Here is one reason I say that:

“China used artificial intelligence & big data to identify Americans likely to participate in Antifa and #BlackLivesMatter protests and then they sent them videos through TikTok on how to riot.”

Of course we all remember as well, way back in April (2020), when no less than the New York Times, itself one of the world leaders in propaganda, admitted to being duped, along with millions of others, by Chinese misinformation.

This, reader, is why independent thought and the desire to think for yourself — which has always been a prerequisite to human flourishing and human happiness — is more necessary now than ever before.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), who was once a bartender and is now a partisan politician extraordinaire, recently said that those not on her side (politically) would be “crying in the refrigerator” if we were to ever get behind the bar or wait on tables. I believe I can speak a little to this subject, having bartended for more years than her (by quite some time, I’m afraid to say) while simultaneously and profoundly disagreeing with virtually every single one of her explicitly communistic politic-economic convictions, and I can tell you in all truth and sincerity that I’ve never once cried in a refrigerator. One wonders a little, though, I must admit, where she came up with that image.

Partisan politics are a dead-end road. For both sides. They lead nowhere. And more: both sides can sling insults back and forth forever and yet they aren’t even opposites. “They’re two sides of the same penny,” as H.L. Mencken accurately observed, long ago.

The following is a tweet from a conservative who’s worked blue-collar jobs aplenty, as have countless other conservatives, just like countless liberal-dems.

As readers of this website know, I celebrate wealth and wealth-creation, and I believe in it. I believe in it because I know where real wealth derives — i.e. the division of labor, production, and the freedom to exchange — and I know also that exchange is the very engine of human progress and civilization. Wealth-creation is a virtue; making money is an art. It is the hypocrisy I don’t particularly care for — especially in corrupt partisan political elitists who believe they are better suited than we ourselves to determine how our lives should be led.

If it doesn’t strike you as a bit presumptuous that a politician — whom you didn’t vote for and would never vote for, and whose politico-economic views you find reprehensible (because, unlike her, you know exactly where they lead) — can legally tell you and me how to live our lives and spend our money, I’d like to buy you a drink and discuss this.

The only alternative to acting by right is acting by permission.

I repeat: The only alternative to acting by right is acting by permission. Ask yourself: whose permission? And why?

Something else all people should be aware of regarding AOC: she has absolutely no conception of the astronomical amounts of fossil-fuel and industry and technology — and this includes a great deal of rare-earth minerals — required at every level of production and implementation and maintenance for so-called renewables. She has no comprehension of it whatsoever.

As I’ve written about before:

As with the production of silicon chips, production of c-Si wafers begins with the mining of silica, found in the environment as sand or quartz. Silica is refined at high temperatures to remove the oxygen and produce metallurgical grade silicon, which is approximately 99.6% pure. However, silicon for semiconductor use must be much purer.

Higher purities are achieved through a chemical process that exposes metallurgical grade silicon to hydrochloric acid and copper to produce trichlorosilane gas. The trichlorosilane is then distilled to remove remaining impurities, which typically include chlorinated metals of aluminum, iron and carbon. It is finally heated or “reduced” with hydrogen to produce silane gas. The silane gas is heated again to make molten silicon, used to grow monocrystalline silicon crystals or used as an input for amorphous silicon.

The next step is to produce crystals of either monocrystalline or policrystalline silicon. Monocrystalline silicon rods are pulled from molten silicon, cooled and suspended in a reactor at high temperature and high pressure. Silane gas is then introduced into the reactor to deposit additional silicon onto the rods until they “grow” to a specified diameter.

To produce multicrystalline silicon, molten silicon is poured into crucibles and cooled into blocks or ingots. Both processes produce silicon crystals that are extremely pure (from 99.99999% to 99.9999999%), which is ideal for microchips, but far more than required by the PV industry. The high temperatures required for c-Si production make it an extremely energy-intensive and expensive process, and also produces large amounts of waste. As much as 80% of the initial metallurgical grade silicon is lost in the process.

Sawing c-Si wafers creates a significant amount of waste silicon dust called kerf, and up to 50% of the material is lost in air and water used to rinse wafers. This process may generate silicon particulate matter that will pose inhalation problems for production workers and those who clean and maintain equipment. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set exposure limits to keep ambient dust levels low and recommends the use of respiratory masks. But it has been suggested that, despite the use of respiratory masks, workers remain overexposed to silicon dust.

The use of silane gas is the most significant hazard in the production of c-Si because it is extremely explosive and presents a potential danger to workers and communities. Accidental releases of silane have been known to spontaneously explode, and the semiconductor industry reports several silane incidents every year.

Further back in the silicon supply chain, the production of silane and trichlorosilane results in waste silicon tetrachloride, an extremely toxic substance that reacts violently with water, causes skin burns, and is a respiratory, skin and eye irritant. Although it is easily recovered and reused as an input for silane production, in places with little or no environmental regulation, silicon tetrachloride can constitute an extreme environmental hazard.

The extremely potent greenhouse gas sulfur hexafluoride is used to clean the reactors used in silicon production. The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change considers sulfur hexafluoride to be the most potent greenhouse gas per molecule; one ton of sulfur hexafluoride has a greenhouse effect equivalent to that of 25,000 tons of CO2. It can react with silicon to make silicon tetrafluoride and sulfur difluoride, or be reduced to tetrafluorosilane and sulfur dioxide. Sulfur dioxide releases can cause acid rain, so scrubbers are required to limit air emissions in facilities that use it.

It is imperative that a replacement for sulfur hexafluoride be found, because accidental or fugitive emissions will greatly undermine the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions gained by using solar power.

Other chemicals used in the production of crystalline silicon that require special handling and disposal procedures include the following:

Large quantities of sodium hydroxide are used to remove the sawing damage on the silicon wafer surfaces. In some cases, potassium hydroxide is used instead. These caustic chemicals are dangerous to the eyes, lungs and skin.

Corrosive chemicals like hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid and hydrogen fluoride are used to remove impurities from and clean semiconductor materials.

Toxic phosphine or arsine gas is used in the doping of the semiconductor material. Though these are used in small quantities, inadequate containment or accidental release poses occupational risks. Other chemicals used or produced in the doping process include phosphorous oxychloride, phosphorous trichloride, boron bromide and boron trichloride.

Toxic phosphine or arsine gas is used in the doping of the semiconductor material. Though these are used in small quantities, inadequate containment or accidental release poses occupational risks. Other chemicals used or produced in the doping process include phosphorous oxychloride, phosphorous trichloride, boron bromide and boron trichloride.

Isopropyl alcohol is used to clean c-Si wafers. The surface of the wafer is oxidized to silicon dioxide to protect the solar cell.

Lead is often used in solar PV electronic circuits for wiring, solder-coated copper strips, and some lead-based printing pastes.

Small quantities of silver and aluminum are used to make the electrical contacts on the cell.

Chemicals released in fugitive air emissions by known manufacturing facilities include trichloroethane, acetone, ammonia and isopropyl alcohol.

Monocrystalline silicon (mono c-Si) is formed when the one single crystal cools into a cylinder (called a rod or ingot). Thin wafers are then cut from the cylinder.

Mono c-Si is produced in large quantities for the computer industry. Because the purity of silicon needed for solar PV is less than that required for silicon chips, the PV industry has historically relied on purchasing (at reduced cost) silicon wafers and polysilicon feedstock rejected by the chip makers. The production of solar grade silicon is growing as demand in the PV industry is outstripping the available computer industry castoffs.

Mono c-Si is produced in large quantities for the computer industry. Because the purity of silicon needed for solar PV is less than that required for silicon chips, the PV industry has historically relied on purchasing (at reduced cost) silicon wafers and polysilicon feedstock rejected by the chip makers. The production of solar grade silicon is growing as demand in the PV industry is outstripping the available computer industry castoffs.

In addition to the chemicals used by all crystalline silicon cell production, additional chemicals used to manufacture mono c-Si solar cells include ammonium fluoride, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, phosphorous oxychloride and tin. Like most industrial chemicals, these materials require special handling and operating standards to prevent workplace hazards or exposure to toxics.

To make multicrystalline silicon (multi c-Si) wafers, molten silicon is poured into crucibles under an inert atmosphere of argon gas and slowly cooled to form thin squares. These cells are typically less pure than mono c-Si – particularly around the edges, due to contact with the crucible during crystallization. They are less efficient but are also less expensive and less energy-intensive to make. Multi c-Si has a significant share of the c-Si market, at about 67% in 2004. Overall, the lifecycle impacts of mono c-Si and multi c-Si have a similar profile, although the energy used in production is higher for mono c-Si. Other materials used or produced in the manufacturing of multi c-Si that require special handling and operating procedures include ammonia, copper catalyst, diborane, ethyl acetate, ethyl vinyl acetate, hydrogen, hydrogen peroxide, ion amine catalyst, nitrogen, silicon trioxide, stannic chloride, tantalum pentoxide, titanium and titanium dioxide.

This, I assure you, is only the beginning.

It doesn’t even touch upon wind-turbines and the rare-earth minerals required for that — nor the extreme environmental degradation it causes; nor does it touch upon the twenty million tons of cement (the making of cement also requires a great deal of mining) sunk deep into the earth and required in order to anchor every single wind-turbine, which the Audubon society calls “Condor Cuisinarts” for all the birds and bats these monstrosities kill. Nor does it touch upon the fact that wind and solar both require massive (taxpayer) subsidization to sustain and even more fossil-fuels to back them up because of the intermittency problem, nor to the fact that wind and solar are both far more likely to contaminate ground water than hydraulic fracturing (fracking).

And so it goes, the propaganda machines rolling endlessly on and on …

Think for yourself.

And I’m not just referring to his distressingly obvious cognitive decline, nor to the allegations of voter-fraud, which are not going away any time soon.

“You got the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” — Joe Biden, in reference to Barack Obama

“Unlike the African-American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly diverse attitudes about different things.” — Joe Biden

“In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian-Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.” — Joe Biden

There’s also Joe Biden’s liberal use of racial slurs and his unequivocal downplaying of civil rights as he prepared to run for president back in 1986 and in a speech to black leaders of the NAACP pushed for the group to “move beyond” busing as an issue to integrate American schools.

Remember also, clear back to 2019, when someone named Kamala Harris had the unmitigated gall to call out Joe Biden for “coddling the reputations of segregationists”? This was before she was in his hip-pocket, of course, but do you know why she said that? It was largely for Joe Biden’s unapologetic and decades-long friendships with Democrat Senator James Eastland, an arrant racist with whom Joe Biden was extremely chummy for years, as well as his famous friendship with the Republican senator and segregationist Strom Thurmond.

I will not bother to list here all the sexual harassment allegations, nor the sexual assault, nor the infamously disgusting Anita Hill debacle, which Biden led — all of which things I have very little doubt a corrupt prevaricating career politician like Joe Biden is guilty of. Why should I bother listing it all here? It doesn’t matter, unless, of course, the allegations are leveled at someone who’s not a progressive-liberal-democratic.

Nor will I delve into Joe Biden’s appalling record on LGBT issues, as documented so accurately by (for instance) Outspoken Magazine, which is a thoroughly left-wing publication.

But upon second thought, I guess I will:

In the Workplace

Biden suggested that gay federal employees were “security risks”

In 1973, As a senator Joe Biden said gay people could not receive security clearances because they would be a “security risk.”  “Biden also agreed to answer later by mail a series of questions on U.S. Civil Service and military job discrimination which Robert Vane, a gay activist, presented him. ‘My gut reaction,’ Biden told Vane, ‘is that they [homosexuals] are security risks but I must admit I haven’t given this much thought…I’ll be darned!’” according to The Morning News

Biden voted for Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which kicked 14,500 service members out of the U.S. Military

As a U.S. senator, Joe Biden supported Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. In 1993, Joe Biden voted in favor of H.R. 2401 (National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1994) which codified the military’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy concerning gays in the military. 

More than 14,500 service members were discharged from the military for violating the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy between 1994 and 2011, according to the non-profit watchdog and lobby group, the Service members Legal Defense Network.

In Schools

Biden voted for an amendment to cut off federal funding for schools that taught “acceptance of homosexuality as a lifestyle”

In August 1994, Biden was one of 23 Democrats to vote for S.Amdt. 2434. The amendment “cut off federal funds to any school district that teaches acceptance of homosexuality as a lifestyle.” The 63-36 vote came during debate on reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which provides $12.5 billion in federal funds to the nation’s public schools. 

In Representation 

Biden’s home state newspaper described him as being relatively silent on gay rights

In 1998, Delaware Pride board member Vicki Morelli said that “none” of Delaware’s congressional delegation, including Biden, stood up for gay rights and instead stayed quiet. “They’re all good enough politicians that they know not to make hateful comments against gays, yet not to fight so vigorously for gay rights that alienate voters,” she said to The News Journal on Jul. 26, 1998.

Biden never acknowledged the historic appointment of Richard Grenell to the Cabinet

Richard Grenell became the highest ranking openly gay federal official when he was confirmed by the Senate for the prestigious ambassadorship to Germany. He was then appointed by President Trump to serve as Acting Director of National Intelligence, the only openly gay man to serve in a presidential Cabinet. Biden never once acknowledged or congratulated Grenell on the historic appointment and the watershed moment for gay representation in government. 

In Children and Families 

Biden voted for the Defense Of Marriage Act

In 1996, the Defense Of Marriage Act defined marriage “as only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife… The measure defined marriage as between a man and a woman and allowed states not to recognize same-sex marriages. Same-sex couples could not claim federal benefits,” according to PolitiFact. DOMA “amends the Federal judicial code to provide that no State, territory, or possession of the United States or Indian tribe shall be required to give effect to any marriage between persons of the same sex… Establishes a Federal definition of: (1) ‘marriage’ as only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” Biden was one of 85 senators to vote in favor.

In the 2000s, Biden called same-sex marriage a “state issue,” repeatedly saying “marriage is between a man and a woman”

Biden repeatedly reiterated his support for the Defense Of Marriage Act. As a senator in 2004 he stated, “This has long been a state issue, and it should remain that way.” In February 2004, Biden said he opposed President Bush’s proposed marriage amendment, but did so by describing it as unnecessary and touting his prior vote for the Defense Of Marriage Act. 

“As President Bush said on a previous occasion, this issue should be left to the states. I agree. That’s why I voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a ‘union between one man and one woman’ and does not require any state to recognize a same-sex union sanctioned under the laws of another state,” he said, according to The News Journal.

Later that year, Biden said, “this has long been a state issue, and it should remain that way,” according to The News Journal.

In June 2006, Biden said he did not oppose a federal marriage constitutional amendment on substance, but that he opposed “the timing” of the amendment. Appearing on Anderson Cooper 360, host John Roberts asked, “are you more against the amendment itself or the timing of it?” 

“I’m against the timing of it. Look, marriage is between a man and a woman. Tell me why that has to be put in the Constitution now?” Biden said.

Biden said he did not know whether a federal marriage amendment would be “writing discrimination into the Constitution” as Mary Cheney had characterized it. “You also have Mary Cheney and Russ Feingold both saying that, to pass this amendment, would be to write discrimination into the Constitution. Is this really writing discrimination into the Constitution?” Roberts asked on Anderson Cooper 360. 

“Look, I don’t — I don’t know whether it would be writing discrimination into the Constitution… marriage has always been something we left to the states… We don’t pass a federal law telling you the conditions on which you can get married, who can marry you, how you can get married.”

That same year, on Meet The Press, Biden defended DOMA once again. Host Tim Russert asked Biden, “The president used his radio address yesterday, and tomorrow in the Rose Garden, to talk about a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.” 

“You know, think about this. The world’s going to Hades in a handbasket… and we’re going to debate, the next three weeks, I’m told, gay marriage, a flag amendment, and God only knows what else… We already have a law, the Defense of Marriage Act. We’ve all voted—not, where I’ve voted, and others have said, look, marriage is between a man and a woman and states must respect that. Nobody’s violated that law, there’s been no challenge to that law. Why do we need a constitutional amendment? Marriage is between a man and a woman.”

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Biden refused to back gay marriage 

Asked at a July 2007 campaign event if “in the next five years, you’re president, do you see gay marriage in the future?” Biden responded “I don’t.” “I have to ask you this because it does affect me and my family directly” an attended asked in Iowa. “But if, in the next five years, if you’re president, do you see gay marriage in the future?” Biden responded: “I don’t. Here’s what I do see. I see an absolute guarantee of civil union with the exact same rights. Now, here’s the dilemma. Here’s the dilemma. The truth of the matter is states have made legal, through licensing, the performance of marriage what religions have essentially consecrated. That’s how they view it,” according to Fox News.

During the 2008 vice presidential debate when asked if he would support gay marriage, then-Senator Biden said “[Neither] Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage,” referring to his running mate, according to Reuters.

At a debate that year, moderator Gwen Ifill asked Biden, “Let’s try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?” 

“No,” Biden responded.

Biden has falsely claimed he was the first major leader to support same-sex marriage

At the February 7, 2020 Democrat debates, Biden claimed “I was the first major leader holding public office to call for same sex marriage. So I don’t know what about the past of Barack Obama and Joe Biden was so bad.”

At the March 15, 2020 Democrat debate, Biden repeated the false claim that he was the first person of any administration “to go on national television” in support of gay marriage. “And by the way, I might add, I’m the first person to go on national television in any administration and say I supported gay marriage. I supported gay marriage when asked. And so it started a ripple effect.”

Other prominent officials, including Republicans, voiced support and openness to same-sex marriage long before Biden did

In 2000, vice presidential nominee Dick Cheney “spoke out in favor of gay marriage and rights.” “Dick Cheney spoke out in support of gay marriage and rights during the 2000 vice presidential debate, breaking with his running mate George W. Bush and earning the support of the progressive Human Rights Campaign.”

Multiple prominent Democrats came out in support of gay marriage long before Biden. “Beyond Cheney, many Democrats also supported gay marriage before Biden. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., opposed DOMA in 1996, when 14 senators voted against the legislation. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., supported gay marriage in 2011, and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., also came out for gay marriage in 2009… before Biden,” according to Fox News.

In November 2011, Obama HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan “became the first sitting Cabinet secretary to announce support for marriage equality” nearly a half-year before Biden’s endorsement. “U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan became the first sitting cabinet secretary to announce support for marriage equality, saying on Nov. 15 that he ‘absolutely’ supports marriage equality in an exclusive interview with Metro Weekly… We’ve got more work to do in the Obama administration in a second term.’ Asked if that included marriage equality, Donovan confirmed it did, saying, ‘Like marriage equality,’” according to Metro Weekly.

In June 2011, the Obama White House was already looking at how Obama could announce support for same-sex marriage, nearly a year before Biden endorsed it. “The White House would not comment on whether Mr. Obama was ready to endorse same-sex marriage… And Representative Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who is gay, said in an interview that a top adviser to Mr. Obama, whom he would not name, asked him this year, ‘What would be the effect if he came out for same-sex marriage?’ ‘My own view is that I look at President Obama’s record, he was probably inclined to think that same-sex marriage was legitimate, but as a candidate for president in 2008 that would have been an unwise thing to say,’ Mr. Frank said,” according to The New York Times.

Biden and Obama White House aides insisted Biden did not endorse gay marriage during his 2012 Meet The Press interview. In May 2012, after Biden signaled support for same-sex marriage on Meet the Press, top Obama White House officials immediately sought to walk back Biden’s comments. “Despite his record, in several presidential debates this year, Biden questionably claimed that he was the first major political leader to support gay marriage… top Obama administration officials immediately sought to walk back Biden’s comments in the interview…‘Chaos … erupted inside the West Wing after an e-mailed transcript of the interview landed in the in-box of the White House press team,’ according to an insider account by investigative reporter Jo Becker,” reports Fox News.

Biden’s office then gave a statement to NBC saying Biden was speaking on his own, not on behalf of the administration, and that Biden “had not fully endorsed” same-sex marriage. “Biden’s office, however, would tell NBC’s Chuck Todd, shortly after the ‘Meet the Press’ interview concluded, that he was speaking on his own and not on behalf of the administration. A spokesperson for the vice president further clarified the ‘Meet the Press’ remarks, stating in part that Biden had not fully endorsed same-sex marriage… Beyond that, the Vice President was expressing that he too is evolving on the issue, after meeting so many committed couples and families in this country.’ Biden never explicitly said that he backed marriage equality, but he implied it,” according to The Huffington Post.

In the World

Biden voted to block the immigration of HIV+ individuals into the United States

Biden voted for an amendment in 1993 to codify the Department Of Health And Human Services’ prohibition of the permanent immigration of HIV+ individuals. “Vote on Senator Don Nickles’ (R-OK) amendment to codify the Department of Health and Human Services’ prohibition of the permanent immigration of HIV+ individuals. The amendment passed by a vote of 76-23: R 42-1, D 34-22. The Human Rights Campaign opposed this amendment.

Biden claimed he was “ambivalent on the issue” but voted for the amendment, saying the issue was “bigger than whether HIV should be on the list or off the list.” According to The Washington Times on Feb. 19, 1993, “Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., Delaware Democrat, said he was ambivalent on the issue but ultimately sided against Mr. Clinton. ‘One side of me says just let the public health officials make the decision, and both Republican and Democratic officials have agreed on it [to drop the ban],’ he said. ‘But it seems to me the policy is bigger than whether HIV should be on the list or off the list.’” 

Biden supports sending aid to nations that murder and imprison homosexuals 

The Obama-Biden administration spent two years crafting the Iran Nuclear Deal that eased sanctions on the Iranian regime and allowed the nation to enrich uranium and plutonium that could be used to make a nuclear weapon. Iran is one of eight nations that puts homosexuals to death and one of 69 nations where homosexuality is criminalized. A year after the Iran Nuclear Deal, the Obama-Biden administration secretly sent $400 million in cash to the Iranian government. The Trump administration withdrew from the Iranian Nuclear Deal. Biden says he will reinstate the deal if elected president. 

“Former Vice President Joe Biden, for one, has said he will return to the agreement only once Iran is in compliance. But he’s also pledged to find a way to ‘strengthen and extend it.’ A senior Biden campaign adviser said the former vice president knows a lot can change by 2021, but he sees pledging a return to the 2015 agreement as, among other things, an important signal to send to U.S. allies in Europe who are furious over Trump’s abandonment,” according to Politico.

(Link to Outspoken Magazine whose work here is accurate and important.)

There’s also Joe Biden (and Barack Obama’s) sickening “War-On-Drugs” — Biden, as you of course know was the driving force behind the so-called Drug Czar — and (like Obama) is directly responsible for the mass incarceration and destruction of countless innocent lives, many minorities among them, costing American taxpayers 182 billion annually, all because of this utterly pointless war-on-drugs (so-called) and the belief in this mythical thing known as a victimless crime.

And so it goes, the propaganda machines rolling on and on and on …

 

Do you think that people of today, in our woke and sophisticated society, where social-media and all the other headquarters of communication are lightning-fast and global, could never fall for the propaganda tactics of old?

Think again.

It just happened at record speed across an entire planet. From the New York Times:

As more and more serology tests come in, the data becomes unignorable: Covid-19 coronavirus is far less deadly than initially reported andcloser than previously reported to seasonal flu.

Autopsies in Santa Clara County, California, reveal that Covid-19 was in the United States several weeks earlier than previously thought — or, I should say, at least several weeks earlier.  

Many people with Covid-19 are completely symptomless. Many more have symptoms so mild that they don’t connect it with Covid-19.

[UPDATE: YouTube removed the video I’d posted below — for violating recent updates they’ve made to their terms-of-service, which forbids anything they deem to be misinformation about Covid-19 coronavirus. YouTube is a privately owned company and platform and, as I’ve discussed before, they therefore have every right to do this, and I completely defend that right, even if I disagree with the principle, or with any of their specific criteria, which I do. I only update this post and call attention back to it so that readers might witness firsthand how rapidly and how deeply collective hysteria can grow, complete with a religious-like zealousness and dogmatic clinging to convictions already so entrenched that no discussion of their premises is permissible — and all without any discussion of specific data, including the plunging lethality rates of Covid-19 as testing becomes more widespread.] 

These two E.R. docs are true heroes, and everybody should watch the following video. Everyone. It will inspire you. If you don’t have time to watch the entire clip, I urge you to fast-forward to the 28:00 minute mark and watch for 7 minutes. You’ll understand why this outrageous lockdown will create more sickness:

Meanwhile, unemployment, suicide, spousal abuse, child molestation, et cetera, are rising at an alarming rate.

But that’s the price that good citizens — who exist purely by governmental permission and cannot be allowed to act with common-sense, voluntarily — must pay for fighting a pandemic with arbitrary social-distancing guidelines and a forced lockdown which will, you may depend upon it, cause more and longer lasting destruction than Covid-19.

This is how propaganda works. It’s less overt than religious indoctrination, but have no illusions: indoctrination it is. And the New York Times, chronicling China’s targeted propaganda to which that once-venerable newspaper also fell prey, is fully complicit in propagating this scare-mongering, which has altered modern-day society in an unprecedented way:

The independent thinker is the one who takes the time and makes the effort to use her brain — to sift through the relevant data — and this process is always a long and laborious one, in no small measure because there is a great deal to sift through, and because it’s not easy to separate fact from partial fact from outright prevarication and all that’s in between. The Covid crisis was unique: it happened so rapidly and as rapidly became totally politicized and polarized — so much so that now, a mere six weeks in, the one who would dare question the foundations of the official script is in real danger of being hounded and publicly pilloried by the mob. The long and laborious process of data-sifting is a continual process. It requires a certain doggedness. Which is why most people, preferring ease to rigor, will not take the time or expend the considerable effort to do it and to keep doing it. The platitudes and buzzwords and terminology that solidify into dogma almost as fast as they’re created — “social distancing” “quarantine” “consensus” “denier” “protect the vulnerable,” and of course the growing cult-of-the-mask even outdoors when no one else is around — these things all give people an easy way to avoid the painstaking process of independent thought, and many, many, many doctors and scientists are as guilty as anyone.

If this makes you think about so-called climate change, it’s because it’s the same sort of dogma and catastrophizing at work. As one person recently put it — a fellow who, I believe, was already beginning to wonder about the vagueness of the buzzword “climate-change” — specifically, how it’s so imprecise that it can refer to virtually anything (no matter that the world has never seen fewer climate-related deaths than it has the past decade): “If it appears that we over reacted to Corona virus, the climate change movement is totally fucked.”

Yes, it is. It always was, and here is why I say so.

In fact, if there’s one good thing to come out of this entire buccal-fecal carnival, it is that perhaps people will see more clearly, due to the sheer speed with which it happened, how quickly dogmas can accumulate and take hold and transform people’s way of thinking and their entire worldview almost overnight, making ostensibly intelligent people into true believers, and in a flash turning normal people into housebound obeying conformists walking in lockstep and snitching out those who don’t.

The crux of the issue is, I believe, the difficulty of independent thought continually applied — almost as a state of mind, or even a way of life. There are, however, guideposts — or axioms, if you prefer — and one of those is this: if the proposed measures or solutions call for the obliteration of the individual’s right to life, liberty, or property, and if voluntary, consensual action is deemed off-limits, it is wrong.

The people who aren’t cowed or bullied by the fear-mongering or the hype and who painstakingly continue sifting through the data, looking steadfastly into all the relevant evidence at their disposal — even in spite of the blowback and the outrage — are and always will be heroes. Dr. John Ioannidis is one such — an epidemiologist at Stanford University, whom I’ve mentioned many times the past month, and who throughout this entire Covid-19 crisis has been brilliant and levelheaded and exemplary in the scientific method — despite the howling opposition and true-believer rage directed against him. (The same thing is true of the thousands of climate scientists who, knowing that climate by definition changes, don’t believe current climate-change is catastrophic, and I watched firsthand my friend Dr. Bill Gray (RIP), of the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University and who was for many decades the world’s foremost expert on hurricanes, get appallingly smeared, vilified, and misrepresented, even after his death, all because he didn’t believe climate change is catastrophic.) As Dr. John Ioannidis recently said in an interview he gave the Wall Street Journal:

“There’s some sort of mob men­tal­ity here op­er­at­ing that they just in­sist that this has to be the end of the world and the sky is fall­ing… Di­miss­ing real data in fa­vor of math­e­mat­i­cal spec­u­la­tion is mind-bog­gling.”

And yet entirely predictable.

Many agree with him, like Michael Mina, an epidemiologist, immunologist, and physician at the Harvard School of Public Health and also a professor at Harvard Medical School, whom I’ve also cited this past month. His area of expertise is vaccines, immunity, and infectious diseases, and he’s increasingly being vindicated in his early speculations, which were based on logic and not wild guesswork or fear-mongering or walking in lockstep with the party-line:

Infectious disease specialist Amesh Adalja of Johns Hopkins has also been a beacon of brightness throughout all the hysteria and panic-mongering — never (that I saw) diminishing the danger but never overstating it either, and an uncompromising advocate for free-market medicine. In the very beginning, I heard him say this in a podcast interview (and I quote):

“[Covid-19] is probably a little more deadly than the seasonal flu, but not a lot.”

And:

“It’s common sense to know your enemy. Instead, we’re all hiding inside our houses as we wait around for a vaccine — that’s not a good global strategy for battling a dangerous virus.”

He, too, is being increasingly vindicated.

I would like for readers to see the following as well. It is a testament to the power of human ingenuity and human intelligence:

Scientists at Cedars-Sinai are developing an ultraviolet light that is inserted into the lungs of coronavirus patients to kill the virus living there.

It’s called the #Healight

Watch: pic.twitter.com/naGETF2Mfo

— Mark Dice (@MarkDice) April 24, 2020

The guy who posted that is obviously a Trump fan. I am not. But none of that changes the science and technology that happen naturally when humans are left free — free to create and innovate and keep the fruits of what they create and innovate.

This, on the other hand, comes from Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who was part of Obama’s administration (yes, the one caught on video advocating actual death-panels for the elderly), and who recently called for a mandatory 18-month lockdown:

Finally, you’ve probably heard different things about Sweden, but I want to assure you that Farr’s Law applies there as well:

I do expect a lot of that.

Just as I expect a lot more people saying over and over and over again now, as part of the official guidelines and party-line dogma, that authoritarian lockdown and forced social distancing is why, after all, the apocalypse didn’t come with Covid-19. But that claim, absurd on its face (especially considering that public transportation remained open in most metro areas and that the main sources of transmission are, in this order, interfamilial, nosocomial, and public transportation), is provably false. If anything, the state-mandated lockdowns and forced social distancing created more death and destruction — the full effects of which are yet to be felt:

It’s impossible.

There is no conflict between humanitarian and economic concerns. A poorer country will be a much less healthy country, one more vulnerable to illness and disease. Technology, modern medicine, and market signals can address a virus, and already we see entrepreneurs producing cheaper ventilators and doctors using inexpensive generic drugs with excellent results.

Government cannot stimulate an economy it has simultaneously shutdown.

I repeat: Government cannot, cannot, cannot stimulate an economy it has simultaneously shut down.

In 1850, the French economist Frédéric Bastiat aided the world in understanding the seen and unseen costs of authoritarian policies. It is simple to see how the state giving someone a five-thousand-dollar check will buy that person groceries and pay her rent. It is not so simple — and yet even more critical — to see the costs and harms of where that money came from: the trillions in pointless spending that accumulate, the unprecedented amounts of new money created by the Federal Reserve, and the countless other destructive legal precedents set.

Millions of small businesses shuttered, just as many large employers have as well. Millions of service workers unemployed already, but many more jobs will be lost. The effects cascade.

Government cannot stimulate an economy it has simultaneously shutdown.

Purportedly intelligent people howling for the nationalization of industry, the socialization of production, the imprisonment in our homes — I promise you they don’t know what they’re howling for.

It is not possible to stop and start an economy — just as it is not possible to distinguish between essential and nonessential businesses — because the plexus of industry is an incomprehensibly vast web in which everyone and everything is connected.

It’s naïve to think that people won’t adapt to the perceived threat. It’s equally naive to think businesses won’t either — just as businesses deemed “essential” have. Restaurants can seat patrons several meters apart. Bartenders, servers, chefs, can wear masks and gloves. But most important of all, people with freedom can choose to patronize the business or not. Precisely as people have with businesses deemed essential. There are virtually limitless innovative ways free people can and will adjust to crisis, including the crisis of Covid-19. The fact that some politician cannot imagine a voluntary solution does not mean that one does not exist. South Korea is an example to emulate. Instead of an authoritarian lockdown of its people, it took a much freer approach — allowed the free flows of information and knowledge and testing — and it worked. We MUST move away from this destructive bunker mentality and consider the numerous less disastrous alternatives.

But first: if you think economics do not matter compared with Covid, I beg you to reconsider.

From today’s Reuters:

U.N. warns economic downturn could kill hundreds of thousands of children in 2020

(Link)

Why is there nowhere the equal concern and passion for these dying and innocent humans? Is it that the headline is not over-the-top enough? Not sensational enough?

“Whether one likes it or not, it is a fact that the main issues of present day politics are purely economic and cannot be understood without a grasp of economic theory,” wrote Ludwig von Mises, who was a thinker of the highest magnitude — truly on par with the brightest and smartest people in all of human history. I’ve quoted the above passage before and quote it again now because it is undeniable — it’s called the seen and the unseen — and the ramifications of the panic-driven policies and controls enacted by bumbling bureaucrats will dwarf the ramifications of the disease, the damage and destruction far longer lasting, unless those policies and controls are lifted.

This breaking news is from Boston 25 News:

You must see this.

It will provide you with a profound insight into something very significant. This article was published just yesterday:

The Psychological Reason Why Some People Aren’t Following COVID-19 Quarantine Orders

How to handle the people who aren’t convinced by facts

Despite the repeated consensus that adhering to social distancing guidelines is the most effective way to diffuse the novel coronavirus pandemic, some people were slow to cancel their plans; some are still engaging in get-togethers.

It’s frustrating if this is one of your friends, endangering if it’s one of your immediate family members, and a tricky situation if it’s one of your colleagues, or someone who reports to you.

How do you handle someone who is blatantly ignoring social distancing guidelines? How do you reason with someone who is, essentially, a COVID-19 denier?

(Link)

I urge you to please take special note of the opening words: “people who aren’t convinced by facts” and “Despite the repeated consensus …”

This isn’t merely sloppy reasoning — although it’s certainly that as well — but something far more insidious: it is a method of manipulation, a tactic universally employed and which works with great effectiveness on unsuspecting readers.

Please be aware that, despite using the word “facts” in the subtitle, no facts are actually given.

Also, just for the record, I could right now provide you with the names of 800 medical specialists who disagree about the “repeated consensus” purported by the writer — as I can cite the brilliant Stanford epidemiologist Dr. John P. A. Ioannidis and his recent paper: “Coronavirus disease: The harms of exaggerated information and non-evidence-based measures,” as I can cite the equally brilliant Harvard Medical School professor and immunologist Dr. Michael Mina, as I can also cite Johns Hopkins infectious disease specialist Dr. Amesh Adalja, and plenty of others — but even this is not the primary point here.

The primary point is to observe the passive-aggressive form of intellectual bullying (or “shaming,” as everyone likes to say it these days) being employed: observe that it is fully and yet obliquely implied (and the obliqueness is part of the manipulation-tactic) without regard or reference to any actual data or factual information, that anyone who does not know this or “adhere” to the official “guidelines” is wrongheaded and out-of-touch. This premise is assumed in the very language of that first sentence — something presupposed, not even to be questioned.

That is how unsuspecting readers are manipulated into convictions which they very often never realize they’ve formed.

That is the process by which you end up with a 16-year-old Swedish girl lecturing the world on a topic she knows nothing substantive about, and the world simply nods in total acquiescence and deference.

That is the process whereby dogmas, with all their buzz-words and jargon, are formed, and over which people will fight you to the death, even less than a month after the dogma was created.

Dogmas spare people the responsibility and effort of reasoning, which requires time and work and is a continual process. It’s also an individual act of volition each time it’s activated — reason is choice — and it’s not easy. Yet it’s how humans live because it’s how the conceptual apparatus functions.

The key phrase in the cited passage above is “repeated consensus,” which is here used as a way to bypass any need for rigorous reasoning — saying, in essence: “This is a fact and everyone knows it. The debate, if there ever was one (and there wasn’t), is over.”

Notice as well that there is no attempt whatsoever to back-up that so-named “repeated consensus” — which is also not just another sloppy form of reasoning, insofar as it seeks to deepen the psychological manipulation in the very circumventing of any factual data to back it up: specifically, by implying that it’s taken-for-granted, a given, so that if you don’t know about or believe in this “repeated consensus,” you are out-of-touch.

This is a specific type of logical fallacy, usually known as the Argument from Authority or, less commonly, ipse dixit. But this writer isn’t necessarily committing an honest error of reasoning — though I will leave it to each reader to decide how consciously manipulative the writer is here being.

The fallacy culminates in the final words of the passage cited above: reason with and denier.

That last word — popularized, as you know, the past decade by catastrophic climate-change activists — has deep holocaust connotations and largely for this reason is a type of ridicule. But ridicule, like ipse dixit and like bullying, are lazy forms of argumentation and cannot substitute real reasoning, nor survive under the light of logic.

There is a fatal flaw built into this type of polemic, and that fatal flaw is this: the process of conceptualization and comprehension does not happen merely by consensus, whether the consensus is alleged or actual.

Knowledge, scientific and otherwise, isn’t determined by numbers of people.

True knowledge, which is an act of integrating new information into your existing context-of-knowledge, is determined by data. It’s determined by facts, no matter how many people understand them or not. That billions believe does not make anything so. Concerning Covid, because of the paucity in testing, there is simply no way yet to know the true infection rate. And just as you cannot calculate an accurate death-rate without first knowing the infection rate, so you cannot calculate the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of any “guidelines” without knowing what the infection rate is. It’s a baseless arbitrary claim without complete evidence — especially considering that many infected people, according to the Iceland study, are symptomless or with symptoms so mild that they don’t connect it with Covid-19. And more: there is strong evidence to suggest that forcing people to stay inside, in close quarters with one another, as the official “social distancing guidelines” recommend, increases the number of infections.

Quoting from a good article just published today — and further vindication of Farr’s Law:

Think again if you believe draconian controls recommended by a few (but far from all) medical experts are saving many lives from COVID-19. Facts reported by mathematician Yitzhak Ben Israel of Tel Aviv University don’t support such beliefs.

Professor Israel found that no matter how much or little politicians quarantined the population, “coronavirus peaked and subsided in the exact same way.” Whether the country relied on politicians shutting the country down (the US and UK, for example) or private voluntary actions (Sweden), Prof. Israel’s work shows that “all countries experienced seemingly identical coronavirus infection patterns, with the number of infected peaking in the sixth week and rapidly subsiding by the eighth week.”

In short, coercive measures imposed to protect the public from COVID-19 are as effective as throwing magical “tiger dust” in Central Park to keep tigers at bay in Manhattan.

Why are we so enamored with experts and their tiger dust? Simply, we don’t understand the inherent fallibility of human beings. Well-meaning experts can be as destructive as authoritarian politicians.

Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman is a behavioral economist and psychologist. In his book Thinking, Fast and Slow, he writes, “Every policy question involves assumptions about human nature, in particular about the choices that people may make and the consequences of their choices for themselves and for society.” Mistaken or unexamined assumptions corrupt decision-making.

Experts Have Cognitive Biases

In Thinking, Fast and Slow, Kahneman catalogs the many cognitive biases impairing human beings. Kahneman and his late research partner Amos Tversky “documented systematic errors in the thinking of normal people, and [they] traced these errors to the design of the machinery of cognition rather than to the corruption of thought by emotion.” In short, “severe and systematic errors” in cognition prevent us from being the rational thinkers we’d like to think we are.

Reporting on the work of psychologist Paul Slovic, Kahneman writes, “[Slovic] probably knows more about the peculiarities of human judgment of risk than any other individual.”

If you’re thinking, that’s why we need to entrust these decisions to experts, you would be wrong: Experts have the same cognitive biases as the rest of us.

Because of expert bias, Slovic “strongly resists the view that the experts should rule” and dissuades us from believing “their opinions should be accepted without question when they conflict with the opinions and wishes of other citizens.”

(Link)

Please note the following and remember it (it’s new):

And so now this:

The only real way that knowledge and human progress can be derailed is by the systematic rejection of inductive reasoning, which forms the underpinnings not just of all science and the scientific-method, but of the entirety of human apprehension.

No scientist — whether researcher or practitioner or both, whether biologist, chemist, physicist, geologist, climate scientist, or any other — none can pursue knowledge without first having a view of what knowledge is and how that knowledge is acquired.

All scientists, therefore, whether they know it explicitly or not, need a theory of knowledge.

This theory must come from the most fundamental science: the science of philosophy.

The science of knowledge specifically belongs to that branch of philosophy called epistemology.

Epistemology — from the Greek word episteme, which means “knowledge”— is an extraordinarily complicated discipline that begins with three simple words: consciousness is awareness.

All scientists, I repeat, need a theory of knowledge, and this theory of knowledge subsequently affects every aspect of a scientist’s approach to her research — from the questions she asks, to the answers she finds, to the hypothesis and theories then developed and built-upon.

Very rare geniuses like Galileo and Newton and perhaps even Kepler (who, for all his mathematical brilliance and tireless work, held to a metaphysical viewpoint deeply flawed) were ferociously innovative in epistemology as well as physics —specifically, in systematizing and codifying the core principles of the inductive-method, which they all three came to through their scrupulous use of scientific experiment.

Experiment is induction.

Benjamin Franklin testing a notion he had about electricity by flying a kite into a lightning storm, a metal key tied to the kite string, is an example of the inductive method at work.

Induction more than anything else — including deduction — is the method of reason and the engine of human progress.

A proper epistemology teaches a scientist, as it teaches everyone else concerned with comprehension and actual learning, how to exercise the full power of the human mind — which is to say, how to reach the widest abstractions while not losing sight of the specifics or, it you prefer, the concretes.

A proper epistemolgy teaches how to integrate sensory data into a step-by-step pyramid of knowledge, culminating in the grasp of fundamental truths whose context applies to the whole universe. Galileo’s laws of motion and Newton’s laws of optics, as well as his laws of gravity, are examples of this. If humans were to one day transport to a sector of the universe where these laws did not hold true, it still wouldn’t invalidate them here. The context here remains. In this way, knowledge expands as context grows. The fact that all truths are by definition contextual does not invalidate absolute truth and knowledge thereby, but just the opposite: context is the means by which we measure and validate absolute truth.

Terms like “broad consensus,” “repeated consensus,” “guidelines,” “climate change,” they’re so vague and imprecise as to be virtually meaningless.

This is from the Chicago City Wire and it’s significant because, as it says in the article, it indicates that “the spread of the virus may have been underway in the Roseland community — and the state and country as a whole — prior to the issuance of stay at home orders and widespread business closures in mid-March which have crippled the national economy.”

Sumaya Owaynat, a phlebotomy technician, said she tests between 400 and 600 patients on an average day in the parking lot at Roseland Community Hospital. Drive-thru testing is from 9 a.m. to noon and 1 to 4 p.m. each day. However, the hospital has a limited number of tests they can give per day.  

Owaynat said the number of patients coming through the testing center who appear to have already had coronavirus and gotten over it is far greater than those who currently have the disease.

“A lot of people have high antibodies, which means they had the coronavirus but they don’t have it anymore and their bodies built the antibodies,” Owaynat told Chicago City Wire.

Antibodies in the bloodstream reveal that a person has already had the coronavirus and may be immune to contracting the virus again.

If accurate, this means the spread of the virus may have been underway in the Roseland community – and the state and country as a whole – prior to the issuance of stay at home orders and widespread business closures in mid-March which have crippled the national economy.

In addition, those who show signs of already having had the illness should be able to re-enter society — albeit with some modified social distancing measures in place — rather than sheltering at home as they are no longer in danger. Of those who contract the coronavirus, around 25 percent may be asymptomatic.

A recent study of 1,000 people in the Heinsberg District of Bonn, Germany found that 15% of the population had contracted the virus, many unknowingly and without symptoms.

Of those, only 0.37% died from COVID-19, a figure much lower than those previously cited.

(Link)

I believe also that the following is worth chronicling — because the sanctimony and hypocrisy is appalling. Please note the dates:

It’s sometimes called Farr’s Law, named after William Farr (1807 – 1883), and it states that all epidemics — all of them — follow an epidemiological curve (also known as an epi-curve or S-curve).

These curves start out with an alarmingly steep incline. But over time, in natural progression, they slope downward and eventually flatten.

This will perhaps seem obvious, even to those who don’t know about Farr’s law, but it is clearly not obvious — because with each new epidemic, we hear the exact same thing:

“If the virus continues to spread at the current rate … ”

Reader, hear this: viruses — and this includes Covid-19, which is another SARS virus — never continue to spread at the current rate. Never.

Here is why.

Do you doubt it? I have good news: it’s already happened in China and South Korea, and it is continuing to happen, and it will continue to happen.

In every epidemiological curve — or epi-curve or S-curve — it IS initially like an exponential curve, before it stagnates and levels off. And this time around (almost certainly because of the internet) that was the point at which the world went berserk and is still going berserk. Yet nothing is fundamentally different.

This is why over 800 infectious-disease and medical specialists signed a letter warning against “draconian action.”

Catastrophizing is something you should always be suspicious of. Always. There is inevitably a great deal of suffering and hardship in any epidemic or pandemic, and it’s something that should never be treated lightly — never — and we haven’t leveled out yet. But fear-mongering and catastrophizing only compounds the problem. 

With knowledge and understanding comes calm.

Here is a little of what you can expect next:

All the horrific lockdown measures, the state-mandated social distancing, the outrageous fear-mongering and then the government’s “swift and decisive action and efficient response” (the destruction of a 30-trillion dollar economy minor collateral damage, understand) — these are the reasons the coronavirus has begun to fade.

In actuality, though, the only thing these horrifying measures did if anything is prolong the pandemic.

“There’s nothing to be scared about. This is the flu epidemic like every other flu epidemic — maybe more severe, but nothing is fundamentally different from the flu we’ve seen every other year.”

– Professor Knut Wittkowski

I made this video after reading the transcripts of a talk given by professor Knut Wittkowski — an epidemiologist who is like me fed up with the politicization of human knowledge which of course includes but is far from limited to science. The politicization of science is the direct and demonstrable result of a totally corrupt epistemology.

Be careful of that bait-and-switch, which has already begun.

Social distancing is voluntarily.

Lockdown is not.

Be aware of this as well:

Also this, from infectious-disease specialist Doctor Amesh Adalja, of Johns Hopkins:

Doctor Amesh Adalja also recently said “I suspect coronavirus was here even before the 1st official case was diagnosed in Washington state in mid-January.” That was in response to this New York Times piece:

Finally, the surprise you’ve all been waiting for: the bureaucratic insanity, which by definition and by necessity comes with bloated government, continues lumbering down its predictable course, unabated:

To any and all government-lovers, of whatever stripe, before you break yourself completely at the alter of bureaucracy, I’d be very curious to hear your response to (and your defense of) all this shit. In fact, I demand it.

Meanwhile:

Auto sales plunge in March.

And here’s an exceptionally clear and cogent explication of why the coronavirus pandemic is not, contrary to what you’ve heard, “exponential.” All pandemics — all of them — follow an epidemiological curve (or epi curve, as they’re known, also an S-curve), not an exponential one.

And then, of course, there’s the controversial case of Sweden:

If the COVID-19 pandemic tails off in a few weeks, months before the alarmists claim it will, they will probably pivot immediately and pat themselves on the back for the brilliant social-distancing controls that they imposed on the world. They will claim that their heroic recommendations averted total calamity. Unfortunately, they will be wrong; and Sweden, which has done almost no mandated [my boldface] social distancing, will probably prove them wrong.

(Link)

As the state of affairs becomes increasingly polarized in America — degenerating with clockwork predictability into partisan polemics of the most concrete-bound sort (with, however, this bizarre twist, which, if you think about it, follows a certain contorted logic: the left now angry at Donald Trump for not being fascist enough in his refusal (so far) to force state governors on the issue of imposing mandatory police-state lockdowns) — I urge you, throughout all of it, to not lose site of this:

Nor should we lose site of the fact that South Korea achieved this calmly, quietly, and without the heavy-duty draconian measures of America and China.

Also this:

Some countries are turning COVID-19 away at the door, while others are turning the tide of the pandemic

As you can see in this chart, COVID-19 remains mostly controlled in Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. Taiwan is barely visible down there at the bottom, while Singapore actually hasn’t had enough deaths to make it onto the figure yet.

And yet rather than employing the successful methods which South Korea and Singapore have successfully employed, the United States has chosen the path of panic and fear — the precise path chosen by, for instance, mainland China, an authoritarian communist regime with the highest death-toll. The United States chose bureaucracy, botched testing, lockdown, and fearmongering-over-calm-and-clear-thinking.

As infectious disease doctor Amesh Adalja (who has been stellar throughout all this, not diminishing the danger but not overstating it either) recently put it:

“It’s common sense to know your enemy. Instead, we’re all hiding inside our houses as we wait around for a vaccine — that’s not a good global strategy for battling a dangerous virus.”

And, I would add, annihilating in the process a 20 trillion-dollar economy, the ramifications of which a large percentage of the American pubic, like American politicians, have no real conception of whatsoever.

Meanwhile, the model used to horrify the world senseless was quietly tossed into the trash, without almost anyone even noticing.

Doctor Michael Mina is an epidemiologist, immunologist, and physician at the Harvard School of Public Health and also a professor at Harvard Medical School. His area of expertise is vaccines, immunity, and infectious diseases. He’s logical and levelheaded — not on any lunatic-fringe — and he’s one of America’s best. Today he wrote this:

In response to which, the previously mentioned infectious disease specialist, Dr. Amesh Adalja, who agrees with Dr. Mina, also pointed out:

Finally, I think sage and sound the following quote, by an economist named Peter Earl:

“It’s possible to believe that Covid-19 is potentially as lethal (or more) than even the highest estimates, contagion rates high or higher than estimates, and social distancing wise, while also believing that current government polices are misguided and tyrannical. They’re not mutually exclusive views.”

No, they are not.

They certainly are not.

For those who don’t believe that political-economic questions and their answers are entirely grounded in philosophy and that philosophy underpins all knowledge, scientific and otherwise, I ask you to observe the nightmarish spectacle unreeling before us now: because in your lifetime you’re not likely to see a greater global-wide testament to the inescapable fact and nature of philosophy’s foundational place in human life.

Ask yourself: How do you know what you know or believe you know about Covid-19? 

How do you know how contagious it is? 

How do you know the risks? The infection rate? The demographics? The geography of the spread? 

How do you know the actual death-rate? By what means? 

Ask yourself: By what method or methods do you conclude? By what process do you determine accuracy? How do you distinguish between possible, probable, and certain? 

How do you decide if the information you’re acting upon is true? By what standard? 

What does “true” mean? 

Is true synonymous with correct? 

Ask yourself: How do we calculate the number of people worldwide, who are suffering from other illnesses and who cannot receive medical attention because of policies that have been enacted overnight? Upon what data were these policies determined? And was that data accurate? And how do we know? 

How does government determine “essential businesses” from “non-essential” and why? 

By what authority is government permitted to arrest people for being outside? 

By what authority is government permitted to break up a one-year-old’s birthday party?

How do we calculate the number of people who will lose their entire life savings and the retirement for which they worked all their adult life? 

How do we calculate the number of small businesses, including dentists, veterinarians, optometrists, doctors, and much, much, much more that will vanish because of governmental mandates — mandates permitted by whose authority? Mandates based upon what data? And how do we know if that data is correct? 

How do we calculate the number of grocery stores and gas stations that will no longer be able to stay open and keep stocked? 

Will crime spike? Will the social fabric tear apart? And how do you know, one way or the other? 

How? 

How do you even attempt to know?

Nobel Prize winning economist Friedrich Hayek described the “flow of knowledge” as the “central issue in all social organization,” which is overwhelmingly economic. Ask yourself: have we been cut off from a flow of knowledge which otherwise would have been ours had we left this issue to the private, non-governmental sectors, which sectors would have brought you a Covid-19 test as quickly as you could order takeout, and for the exact same reasons?

Why is the so-called Swine Flu (H1N1) from ten years ago all but forgotten — despite 57 million infections worldwide and 12,469 fatalities — whereas coronavirus has created a collective panic worldwide and, as a result of that panic, an economic nightmare in the making? Was the critical difference really that in the case of H1N1, the CDC worked with private laboratories and private medical facilities to disperse the tests, and succeeded?

Ask yourself: why have contrary perspectives by people with impeccable credentials been ignored?

Why in South Korea have infection rates fallen and fallen — with no shutdowns, no geographic quarantines, no panics, but everything open for business? Was it simply that they had access to testing, which is to say that people were given access to the essential and most important flow of information that was necessary at the time? 

Was this really the case?

And is the opposite actually the major source of the problem in, for example, the United States? 

Is it really, as Hayek said, that the flows of information, when they’re cut off by force — force for whatever reason and in whatever form — lead to complete chaos? 

Did you feel that shift?

I did.

Each day something amorphous is growing clearer — an immense and looming thing, taking shape on the edge of the earth, casting an apocalyptic shadow. It will, I believe, continue to clarify, and that something is this: the greatest swath of destruction being cut by Covid-19 is not the infection itself but the annihilation of thousands upon thousands upon thousands of businesses and jobs and individual livelihoods — a feat accomplished by the only thing monstrous enough to be able to accomplish such a thing: the sheer force of governmental decree; mandates shutting down businesses overnight for any length of time the government so specifies; cities imposing curfews, road closures, sidewalk closures; hours-of-operation determined entirely by government edict; steep fines imposed upon individuals who’ve done no crime at all.

When you disrupt the division of labor long enough, you threaten the food supply. All societies nourish themselves by means of their food supply.

The whole structure of production is so complex and interdependent, operating, even in hampered form, by means of the elegant natural-order which laissez-faire creates (i.e. voluntary exchange), so complex and interdependent, I repeat, that when you start failing on just a few components – and this doesn’t take long – you create colossal problems: problems of such a complicated and intractable nature that they completely dwarf the problems created by Covid-19.

And yet even in spite of this unspeakable injustice, this utter atrocity exhibition, the daily headlines garnering the most attention are the sensationalized number of cases and number of deaths — despite the paucity of anything resembling complete data.

The root of this issue, like the root of most issues, is entirely epistemic.

It is for this reason that I’d like you to consider the following, which comes from Stephen C. Miller, of Troy University. It highlights a dawning realization that’s been forming on the horizon of my mind over the course of the past several days — beginning with my discovery of Stanford School of Medicine researchers Eran Bendavid and Jay Battacharya’s data, and then strengthened by the curious case of Iceland, both of which point to this conclusion: at least half of coronavirus carriers go symptomless, with many more having such mild symptoms that they don’t even connect it with the virus. The implications of this are far-reaching and significant.

In the words of Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease specialist at Johns Hopkins University, on the front-lines of this pandemic and a senior advisor in bio-terror prevention at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security:

“Coronavirus is perhaps a little more fatal than seasonal flu. But not a lot.”

After two months of measuring and attempting to contain the coronavirus, the data supports one of the two following conclusions — and they both can’t be correct:

1. The virus is highly contagious, with the number of infected people doubling every three days.

2. The fatality rate is significantly higher than for the seasonal flu.

The reason these both can’t be correct is explained with great clarity in Stephen C. Miller’s recent article:

If this first claim is correct, then even though there are approximately 100,000 confirmed cases in the U.S., the virus has been spreading much more rapidly than we can test for it, if it has truly doubled every three days since January. If COVID-19 truly spreads that quickly, then the true number of infected in the U.S. is much higher — perhaps several million, as Stanford School of Medicine researchers Eran Bendavid and Jay Battacharya suggest in the Wall Street Journal.

If millions have been infected, then it logically follows that the current number of confirmed cases vastly understates the true number of infected. But even if only two million people have been infected (which would suggest a slower growth rate than the models projected), then the number of deaths as of Friday (just over 1,500) yields a fatality rate of just under 0.08 percent, or slightly less than the seasonal flu. [my emphasis]

If there are several million infected, then the fatality rate is a small fraction of the seasonal flu, perhaps as low as 0.01 percent. Those numbers would suggest that the U.S. is facing a new virus with flu-like symptoms, one that, like many viruses, is a dangerous threat to those with weak immune systems or respiratory problems. But ultimately it is milder and far less deadly than last year’s seasonal flu.[my emphasis]

The alternative is to believe that the fatality rate is as high as the reported numbers suggest, 4.5 percent globally, or about 1.2 to 1.6 percent in the U.S. (see the chart below). If so, then the virus is unusually difficult to transmit. If we just go by confirmed cases, then only about 80 thousand people have been infected in China, out of a population of 1.38 billion, or 0.006 percent.[my emphasis]

Or that so far, after over three months, the coronavirus has only infected 617,000 people globally, or roughly 0.008 percent of the population. If we believe the number of cases is more or less right, then the virus spreads much more slowly than imagined. [my emphasis]

The main difficulty at this stage is in knowing how rapidly the virus spreads.

The reason this is a crux is that that specific metric— which can only come from comprehensive testing — is the only metric which provides the true number of cases; and at this point, the virus spreads more rapidly than we’re able test for it. Thus, without knowing the true number of cases, we cannot accurately calculate the true death rate.

Let me repeat that:

Without knowing the true number of cases, we cannot accurately calculate the true death rate.

I ask you to please process that.

The progress in testing, however, such as it’s been, has cast light on both questions: the spread of the virus and its lethality.

This new light, while not conclusive, is undeniably suggestive:

The chart above shows in no uncertain terms that as testing has expanded, the fatality rate has plummeted.

The chart below shows the growth in testing and the portion of those tests which have been positive. The latest data on testing disclose that across America, roughly 16 percent of administered tests come back positive, though in New York the number of positive tests is over 30 percent (see the third chart).

The charts suggest that New York State either has a higher infection rate than the rest of the country (which is plausible given the higher population density), or that testing in New York has been even more focused on the seriously ill than is the case nationally. While the former is likely true, there is also evidence for the latter: New York’s hospitalization rate for confirmed cases (19%) is five percent higher than the current national average (14%).

So which is it, is the virus spreading very rapidly or is it especially deadly?

Given what we know about how similar viruses spread, it seems reasonable to believe the virus spreads more rapidly than the testing data indicate, and that the true number of cases is many times larger than 100,000. The infected are likely in the millions, but the rationing of tests prevents us from knowing the true number. In any case, that means the death rate is vastly overstated, and likely even lower than what has been typically reported for the seasonal flu. But there is also reason to believe that the coronavirus, while highly contagious in the same sense that many common viruses are, is not really more contagious than the seasonal flu. To believe that, we would have to believe the total number of infected is in the tens of millions nationally, even with the social distancing measures in place.

(Source)

Meanwhile, emerging ideologies continue to swell while others, bankrupt from the beginning though never actually recognized as such (largely because of the overwhelming effectiveness of certain propaganda machines), have been punctured — deflated almost over night:

“I’m thinking in particular of the variety of environmentalism that eschews functioning toilets and faucets and expresses loathing of consumer culture. The plastic bags are now back at check-out counters, the toilet paper aisle is empty, and ‘impossible burgers’ sit on the shelf unbought. Yes, meat is back. So is cleanliness. It turns out the deep green ideology was a luxury good consumable only in peace and prosperity…. Pundits with no previous knowledge of anything medical much less epidemiological who were cocksure that this disease was the new Black Death. They couldn’t wait to explain it to the rest of us. And [among millennials] in the millenarian press, we heard that this is proof of the coming rapture, god’s vengeance against a sinful world, the fulfillment of prophecy….”

(Link)

The following is from a good article, published earlier today and penned by Edward Peter Stringham, an economist I much admire. Here’s an excerpt: 

Hundreds of professors associated with Yale University organized a letter with signatures to send to the White House. It was signed by 800 credentialed professionals largely from the fields of epidemiology and medicine. It is not what I would call a free-market treatise, to be sure, and I do not agree with parts of it. 

Still … the letter warns that the crackdowns, shutdowns, travel restrictions, sweeping closures, and work restrictions could be counterproductive and not produce the results people hope for. This echoes the concern expressed by Stanford epidemiologist John Ioannidis and his recently published work that warns that we are taking extreme measures with low-quality information with little interest in costs. 

And where the letter worries about the loss of public services, I would add the worry of the loss of essential economic services. I will quote large sections of this letter. My main message here is as follows. If you worry that the coercive measures government is using and proposing go way too far, you are not alone: many in the mainstream of the medical profession agree with you. 

“Mandatory quarantine, regional lockdowns, and travel bans have been used to address the risk of COVID-19 in the US and abroad. But they are difficult to implement, can undermine public trust, have large societal costs and, importantly, disproportionately affect the most vulnerable segments in our communities. Such measures can be effective only under specific circumstances. All such measures must be guided by science, with appropriate protection of the rights of those impacted. Infringements on liberties need to be proportional to the risk presented by those affected, scientifically sound, transparent to the public, least restrictive means to protect public health, and regularly revisited to ensure that they are still needed as the epidemic evolves. 

“Voluntary self-isolation measures are more likely to induce cooperation and protect public trust than coercive measures, and are more likely to prevent attempts to avoid contact with the healthcare system.”

Read the full article here.

I also recommend A Virus Worse Than the One from Wuhan, also by an economist (and historian) named Lawrence W. Reed, of the Foundation for Economic Education.

But I list the best one last, and I highly recommend this piece — written by a man who, like me, classifies himself not as a “libertarian” (whatever that actually means) but as a classic liberal. It reads, in part:

It’s no surprise to see the headline, “There Are No Libertarians in an Epidemic.” By “libertarians,” the author means advocates of small government and individual liberty.

The idea is that when a crisis hits, everyone suddenly realizes how much they need a bigger government. This is a bizarre argument to make about a virus that got a foothold partly because of the corrupt and tyrannical policies of a communist government in China. The outbreak is currently at its worst in Italy, where socialized medicine has not turned out to be a panacea. And it was allowed to get out of control in America because the feds imposed an incompetent government monopoly on COVID-19 testing, blocking the use of better and faster tests developed by private companies.

Not only has Big Government been a significant magnifier of this crisis, the actual remediating solutions have been largely implemented through voluntary action.

(Link)

Give special notice to that last thing. Because not only is it true: it hits precisely upon an important principle — a foundational principle, and one I’ve been thinking a lot about lately — often lost in the details and often ignored, and that principle is this:

Those of us who believe that “that government governs best which governs least” (Henry David Thoreau, though it’s often misattributed to Thomas Jefferson) are not categorically opposed to any number of the same ideas and ends that the opposite view holds. The distinction is a distinction of means. The crucial issue in question — and I ask you to please consider this — is the issue of forced action versus voluntary action.

Laissez faire explicitly prohibits the initiation of force — which includes government force, as well as force instigated by any individual: government-forced charity, for example, and all variations thereupon. But this does not mean that people can’t organize and act voluntarily to achieve socialistic ends. In fact, one of the most persuasive arguments — certainly for me when, as teenager, I began looking more deeply into these sorts of subjects — is the overwhelming success of voluntary charities and safety nets, which almost invariably work more efficiently and effectively than systems of legal compulsion and state-sanctioned force (like housing projects and Native American Reservations, to say nothing of the bankrupt Medicare/Medicaid systems), as well as the attendant mazes of bureaucracy that these systems necessarily require.

As Lawrence W. Reed wrote in the above-cited article:

Nothing prevents socialists from doing any of these things by voluntary agreement amongst themselves. That’s one of the great advantages of [laissez faire]: You and your willing friends can practice socialism if you so desire, whereas a great disadvantage of socialism is that you can’t practice full freedom until socialism fails so miserably that even its sycophants throw in the towel.

But a safe bet is that in a world of some eight billion people, not a single socialist will make the slightest attempt to do any of these things. The whole idea of socialism—which explains the inherent hypocrisy of its advocates—is not to freely practice what you preach. It’s to use power to force others to practice what you preach.

He’s right: under a system of legally guaranteed and fully protected individual rights, which of course includes full property rights, you are perfectly free to practice socialism, as many people in this country have. And yet the opposite of that is not the case.

Nobody has the moral right to seek his own advantage by force. That is the one unalterable, inviolable condition of a true society. Whether we are many, or whether we are few, we must learn only to use the weapons of reason, discussion, and persuasion…. As long as hummans are willing to make use of force for their own ends, or to make use of fraud, which is only force in disguise, wearing a mask, and evading our consent, just as force with violence openly disregards it — so long we must use force to restrain force. That is the one and only one right employment of force … force in the defense of the plain simple rights of property, public or private, in a world, of all the rights of self-ownership — force used defensively against force used aggressively (Auberon Herbert, The Principles of Voluntaryism, 1897).

And the wise and erudite Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-1835), ahead of his time and timeless:

Any State interference in private affairs, where there is no immediate reference to violence done to individual rights, should be absolutely condemned.

Moral law obliges us to regard every individual human being as an end to him or heself.

Political activity can only extend its influence to such actions as imply a direct trespass on the rights of others.

It is only actual violations of right which require any other power to counteract them than that which every individual possesses.

The State organism is merely a subordinate means, to which individual person, the true end, is never to be sacrificed.

The State, then, is not to concern itself in any way with the positive welfare of its citizens … except where these are imperiled by the actions of others, but it is to keep a vigilant eye on their security.

Actions do no violence to right except when they deprive another of a part of his freedom or possessions without, or against, his will.

(Wilhelm von Humboldt, The Limits of State Action)

In fact, it will make it worse

The entire crisis is largely about how government responds and how people panic, and if you doubt this, I invite you to read about why Singapore’s coronavirus response worked, and why Hong Kong has toilet paper surpluses — even while the rest of the world suffers severe shortages.

Singapore’s response to the coronavirus has been held up by many around the world as a model. As of this week, the country has had 266 total cases (with zero deaths), and its infection rate is much slower than the rest of the world. 

(Link).

Wired Magazine, a garden-variety liberal publication, recently said this: “we’re all libertarians during a pandemic” – while the garden-variety liberal Atlantic Magazine recently said the exact opposite: “there are no libertarians during a pandemic.” Which partisan dogmatist should we believe?

Not, incidentally, that the word “libertarian” means anything — a rubber word which can be stretched to cover virtually anything: i.e. Noam Chomsky, civil libertarian, Ron Paul, Rothbardian libertarian, et cetera.

Meanwhile, as this partisan approach rages, the entire world glimpses firsthand, in a way it never has before, that economic law cannot be subverted, is non-partisan, and that in order to prosper and flourish, human beings must produce.

Meanwhile, as partisan ideologues rage on, the world sees up close and personal that voluntary exchange is the very engine of human progress and civilization.

The world sees, in short, the awesome logic of Says Law — yet the world doesn’t know what it’s seeing.

Fact:

In 1934, in their spare and private time, two American biologists, Pearl Kendrick and Grace Eldering, developed a vaccine for whooping cough, then the biggest killer of children in the United States.

It is astounding and appalling – and yet totally unsurprising – to witness governments all across the world trashing their entire economies (and in the process violating individual liberties on a massive scale, while also letting thousands of people get sick), rather than allow widespread testing:

As Ronald Bailey has noted, the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “stymied private and academic development of diagnostic tests that might have provided an early warning and a head start on controlling the epidemic that is now spreading across the country.”

And if the policies and decisions above are worth tossing out in an emergency, maybe they ought to be sidelined during normal times too.

Situations like the 9/11 attacks and the coronavirus outbreak often open the door to naked power grabs whose terrible consequences stick around long after the events that inspired them (looking at you, TSA!). Governments rarely return power once they’ve amassed it. But if you listen carefully, you can hear them telling us what stuff they realize can be safely tossed. When the infection rates come down and the theaters and schools and everything else get back to normal, it may be tempting just to go back to the way we were. Resist the temptation.

(Link)

Reader, remember this always: it is far easier to compensate the small portion of the population at risk for serious respiratory issues than it is to reinvigorate a dead economy and the thousands upon thousand upon thousands of businesses that die because of this.

There’s an iron-clad economic principle, very easy to understand if you stop and think about it – a principle most clearly articulated by the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises – that says this: so long as the wealth of a society remains weak or impoverished, the means of dealing with societal issues remains proportionately weak. 

Please consider that.

Please consider where actual wealth comes from.

It comes from production.

Which comes from the freedom to produce – and, just as importantly, the freedom to keep and use the fruits of what you produce, which includes freely exchanging.

The wealthier the country, the healthier the country.

Point of context: When my grandmother was a child, she was lucky to get a single orange for Christmas. I just got a whole damn box of fabulous oranges delivered in the middle of a global pandemic.

(Link)

Shutting down private businesses by government decree is economic suicide. It also borders upon martial law. And while this action may flatten the curve of COVID-19 – though probably not – it will in the long run be equivalent to attempting a cure by suicide. 

The majority of people stricken by the virus will survive. Small businesses – run by families that depend upon these businesses for their very livelihood – won’t.

Now please tell me how you’re protecting the life of the individual by indefinitely preventing her from earning a living? By flooding the market with currency (reducing the value of her savings even more) and by instituting powers that will likely never be reversed?

Our hospitals were already crippled by rights-violating regulations to a point they might not be able to cope with this pandemic. The solution offered: violate more rights, cripple entire economies, so that, perhaps, fewer people will need those hospitals.

I’m going to articulate a thought which some of you may also be thinking:

We can’t make it for very long by holing-up in our homes.

Humans must work to produce goods and services. This is how we survive and thrive as a species.

In the meantime, thinking and science have become completely politicized. 

The following is excerpted from a recent article, written by doctor Amesh Adalja – a very smart and levelheaded infectious-disease doc, who also happens to be an uncompromising advocate for free-market medicine:

A prolonged freeze of the economy — even in the face of a deadly pandemic — will cause a long-term damage far greater than any purported benefit….

A degraded quality of life, particularly over time, itself generates its own risks of death. If the lockdown is prolonged, we can expect increases in deaths from cancer, cardiovascular disease, stroke, mental illness, and substance abuse….

Driven by panic at a crisis they ignored for too long, policy-makers are considering imposing mandatory prolonged social distancing measures, the cascading effects of which [will almost certainly] be worse than those of the virus itself….

The answer to this challenge is not to shrink back in panic but to take decisive action to fight the pandemic, while continuing to lead our lives.

Clear all bureaucracy so that vaccines can flourish – clinical trials to move quickly, diagnostic tests getting out there, without the usual bureaucratic entanglement.

And from an interview this same doctor gave the four days ago:

“The success that we had with Ebola monoclonal antibodies has people thinking this is the quickest way we can get a countermeasure for Covid-19,” said Adelja.

Now two private companies say they hope to have treatments for Covid-19 ready in record time.

Japan-based Takeda Pharmaceutical says its unit devoted to plasma-derived therapies could have a product ready for quick approval to fight the coronavirus. New York-based biotech Regeneron has said it can be ready to test hundreds of potential antibodies in Covid-19 patients by early summer. The company’s shares soared on the news even as the stock market as a whole tanked on pandemic fears.

(Link)

Amesh Adalja touches upon the very thing that will ultimately solve this crisis: human ingenuity and human intelligence, which are fully unleashed when the human mind and human body are left fully unshackled.