dominance orientation favored a White over a Black job applicant, the reverse tendency to favor a Black over a White job applicant was stronger among those low in social dominance orientation.

And whereas those high on system justification (correlated with more conservative ideology) found jokes that target low-status and high-status groups similarly funny, those low on system justification (liberals) found jokes that target low-status groups less funny than those that target high-status groups.

Limitations and a word about future research

These findings are far from a comprehensive overview of the literature on these kinds of studies. In order to draw any conclusions that one group (liberals or conservatives) treats groups and people more equally in general, one would need to conduct a thorough meta-analysis (if anybody wants to conduct a meta-analysis, perhaps as part of an adversarial collaboration, do let me know). Moreover, it seems quite possible that preferences for equality of treatment and equality of outcomes in relation to political ideology have changed over the past couple of decades and may continue to change in the future, and so one would have to take time into account as well.

However, these results may suggest that we cannot assume that liberals, being more egalitarian than conservatives, treat individuals and groups more equally. They might not.

This does not necessarily mean that liberals are not the egalitarians they claim to be. It might be that liberals—first and foremost—prioritize equality of outcomes and view unequal treatment (at least for a time) as a means of attaining equal outcomes.

But likewise, that conservatives are more tolerant of inequality of outcomes does not necessarily mean conservatives oppose equality. It might be that conservatives—first and foremost—prioritize equality of treatment and view unequal outcomes (at least for a time) as an unfortunate side effect.

None of this research can adjudicate which of these positions (if either) is more empirically or morally justified. But it may lead one to wonder whether the relationships between ideology and egalitarianism are more complicated than certain mainstream narratives suggest.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-antisocial-psychologist/202102/are-liberals-really-more-egalitarian

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

IN BRIEF

Pentagon: One militia member killed, two injured in Syria airstrike (UPI)

We're shocked — shocked! Iran rejects Biden offer to discuss new nuclear deal (Disrn)

California lawmakers reach agreement to return schools to in-person learning (UPI)

Minneapolis prepares for unrest during Derek Chauvin trial next week (Examiner)

Virginia to become 16th state to legalize marijuana (Daily Caller)

Andrew Cuomo backers reevaluate fundraising amid sexual harassment probe (CNBC)

Conservative United Methodists detail breakaway plan (World)

Golden Globes suffer ratings nightmare (Disrn)

Biden State Department nominee Victoria Nuland is a defender of Chinese propaganda (Free Beacon)

Twenty-three embarrassing Andrew Cuomo takes that just didn't age well (Disrn)

Base with U.S. troops in Iraq attacked with rockets after being targeted by Iran (Jerusalem Post)

ICE conducting human smuggling investigation after California crash that killed more than a dozen (Fox News)

ICE locks Twitter account that alerted public of illegal immigrants freed by sanctuary cities (Washington Times)

Treasury Department sanctions Russian officials in response to the poisoning of Aleksey Navalny (Treasury.gov)

Home prices surged by 10% in January, the largest annualized jump since 2013 (Forbes)

Prices at the pump are going up thanks to Texas's epic cold snap (Examiner)

Governor Cuomo to be stripped of pandemic emergency powers in legislative deal (NBC New York)

Poll finds more Americans concerned about Black Lives Matter riots (55%) than Capitol riot (45%) despite the Leftmedia's ignoring the former and obsession with the latter (Disrn)

Earth's green vegetation has increased 10% since 2000 (Disrn)

Skipping mammograms raises odds for breast cancer death in women (HealthDay News)

Policy: Bringing back pork would be a disaster (National Review)

Woke Mob Believes CPAC Stage Is Nazi Symbolism — The Leftmedia pushes the conspiracy theory by claiming it resembles a symbol used by the SS.

We Are All Essential — Mike Rowe tells John Stossel that COVID rules had a huge unintended consequence: They crushed work, sapping meaning from many people's lives.

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

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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