H
HarryStotle
Guest
Let me know when you want me to stop.
Only 31 deaths of children under age 15 involving COVID-19. Common flu-related child deaths from 37 to 187 during regular flu season. Should Governors
- Status
Let me know when you want me to stop.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You can stop after you start. That is, start showing how this misinformation goes back 34 years. So far you have stories that go back only 4 - to the era of Trump.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Read my post. I said looking back 34 years from now. That means 34 years from now we will be looking back to these current times when the NYT and WaPo went off the rails.HarryStotle:
Be my guest. I am awaiting your list of NYT and WaPo misinformation going back 34 years.
Last edited:
1
1cthlctrth
Guest
He stated that coronavirus has “highlighted disturbing trends that were already present before the virus struck.”
Alito continued, “One of these is the dominance of lawmaking by executive fiat, rather than legislation. The vision of early-20th century progressives and the New Dealers of the 1930s was that policymaking would shift from narrowminded elected legislators to an elite group of appointed experts. In a word, that policymaking would become more scientific. That dream has been realized to a large extent. Every year, administrative agencies, acting under broad delegations of authority, churn out huge volumes of regulations that dwarf the statutes enacted by the people’s elected representatives. And what have we seen in the pandemic? Sweeping restrictions imposed, for the most part, under statutes that confer enormous executive discretion.”
He concluded that coronavirus restrictions have “highlighted the movement toward rule by experts.”
These new figures reinforce data released by the CDC in August. The CDC found that one-quarter of young people ages 18-24 contemplated suicide in the previous month, in large part due to the pandemic and lockdowns.
‘In effect, what we’ve been doing is requiring young people to bear the burden of controlling a disease from which they face little to no risk,’ said Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.
According to the new study, lockdowns and other pandemic policies have drastically upended the lives of most young adults.
In a debate last week with pro-lockdown Harvard epidemiologist, Marc Lipsitch, Dr. Bhattacharya acknowledged that COVID-19 “is an absolutely deadly disease for people who are older and for people who have certain chronic conditions.” He explained that there is a 95 percent COVID-19 survival rate for people 70 and older, while for people who are under 70, there is currently a 99.95 percent survival rate.
“For children,” said Dr. Bhattacharya in the debate, “the flu is worse. We’ve had more flu deaths of children this year than Covid deaths.”
Given the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on older people and those with certain chronic conditions, Dr. Bhattacharya and his Great Barrington Declaration co-authors argue for a “Focused Protection” approach that would shield the most vulnerable in society while allowing younger, healthy people to go about their lives and help to build population immunity.
“Lockdowns have absolutely catastrophic effects on physical and mental health of populations both domestically and internationally,” Dr. Bhattacharya said. “For people who are under 60 or 50 the lockdown harms—again mentally and physically—are worse than COVID.”
Last edited:
J
Joegrane
Guest
From the CDC Director
In a July 2020 Buck Institute webinar reported by Townhall,21 CDC director Robert Redfield stated that lockdowns and lack of school attendance have had a disproportionally negative impact on children and teens’ mental health. Among high school students — who are at very low risk of dying from COVID-19 — suicides and drug overdoses have surpassed the death rate for COVID-19.
In a July 2020 Buck Institute webinar reported by Townhall,21 CDC director Robert Redfield stated that lockdowns and lack of school attendance have had a disproportionally negative impact on children and teens’ mental health. Among high school students — who are at very low risk of dying from COVID-19 — suicides and drug overdoses have surpassed the death rate for COVID-19.
https://blogs.mercola.com/sites/vit...overdoses-and-suicides-than-covid-deaths.aspx
1
1cthlctrth
Guest
A new study published by Frontiers in Public Health concluded that neither lockdowns nor lockdown stringency were correlated with lower death rates.
“Inherent factors have predetermined the COVID mortality: understanding them may improve prevention strategies by increasing population resilience through better physical fitness and immunity,” the authors said.
On one hand, the findings are astonishing. After all, the lockdowns have resulted in mass collateral damage: a global recession, millions of businesses ravaged, tens of millions of jobs lost, widespread mental health deterioration, a resurgence in global poverty, and surges in suicide.
To look at the destruction lockdowns have wrought only to learn they have failed to effectively slow the spread of the virus is maddening and, frankly, nauseating.
“Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer,” said Nabarro.
The effects of the prolonged lockdowns on young people are now becoming more clear. A recent study from Edinburgh University says keeping schools shut down will increase the number of deaths due to COVID-19. Added to that, the study says lockdowns “prolong the epidemic, in some cases resulting in more deaths long-term.”
If we want to avoid any more harm, we should immediately end these disastrous policies. Any fresh calls to impose lockdowns should now be viewed with the utmost skepticism.
Lockdowns Not Linked With Lower COVID Death Rates, New Study Finds - Foundation for Economic Education (fee.org)
“Inherent factors have predetermined the COVID mortality: understanding them may improve prevention strategies by increasing population resilience through better physical fitness and immunity,” the authors said.
On one hand, the findings are astonishing. After all, the lockdowns have resulted in mass collateral damage: a global recession, millions of businesses ravaged, tens of millions of jobs lost, widespread mental health deterioration, a resurgence in global poverty, and surges in suicide.
To look at the destruction lockdowns have wrought only to learn they have failed to effectively slow the spread of the virus is maddening and, frankly, nauseating.
“Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer,” said Nabarro.
The effects of the prolonged lockdowns on young people are now becoming more clear. A recent study from Edinburgh University says keeping schools shut down will increase the number of deaths due to COVID-19. Added to that, the study says lockdowns “prolong the epidemic, in some cases resulting in more deaths long-term.”
If we want to avoid any more harm, we should immediately end these disastrous policies. Any fresh calls to impose lockdowns should now be viewed with the utmost skepticism.
Lockdowns Not Linked With Lower COVID Death Rates, New Study Finds - Foundation for Economic Education (fee.org)
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I noticed the in the EU they addressed this problem better. They kept schools open, but restricted everything else. We should give that a try. If we really care about the kids and their education, we should be willing to make some sacrifice for them.
Last edited:
B
BT3241
Guest
People are surviving because they know better how to treat it than at the beginning if there is no room in the hospital the death rate will jump right back to where it was at the beginning. Give the heath people a little credit for the fine job they are doing.
B
BlueMaxx
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
M
Montrose
Guest
Here in the Philippines all schools are physically closed for the school year 2020/21. All education has to be virtual or homeschooling.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
You should have been more on the ball and caught the “vile hatred and white supremacy” before it really got out of hand…
Spanish influenza
Hong Kong flu
MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome)
German Measles
Japanese encephalitis
Etc. Etc.
Suddenly it is “vile hatred” to name a disease after its place of origin?
If you are wont to make everything an example of vile hatred and white supremacy then pretty soon nothing will be. It will completely lose its meaning and cogency.
The true vile haters and white supremacists are cheering on your efforts.
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
D
Dan123
Guest
What is the place of origin of the spanish flu?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It is funny that this list starts with Spanish Flu that did not actually originate in Spain. The story of how it came to be known as the Spanish Flu is intimately tied to the politics of World War I. The Spanish Flu is what they called the 1918/1919 flu pandemic. Although their is debate over where it originated (theories include mainland China, France, and the American Midwest) it almost certainly did not originate in Spain. It was first detected in US military personnel in the spring of 1918. Most experts agree that wherever it started, it spread rapidly in the unsanitary conditions of the trenches in WW I combat in Europe. Since the war was still raging, this created a public relations dilemma for the nations engaged in that war. If they were to admit that a disease of unknown origin was spreading through their troops, what would that do to troop moral and support back home? Since Spain was neutral during WWI, the nations at war began circulating the propaganda that there was a disease mostly in Spain, and called it the Spanish Flu. There is no evidence whatsoever that it had anything to do with Spain.
Likewise the Hong Kong Flu likely started on the Chinese mainland, but when it came to Hong Kong, it hit Hong Kong hard, and became known as the Hong Kong Flu. Another near miss.
German measles could have started anywhere, but German doctors were the first to scientifically describe the disease, also called Rubella. It is likely that it existed long before it was scientifically identified. Calling it German measles is like calling the radioactive element “Radium” as “French Radium” because it was discovered in Paris.
MERS was first identified in Saudi Arabia, but why isn’t it called the “Saudi Arabian Respiratory Syndrome”? To follow in the tradition established by MERS, maybe covid-19 should be called Asian Respiratory Syndrome - not the Wuhan Flu.
Of the diseases in this list, only Japanese encephalitis has a good case for being properly named.
Frankly, it doesn’t really matter what we call these diseases. Go ahead and call the 1918 pandemic the “Spanish Flu” even though there is no evidence it started in Spain. That’s OK. As long as the name is not taken as an excuse to assign some sort of moral blame to the place that is named. Do we blame Germany for Rubella? Do we blame Saudi Arabia for MERS? No. So the name is no big deal either way.
“When everyone is super, then no one will be” - Syndrome
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
So your argument is that because there were misunderstandings or misinformation about the places where these diseases actually started then the diseases weren’t really named after places?
The question isn’t about whether the practice of naming diseases after places of origin was accurate, but whether that has been a common practice that was never seriously questioned until this particular disease, ostensibly to label Trump as racist.
As usual your argument is a red herring - if that isn’t showing vile hatred and white supremacy towards herrings of a certain red colour {herrings of colour} for their lack of intellectual prowess.
Pandemics have been consistently named after places of (perceived) origin and that practice was never deemed to have been racist or an example of vile hatred before now. The left is attempting to rewrite history to fit their narrative by taint, specious association or appeals to offended sensibilities.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That is other people’s argument. Not mine. I do think Trump is a racist, but not because of the naming of this virus. Perhaps I misunderstood your use of the list of past diseases, since you did say “to name a disease after its place of origin”, implying the name accurately described the origin. But if the main point was about this proving Trump is a racist, I’m with you on that. It does not prove it at all.
T
Theo520
Guest
I can, but they would have met with extreme opposition by Democrats:
- Shut down travel from Europe several weeks earlier
- Started a National DIY mask campaign from the beginning, thus reserving N95 for frontline workers
- Quickly shame states that were sending COVID+ patients into elder care facilities.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
No excess deaths from Covid found in new study.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It is not a “new study.” It is a “new opinion piece in a student newsletter.” And it is not even by a medical professional. It is by a director of the Applied Economics department. So let’s not give this opinion more cachet than it deserves.
As for the data itself, I refer anyone interested in a more authoritative analysis of excess deaths to the CDC:
B
BT3241
Guest
I sure can if he had handled the virus differently he would still be president biggest political blunder in decades.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Why would she need to be a medical professional when she is dealing with statistics and not therapeutics? Her expertise is in statistics.HarryStotle:
It is not a “new study.” It is a “new opinion piece in a student newsletter.” And it is not even by a medical professional. It is by a director of the Applied Economics department. So let’s not give this opinion more cachet than it deserves.
As for the data itself, I refer anyone interested in a more authoritative analysis of excess deaths to the CDC:
Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19
Your response is quite irrelevant because her background and expertise in statistics is precisey what does give her credibility looking at the available data from the CDC itself.
Your response both misrepresents the article as an “opinion piece,” because it simply presents data you don’t like, and misrepresents Dr. Briand’s qualifications.
You are losing “cachet” by the minute.
- Status