Attention, Citizens! The #COVID19 Emergency Is Over!

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Around the world, both state and local governments looked at wildly exaggerated computer model projections of millions of virus deaths, declared a “State Of Emergency”, and foolishly pulled the wheels off of their own economies. This has caused pain, suffering, and loss that far exceeds anything that the virus might do. 

The virus hardly affects anyone—it has killed a maximum of 0.1% of the population in the very worst-hit locations. One-tenth of one measly percent.

Ah, I hear you saying, but that’s just deaths. What about hospitalizations? Glad you asked. Hospitalizations in the worst-hit areas have been about three times that, about a third of one percent of the population. Still not even one percent.

But on the other hand, more than thirty million workers in the US are unemployed. That’s about twenty percent of the number of full and part-time employees. And that job loss affects the entire household, not just the workers.

And that doesn’t count the loss of life from increased suicides and from delayed medical diagnosis and procedures. Nor does it count the fact that some 20% of the lost jobs are not expected to return. And we have calls to mental-health hotlines skyrocketing, and domestic violence through the roof. In a most ironic outcome, we have hospitals and doctors going bankrupt, and thousands of nurses being furloughed, because “non-essential” medical procedures are forbidden. Then there are the huge financial losses, both to the economy and to the government.

And in a beautifully circular process, we have trillions and trillions of dollars borrowed by the government to try to offset some of the damages that the government just caused … these lockdowns are far, far more destructive than the virus. The virus damage is short-lived, but we and our children will be paying for decades for our stupidity in killing the economy. 

It’s like … it’s like … well, about the only example I can think of which has equivalent idiocy is if a mosquito were to land on your head and you grabbed a sledgehammer to get rid of it …

So the first lesson of the emergency is, don’t kill your economy to try to delay or avoid a few deaths. It is possible to slow the spread of the virus without pulling the wheels off of the economy.

The next lesson of the emergency is, don’t put much trust in computer models.

The next lesson of the emergency is, don’t put doctors in charge of economic decisions. Especially Dr. Fauci. He’s been wrong about most aspects of this whole process. If you want someone to run a hospital, as a general rule you shouldn’t hire a doctor …

The next lesson of the emergency is the extreme importance of the ancient medical maxim of Hippocrates, a maxim that our dear Dr. Fauci apparently never heard of—“Primum non nocere”, which means “First, do no harm”.

The next lesson of the emergency is, quarantine the sick, protect the vulnerable, but do NOT quarantine the healthy. That’s madness.

Let me set aside what we’ve learned to return to the COVID19 emergency. The emergency everyone feared was exemplified by the reality that in some countries, the medical system was overwhelmed by the number of COVID-19 cases. The cause of this was that the cases came on too fast—the peak hospitalizations and deaths were packed into a week or two. Early on in the pandemic, this peak in the load on the medical system in Italy caused parts of the system to collapse under the weight of cases.

To prevent that peak load from crushing the medical system, it was decided in many countries to try to “flatten the curve” by slowing the spread of the virus. Note that the stated intention of flattening the curve was not to stop the virus. The declared goal was to decrease the number of new cases per day, not to decrease the total number of new cases.

Figure 1. The theoretical effect of “flattening the curve”.

In that manner, rather than having a sharp peak in medical need, the curve would be flattened out and hopefully the medical system would not be overwhelmed.

So … did this work? Hard to tell at this point. However, we do have one example of a modern country that did NOT shut down and kill their economy to fight the virus, which is Sweden. How are they doing? Here’s the comparison:

Figure 2. Deaths per ten million over time, for the hardest-hit countries.

As you can see, Sweden is in the middle of the pack—a bit better than the UK and Switzerland, same as the Netherlands and Ireland, and a bit worse than the US and France.

So if the lockdowns and the “shelter-at-home” orders are having an effect, you couldn’t tell it by looking at Sweden.

And to return to the question of lowering the peak and flattening the curve, here are the results from a number of countries. I’ll start with Sweden and the Netherlands, since per Figure 2 they are on the same path. I’m using the Complete Ensemble Empirical Mode Decomposition (CEEMD) method to remove the fluctuations due to incomplete data reporting on the weekends. See here and here for a discussion of the CEEMD method. 

Figure 3. Daily deaths. The black/yellow line is the CEEMD “residual”, which is the value of the data with the weekly and other regular fluctuations removed.

Figure 4. Daily deaths. The black/yellow line is the CEEMD “residual”, which is the value of the data with the weekly and other regular fluctuations removed.

Both the Netherlands and Sweden are past the peak load on the medical system. Neither one was overwhelmed by that load. The difference is … Sweden did not pull the wheels off of its economy and drive millions into joblessness and despair. I know which path I prefer …

Here are the daily deaths of a number of other countries. I’ll start with Belgium, which is the hardest-hit country, and roll on down from there.

OK, so much for the countries. All are about a month past their peak. How about the US states? Here you go.

The spike in the New York data is from a single day’s reporting of a bunch of “overlooked” deaths in nursing homes. Bizarrely, Governor Cuomo ordered nursing homes to accept COVID-19 patients … so as you might imagine, the totally predictable nursing home deaths were concealed until their hand was forced.

I also note how resistant the CEEMD residual is to that single outlier data point of nursing home deaths. A better-guess solution would be to spread those deaths out over the earlier time, distribute by the number of non-nursing home deaths.

(In passing, let me note that Georgia started loosening the lockdown on April 20th, and there’s no sign of a “second peak” of deaths.)

Those are the hardest-hit states. However, not all of the hardest-hit states are past their peak. Here are the two states of the hardest-hit that are not past their peak.

Finally, to close the circle before discussing all of this, here are two views of the world deaths, one with and one without China. I left out China in one of them to see how much difference it made, because a) China’s numbers are big, and b) I don’t trust them one bit. Here are those two charts. It turns out that leaving out China makes very little difference.

So … given all of that, what can we conclude?

Well, first in importance, if medical care was outpaced by the virus in some location and there was an emergency, the peak of the emergency is over now. Yes, there are some states and countries yet to pass the peak. But by and large, and in particular for the hardest-hit countries as well as for the world as a whole, the peak of the medical load from the pandemic passed about a month ago.

And that means that in those states and countries, whatever chance we had to “flatten the curve” is GONE. The opportunity has passed. For most of the world, curve flattening is history.

And since we were sold this bill of goods on the basis of “flattening the curve”, and since we’re now well past any opportunity to do that, let’s remove the restrictions. Or as I’ve said for weeks, “End The American Lockdown Now”.

Of course, the local petty tyrants who have vastly expanded powers under the “emergency” want to hold on to them. So they’re now saying that we have something new to fear, a “rebound” or a “second peak” … me, I’ve said before that I think we will see very little in the way of any second peak, for a simple reason:

As Sweden has shown, the virus laughs at our pathetic western-style “shelter in place” regulations.

Too many people in “essential” jobs, too many deliveries, too many people coming and going from the households. Combine that with a very infectious virus, and the shelter in place will have little effect … and since it has had little effect when it was there, I say it will have little effect when it is removed.

Now, here’s my argument. The various local instant totalitarian rulers derive their power from the State of Emergency. But the emergency is past, we can’t flatten the curve now. We’re past that, which means there is no further emergency. So them holding onto that power now that the emergency is ended is illegitimate and illegal. It’s also in some cases unconstitutional.

Here’s what I’d do …

In those countries and states that are past the peak, declare the emergency is over and open everything back up. Acknowledge that the chance to flatten the curve is gone, and revoke each and every emergency order. They are only valid for the duration of the emergency.

Maintain some approximation of social distancing, on a voluntary basis.

There are flareups in certain locations now, even with all of the regulationss. There will be flareups after the regs are removed. Get used to it. A flareup is not a second peak.

 Maintain personal sanitation on a voluntary basis. Wear a mask, wear gloves, wash hands, and for goodness sake, if you’re ordering bat soup, tell them to hold the bats …

• Once the majority of the pandemic deaths are over, establish a testing and contact tracing process to keep track of the virus.

• Test people entering the country. As far as I know, I get tested more going in to get my blood drawn than do people entering the US.

• Keep a close watch on the numbers to see if there is some kind of “second peak” developing. If and where that might happen, then in those areas that had trouble with the first peak, push policies that don’t kill the economy, and for heaven’s sake, quarantine the sick rather than the healthy.

• Encourage the vulnerable population (elderly with co-morbidities, immunocompromised, etc.) to self-isolate to some comfortable extent, to be extra vigilant in avoiding crowds, and to maintain a high level of personal sanitation.

Folks, the ugly reality is that every day we keep the now-useless lockdowns in place is another day of misery for a large chunk of the population. COVID-19 is now a part of the virus landscape. Let’s reclaim the power from the Federal, state, county, and city megalomaniacs who are issuing diktats and expecting everyone to obey.

END THE AMERICAN LOCKDOWN NOW!


Here, the unusual late rains have returned. We didn’t get one drop in February, which is usually wet, so these late rains are most wonderful.

Best to all, stay well,

w.

AFTERWORD: I note today that Matt Briggs, Statistician To The Stars, has a new post up entitled “There Is No Evidence Lockdowns Saved Lives. It Is Indisputable They Caused Great Harm“. His posts are always worth reading, and he actually is a statistician to the stars.

PS—When you comment, please quote the exact words you’re referring to. This prevents much misunderstanding and useless argumentation.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
599 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 14, 2020 6:49 am

Is at known ?
FBI raids Detroit-area spa accused of offering fraudulent COVID-19 treatments by giving patients intravenous injections of vitamin C

FBI agents and HHS staffers raided Allure Medical Spa in Shelby Township, Michigan, on Thursday
Business is accused of offering fraudulent COVID-19 treatments and failing to follow safety protocols during outbreak
Wellness spa, which has locations in multiple states, has been advertising intravenous injections of vitamin C since mid-April
Founder Dr Charles Mok made a claim the IV treatment helps ‘support people’s immune systems and help those with the virus to recover quicker’
Here’s how to help people impacted by Covid-19

JPSF
May 14, 2020 6:56 am

Willis, I have a data analysis=>implications question for you. In the various graphs you show, in some the decrease in deaths is relatively rapid; in others the decrease is much more plateaued (less rapid). For example, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Spain, France, Germany the fall-off is more rapid; in Sweden, UK, and US the fall-off appears less rapid (a little difficult to judge since both x and y axes in the various graphs vary. Within the US by State, NJ, Massachusetts, Louisiana, California, DC, Georgia look to have a less rapid fall-off; while Michigan, Colorado, Connecticut, and NY appear to have a more rapid fall-off.

I would think that a more complete/ effective shutdown would result in a less rapid fall-off of deaths, whereas a less complete/ effective shutdown would have a more rapid fall-off of deaths. Now, there are many confounding factors affecting that hypothesis, but I’m not sure I see the correspondence. Would applying a skewness statistic to these graphs and comparing them provide any better analytical comparison? If you’ve considered/ down such an analysis, what conclusion, if any would you draw about the impact of shutdown measures and “flattening” can you draw?

cedarhill
May 14, 2020 7:05 am

Here is an excellent video of a nurse, one of the “protected” person:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6auVdw7g65Q&feature=youtu.be

Imagine if you’re not a “protected” person and are laid off. What do you expect to feel at this point since the video was made over three weeks ago. Watch the follow on vids as well. Entire populations are being”woke”.

icisil
Reply to  cedarhill
May 14, 2020 8:51 am

Stripped out characters preventing it showing here

Reply to  icisil
May 14, 2020 9:22 am

To: CoronavirusKarens

Msg: You wanted fear, you desired fear, you got fear, only, you don’t get to actually CHOOSE what the actual ‘fear of’ will ultimately be … (like layoffs, economic ruin)

Scissor
Reply to  icisil
May 14, 2020 11:41 am

Democrats: to save the healthcare system, destroy it.

Greg
Reply to  icisil
May 15, 2020 10:00 am

thanks icisil.

If anyone did not realise that we were getting screwed over with AGW scam, this is here and now.

WAKE UP PEOPLE!

Ron
May 14, 2020 7:07 am

SARS-CoV-2 is not the flu:

On the basis of these findings, renal tropism is a potential explanation of commonly reported new clinical signs of kidney injury in patients with Covid-19,5 even in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection who are not critically ill.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2011400

Whatever co-morbidity you have, you better have none. But even then you better don’t catch the virus.

Chris Barron
Reply to  Ron
May 14, 2020 7:14 am

SARS-CoV-2 is not the flu, but is 94.6% aa similar to SARS-CoV-1 (previous ‘SARS’ outbreak). It’s place in the family of other coronaviruses has been well established.

It’s really not the mystery that some would make it out to be

Ron
Reply to  Chris Barron
May 14, 2020 8:53 am

Champenzees share 99% of our DNA. SARS-CoV-1 is less related to SARS-CoV-2 than Chimpazees are to us so what is your point?

icisil
Reply to  Ron
May 14, 2020 9:49 am

The point is, I believe, that some are trying to ascribe a mythology to this virus that doesn’t exist. It’s pretty simple what’s going on: the virus is destabilizing the RAS causing severe pulmonary inflammation and microvascular thrombosis, which leads to hypoxia that damages and shuts down the major organs. Add in high PEEP intubation that destroys the lungs along with toxic, organ-destroying narcotics used to keep intubated patients comatose and you have a real recipe for disaster. Similar things happened during SARS; we just didn’t hear about it

Ron
Reply to  icisil
May 14, 2020 12:45 pm

Similar things happened during SARS; we just didn’t hear about it.

Nobody investigated the mechanisms this deeply and a lot of manifestations were thought to be not caused by the disease itself. The epidemic ended too fast and had too few cases to do a lot of research.

It might also be that the distribution of symptoms varies greatly although the variety itself is comparable. Not enough data.

Robert W. Turner
Reply to  Ron
May 14, 2020 10:14 am

Pure sophistry from someone that knows nothing of genetics.

Ron
Reply to  Robert W. Turner
May 14, 2020 12:25 pm

Your comment implies you know less than me.

Chris Barron
Reply to  Ron
May 14, 2020 10:28 am

It’s worth mentioning all the same, because that info came from the Wuhan labs who first isolated it and enabled them to position it well within the coronavirus familial structure, and not just under ‘mammals’

Reply to  Chris Barron
May 14, 2020 10:36 am

Guess who else is studying/observing apes WRT viri et al:

“Great apes in the emergence of infectious diseases.” 2019
Devaux, C A / Mediannikov, O / Davoust, B / Parola, P / Raoult, D. ·Aix-Marseille Univ, IRD, APHM, Mephi, IHU-Méditerranée Infection, 19-21 boulevard Jean-Moulin 13385 Marseille, France, CNRS, Marseille, France. · CNRS, Marseille, France. · Aix-Marseille Univ, IRD, APHM, SSA, Vitrome, IHU-Méditerranée Infection, Marseille, France. · Aix-Marseille Univ, IRD, APHM, Mephi, IHU-Méditerranée Infection, 19-21 boulevard Jean-Moulin 13385 Marseille, France. ·Med Sante Trop · Pubmed #31884984.

ABSTRACT: Since the AIDS pandemic and the demonstration that it originated in the accidental transmission of simian retroviruses to humans, no one can ignore the role of nonhuman primates in carrying pathogens that can cross the species barrier to infect humans. In recent decades, viruses as deadly as those for rabies, Herpes B, Marburg hemorrhagic fever, and Ebola have been transferred from monkeys to humans. Because great apes are genetically our closest relatives, the pathogens that colonize these mammals are probably best adapted to pass into humans should accidental exposure occur. This article attempts to evaluate the risks of infection when apes and humans share the same ecosystem.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31884984
——————————

Complete list of articles, authored of co-authored by D. Raoult:
http://expertscape.com/ar/infectious+diseases/a/Raoult%2C+D

Terry Carruthers
May 14, 2020 7:12 am

Willis, have you looked at your graphs on a population adjusted basis (deaths/million) as well as from a common population based start date (1 death/10 million). Might make the comparisons more informative.

Leonard
May 14, 2020 7:14 am

Good job Willis. Thanks.

PaulH
May 14, 2020 7:18 am

The charts seem to indicate that as we approach the 70th day the impact of the virus fades. I believe this is roughly in-line with standard flu-like viruses.

ferdberple
May 14, 2020 7:23 am

I am surprised that the lockdown was legal. No one is being forced to go to a barber shop if the barber decides not to close down.

Sure, in communist China, the lockdown was legal. But I’m having a very hard time seeing how it is legal to take away peoples livelihood without due process.

It isn’t sufficient to quarantine everyone because you cannot tell the sick from the healthy. By that logic we could jail everyone because we cannot tell the innocent from the guilty.

Reply to  ferdberple
May 14, 2020 8:45 am

re: “I am surprised that the lockdown was legal.”

Ask Typhoid Mary that question …

Scissor
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 14, 2020 12:18 pm

“Mary Mallon was born in Ireland in 1869 and emigrated to the United States in 1883 or 1884. She was engaged in 1906 as a cook by Charles Henry Warren, a wealthy New York banker, who rented a residence to Oyster Bay on the north coast of Long Island for the summer. From 27 August to 3 September, 6 of the 11 people present in the house were suffering from typhoid fever. At this time, typhoid fever was still fatal in 10% of cases and mainly affected deprived people from large cities [5,6].”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3959940/

Ron
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 14, 2020 1:19 pm

Technically asymptomatic people are sick.

The asymptomatic part is the only one that made the lockdowns necessary in the first place. Otherwise things would have been a lot easier. With SARS you were only contagious when the symptoms manifested, with SARS-CoV-2 you are the most contagious one day before the symptoms start if they start at all.

As long as you can’t discriminate the sick from the healthy you have to assume everybody is sick. That is not how democracy works but health care does.

That’s why they are working like crazy to develop reliable rapid on-site viral tests.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 14, 2020 1:43 pm

Willis
Yes, I think that the rationale for quarantining is based on the principal that one’s rights, such as the right to freedom of movement, extends only as far as it infringes on other’s rights. An infectious sick person can cause others to lose several rights, such as the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” So, quarantining is legally justified. On the other hand, in the US, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, it would seem to me, that in the absence of any evidence that a person is infectious (even if they are) it is not legal to quarantine them. I like the Swedish approach where they assume the people are smart enough to go the right thing.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 14, 2020 1:51 pm

Agreed. There is a fundamental difference in between how conservatives and the Left think.

As we agree, Conservatives approach issues from the perspective of freedom as in the natural right of freedom. Essentially the bill of rights limits what governments take from us.

The Left approaches issues stemming from the belief that people need and are reliant on government to give them their freedoms.

From that perspective, we have what is before us. Freedom vs enslavement

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 15, 2020 12:39 pm

re: ” I fear you’re missing a key difference.”

No, Willis, I’m opening up a different avenue of discussion. If you can’t see that, well, how could you? You can’t read minds any better than I or the next guy can.

The BASIS for an incarceration order (of any type) is the subject here. TAKE THE EXTREME CASE of a Typhoid Mary as one ‘end point’ (in like say, a graph function) at the discretion of a civil authority like a governor.

FORTUNATELY, we came no where near this this time. Now, done ‘virtue signalling’ explaining …

Tom Borecki
May 14, 2020 7:28 am

After looking at the graphs for so many countries and states following a similar pattern over time, it is hard to fathom why Illinois is so different. Any theories or ideas why Illinois is such an outlier”? Does the data in Illinois excluding Chicago/Cook county follow the pattern in other states and something in Chicago/Cook county make for the apparent anomaly?

Scissor
Reply to  Tom Borecki
May 14, 2020 12:35 pm

What is so different about it? Is it just still on the rise?

ren
May 14, 2020 7:38 am

This graph shows that the second wave in the autumn-winter period is almost certain. One can only hope that it will not occur in parallel with the wave of seasonal flu.
comment image?w=689&ssl=1

Reply to  ren
May 14, 2020 8:43 am

re: “One can only hope that it will not occur in parallel with the wave of seasonal flu.”

*shakes head*

Front loading. The flu cycle, affecting those most vulnerable, has ‘front-loaded’ the casualties for the year …

Steve Oregon
May 14, 2020 7:43 am

Thank You! Willis. It’s long past time to stop talking COVID and urgently fix the shutdown crisis.

The width and depth of the shutdown crisis far exceeds COVID and is worsening daily.
It needs far more attention that is it getting or we are doomed to epic depression and misery never seen before.
The ripple effect is decimating every sector of the economy with wave after wave drowning millions of businesses and all of the livelihoods they provide.
Shutdown supporters, public officials and the media are obsessed with stepping on the scale for the COVID side while ignoring the far greater weight of the shutdown cost side.
IMO this is epic negligence and malfeasance deserving of severe consequences for having been so reckless.

20 million small businesses are forcibly closed.
There are 30.2 million small businesses in the United States. And there are 3.7 million microbusinesses with less than 10 employees. Small businesses provide work for 55% of the American workforce

The chamber put out this in early April.

April 3, 2020

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A new poll taken from March 25 – 28, 2020 and released today from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and MetLife reveals that one in four small businesses (24%) say they are two months or less from closing permanently amid the economic downturn caused by the coronavirus pandemic. One in 10 (11%) are less than one month away from permanently going out of business.
Additionally, about one in four (24%) small businesses have already shut down temporarily in response to COVID-19. Among those that have not, 40% say they are likely to close at least temporarily within the next two weeks. This means a total of 54% of all small businesses report that they have closed or expect to close temporarily in the next 14 days.

So at that time roughly 16 million small businesses had been shut down.
Couple that with the countless other businesses, industries and institutions with massive payoffs and the weight of the Shutdown depression far out weighs COVID.

Again, Willis THANK YOU!!
Every day demands louder screaming and more attention to the real crisis.
The only way we will stop the insanity of the shutdown depression is public upheaval.
If not by the end of May places like LA will ignite into mayhem never seen before and the road back to sanity will be so chaotic and painful many simply will not survive.

TedL
May 14, 2020 8:02 am

Check out this important blog post by a Scottish doctor. Note that Vitamin D3 has a direct effect on vascular health that requires a daily dose (sunshine or supplement) to be most effective. Vascular damage appears to be part of the reason for the severity of covid19 infections. There are two kinds of immunity – innate and acquired. Vitamin D has a key role in innate immunity, while vaccine prompts acquired immunity. Both are important, but this article highlights the importance of innate immunity (regulated by Vitamin D3) in minimizing the severity of infection.

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/04/28/covid-update-focus-on-vitamin-d/

May 14, 2020 8:12 am

Willis missed the boat badly in this article.
South Korea, New Zealand and Australia took the correct approach to flattening the curve and were very effective in reducing cases and deaths. In the U.S. our administration totally botched the effort. They ignored early intelligence, took no effective action, then after weeks dumped the whole defense onto the individual states. That is not the way our pandemic defense is designed or has been dealt with in the 8 prior pandemics in the past century. A total screwups by Trump because he wished to avoid responsibility. Ironically, just the opposite is occurring and deserved so. If you want to be a leader, you have to be willing and able to lead and he has failed dismally on both counts.

Joshua
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 14, 2020 8:51 pm

> Here’s a protip, DR—despite your claims, there actually are things on the planet that are NOT the fault of the president.

Pretty funny, considering that the president was largely responsible for the policies you’re blaming for the deaths of children, and has over and over panicked the public into thinking without his “tyrannical” policies “millions would have died.”

Meanwhile he failed to oversee the implementation of policies thsr would have certainly minimized any rationale for shelter in place orders, as we have seen throughout the world – effective testing, tracing and isolating infrastructure. Instead, he just lied and said things like we have the best testing in the world and that anyone who wants a test can get a test and that we are tied with Germany for the lowest deaths per capita.

No, of course he isn’t singularly responsible for every sub-optimal outcome – but it is amusing to see you twist yourself into knots so you can maintsin your fealty. And meanwhile, you cherry pick your comparisons so as to paint a slanted picture. You avoid comparisons on metrics such as death per capita except with the relative minority of countries that have a similar ratio. Or you compare the curves only to the countries where they are similar.

Sad.

Reply to  Joshua
May 15, 2020 12:10 am

Joshua:
Your post attempts to sound reasonable, then you blew it with unsubstantiated claims.

You wrote “instead, he just lied and said things like we have the best testing in the world and that anyone who wants a test can get a test and that we are tied with Germany for the lowest deaths per capita.”

If you listened to the fullness of the claims, those are not lies. Further, you seem to blame Trump for not having been prepared, while having no basic understanding of how the CDC and other aspects of the health stores of supplies were woefully unprepared and how Trump fixed it. What he did to get the capitalist system working blows away anything you could have thought up. Even with the benefit of hindsight, you just failed to make a cogent case on this point.

Death rates per capita outside nursing homes, and a few hot sports run by democrats, are extremely low. So you blew it when you wrote: “You avoid comparisons on metrics such as death per capita”

You obviously think you know how to get valid data even though you failed to provide it, but you don’t know the death rate is a small fraction of a % using actual metrics. Every country has their own data which is collected differently. But you cherry pick without even giving a quantifiable number, to make an absurd argument. If you consider the actual number of people infected using antibody testing, you will know you are woefully out of line with your non quantifiable cherry picked argument.

Joshua
Reply to  mario lento
May 15, 2020 2:07 am

I don’t think, nor did I suggest that Trump’s failures are mutually exclisive with the failures of the CDC (during his administration, under his supervision).

Reply to  Joshua
May 15, 2020 5:33 am

Joshua; Myopic, mono-minded?

The Congress has over-sight responsibility. They shirked that, were involved with peach mints and other horse play over the Christmas holiday – do you recall that or are we back to attention spans on par with a goldfish?

Do also recall the ineffective congress under Ryan the first two years, Robert Mueller’s hunt for the elusive Russian wumpus and other, too numerous to mention ‘side shows’.

Joshua
Reply to  mario lento
May 15, 2020 8:06 am

Once again, that other governmental entities have responsibilities doesn’t lessen Trump’s failures.

It’s really remarkable how well “they do it too” works for people as they rationalize facts they don’t like.

Reply to  mario lento
May 15, 2020 9:26 am

Joshua: I commented on two quotes, neither of which you responded to.

You said he lied and you said something about deaths per capita, neither of which has a basis in specific facts. You did not respond to anything I said. But that’s fine.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  DR Healy
May 14, 2020 1:48 pm

Healy
It remains to be seen how well NZ and Oz do once their annual flu season is in full swing. You (and many others) may have to eat crow for your crowing.

ren
May 14, 2020 8:15 am

There is further evidence that Cov-2 inactivates the ACE 2 enzyme, whose role is to prevent the narrowing of blood vessels. It turns out that the role of ACE 2 in the body is much more important than we think.
Abstract
The Covid-19 pandemic revealed that there is a loss of smell in many patients, including in infected, but otherwise asymptomatic individuals. The underlying mechanisms for the olfactory symptoms are unclear. Using a mouse model, we determined whether cells in the olfactory epithelium express the obligatory receptors for entry of the SARS-CoV-2 virus by using RNAseq, RT-PCR, in situ hybridization, Western blot, and immunocytochemistry. We show that the cell surface protein ACE2 and the protease TMPRSS2 are expressed in sustentacular cells of the olfactory epithelium, but not, or much less, in most olfactory receptor neurons. These data suggest that sustentacular cells are involved in SARS-CoV-2 virus entry and impairment of the sense of smell in COVID-19 patients. We also show that expression of the entry proteins increases in animals of old age. This may explain – if true also in humans – why individuals of older age are more susceptible to the SARS-CoV-2 infection.
comment image
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acschemneuro.0c00210

icisil
Reply to  ren
May 14, 2020 10:05 am

The virus may have nothing directly to do with the loss of sense of smell. That is a symptom of zinc deficiency and a side effect of ACE inhibitors, which deplete zinc. So virus infection may be exacerbating a zinc insufficiency, or may be merely coincident with one.

Robert W. Turner
Reply to  ren
May 14, 2020 10:21 am

In other words the virus is entering directly into people’s system by virus carrying water droplets that are on the scale of 1-3 microns, which is much more likely to be breathed in while indoors and pass right through cloth masks.

ren
Reply to  ren
May 15, 2020 12:37 pm

The child died after a “neurological injury related to a cardiac arrest”, said Fabrice Michel, head of the paediatric intensive care unit at La Timone hospital in the Mediterranean port city of Marseille.

The boy, who tested positive for coronavirus, received treatment at the hospital for seven days and died on Saturday, the doctor told AFP.

In the last three weeks, several countries have reported cases of children affected by an inflammatory disease with symptoms similar to those of a rare condition, Kawasaki’s disease. Scientists believe it is linked to Covid-19.
https://www.france24.com/en/20200515-france-records-first-child-fatality-from-rare-disease-linked-to-covid-19

Vuk
May 14, 2020 8:17 am

Latest from the UK: At this rate no chance of ‘herd’ immunity
“Based on tests conducted between 27 April and 10 May 2020, we estimate 148,000 people in England had COVID-19 (95% confidence interval: 94,000 to 222,000).
This equates to 0.27% of the population in England (95% confidence interval: 0.17% to 0.41%).
Our estimate refers to the number of infections within the community (in this instance private households). It does not include people in hospital or care homes, where rates of COVID-19 infection are likely to be higher.”
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19roundup/2020-03-26#infectionstudy

JohnM
Reply to  Vuk
May 14, 2020 11:28 am

I remain pessimistic!

“A study of survivors of SARS showed that about 90% had functional, virus-neutralising antibodies and around 50% had strong T-lymphocyte responses.10
These observations bolster confidence in a simple view that most survivors of severe COVID-19 would be expected to have protective antibodies. A caveat is that most studies, either of SARS survivors or of COVID-19 patients, have focused on people who were hospitalised and had severe, symptomatic disease. Similar data are urgently needed for individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection who have not been hospitalised.
How long is immunity to COVID-19 likely to last? The best estimate comes from the closely related coronaviruses and suggests that, in people who had an antibody response, immunity might wane, but is detectable beyond 1 year after hospitalisation.10
, 11
, 12
Obviously, longitudinal studies with a duration of just over 1 year are of little reassurance given the possibility that there could be another wave of COVID-19 cases in 3 or 4 years. Specific T-lymphocyte immunity against Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, however, can be detectable for 4 years, considerably longer than antibody responses.13

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30985-5/fulltext

“We characterized 8 novel recurrent mutations of SARS-CoV-2, located at positions 1397, 2891, 14408, 17746, 17857, 18060, 23403 and 28881. Mutations in 2891, 3036, 14408, 23403 and 28881 positions are predominantly observed in Europe, whereas those located at positions 17746, 17857 and 18060 are exclusively present in North America. We noticed for the first time a silent mutation in RdRp gene in England (UK) on February 9th, 2020 while a different mutation in RdRp changing its amino acid composition emerged on February 20th, 2020 in Italy (Lombardy). Viruses with RdRp mutation have a median of 3 point mutations [range: 2–5], otherwise they have a median of 1 mutation [range: 0–3] (p value < 0.001)"

https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12967-020-02344-6

rleewinters
Reply to  JohnM
May 14, 2020 1:42 pm

A scientist with Texas A&M who has years of experience researching coronaviruses said in a TV interview that his studies indicate that generally the infected persons lose their antibodies in 3 to 6 months. Some questions arise. 1) How does herd immunity occur without antibodies? 2) Will antibodies from a vaccine remain in the body any longer than those from actually being infected? And I suppose 3) Will a vaccine need to be applied multiple times a year if Covid is not seasonal?

Finding effective medicinal treatments may be the best thing to pursue to fight the actual illness.
And maintaining a healthy lifestyle, proper nutrition, exercise and based on some things I’ve read maintaining higher Vitamin D levels, with recommended zinc levels may possibly reduce the severity of infections.

Very pessimistic about herd immunity.

Vuk
Reply to  JohnM
May 14, 2020 1:53 pm

A study of survivors of SARS showed that about 90% had functional, virus-neutralising antibodies and around 50% had strong T-lymphocyte responses
In an interview for the BBC News channel Italian professor of microbiology at the university of Padua Andrea Crisanti said (paraphrasing)
After testing number of thousands of Covid-19 infected people they found that
– if asymptomatic: no antibodies developed and no future immunity likely
– if mild disease: ditto
– if severely affected by disease: antibodies present and possible immunity but not guaranteed.

PaulH
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 14, 2020 9:35 am

An excellent read from William M. Briggs. To help maintain the rather tenuous hold I have on my sanity, I avoid the MSM (as much as possible) and instead read WUWT and Briggs’s blog.

Ethan Brand
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 14, 2020 11:07 am

Hi Willis
Thanks for posting the link to the Briggs post. I read it…:
First comment…your link title is not accurate (precise? 🙂 ), the actual post title is:
“There Is No Evidence Lockdowns Saved Lives. It Is Indisputable They Caused Great Harm”
You have substituted “Work” for “Saved Lives” (Please note that this inconsistency goes directly to my previous comment about the lack of any meaningful definitions as to what “lockdowns” (whatever the heck that means) or “work” (whatever the heck that means…) actually mean… let us proceed, as Briggs goes directly into the mud….

From the above Briggs Post:

In the end, it does not come down to country- or even city-level statistics. It comes down to people. Each individual catches the bug or not, lives or dies. Not because of their country, but because of themselves, their health, their circumstances. Any given individual might have benefited from self-quarantine and loss of job. Just as any given individual might have come to a bad end from a lockdown. The only possible way to know is to measure each case. Which can never happen.

What should we conclude? Strike that. What can we conclude. Only one thing: we cannot conclude that lockdowns worked.

Note the difference between the post title :”There is no evidence lockdowns saved lives” vs the actual conclusion that Briggs states: “we cannot conclude that lockdowns worked”.

These are completely different statements. The “cannot conclude” statement very logically follows his discussion. Within that discussion he goes to great lengths to note the differences in Covid response and reporting:
“And then the medical systems are also vastly different among all these countries.”
“Reporting also varied widely, and wildly. ”
“Obviously, many, many other things varied between countries. Age and healthy of citizens. Old and decrepit in Europe? Younger and more robust in Africa? Compliance of people was of every possible status.”
“Lockdowns ranged from severe, as in China’s Wuhan, to practically non-existent or highly localized…”

In the end, Briggs does reach the the only conclusion actually supported by his discussion:
“we cannot conclude that lockdowns saves lives”

This is not the same as “There Is No Evidence Lockdowns Saved Lives.”

These two statements are not equivalent. The observation that some seem to treat them as such is at the heart of my overall dissatisfaction with the overall Covid debate. If we cannot even agree that we disagree with the definition of “Lockdown” or “Work” (in the context of the efficacy of a lockdown), then the ensuing debate is worthless.

Where should we go IMO:

Stop using the term “lockdown”. Its meaning is too imprecise, and is unlikey to have any meaningful stable definition. I would use something to the effect of ” Restrictions to the Degree of Human Physical Interaction/Contact”

Stop using the term “work” (again in the context of efficacy of lockdowns). Again, absolutely no useful common definition (lives, infection rate, ICU utilization, etc). Instead let us use some term or description that actually defines the objective of whatever intervention we choose (flatten the curve, or reduce excess deaths, or lower ICU utilization).

For example, we could then ask a question that might actually have a usable answer:
“To what degree did a policy that reduced human-human contact (as measured by some previously useful data) by approximately 30% have on the excess death rate of the targeted population with 4 weeks of the beginning of the policy”

Once you have started asking questions you might actually be able to answer, then we can start asking questions about the cost benefit of such policy’s.

From my perspective, we are not even remotely able to answer the first question, and therefor it is not possible to try to answer the second.

I will continue to read, study, think, comment, analyze, question and be ever hopeful that you and Lord Monckton and Briggs and Istvan (to name a few) are actually talking and listening to each other. I would love to hear that conversation…..

Regards,
Ethan Brand

Scissor
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 14, 2020 12:56 pm

For example, it appears that public colleges and universities will not be opening in California in the fall. I wonder how many students will transfer out of the system. This is going to cost California biggly in the short and long term.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Scissor
May 14, 2020 1:52 pm

Scissor
It isn’t just California that has problems with the education system!

Ethan Brand
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 14, 2020 2:36 pm

Hi Willis

Thanks (must be nice to be able to edit previously posted comments.. 🙂 You certainly earned that privilege).

You say:
“The question is whether the benefits of lockdowns outweigh the costs.”

I am gonna be a stuck record: Please provide your definition of “benefits” and of “lockdowns”. I think we would be usability agreeable on the definition of “costs”.

From my other comments and reading both yours and Brigg’s post, I see no meaningful definition of either term.

So, let me take this to the absurd (I will paraphrase your comment for example):
No, hell no, it is not worth the cost to reduce the overall covid infection rate by prohibiting gatherings of more than 50 people in an enclosed public space.
2) No, hell no, it is not worth the cost to reduce the excess death rate of those who are obese, and suffer from high blood pressure by prohibiting all visitors to hospitals and nursing homes.

Being obtuse am I? I think not, I am simply substituting a couple of the various definitions of “lockdown” and “benefits” that are commonly used. There is a cost to any of these actions.

Why am I harping on this? Fundamentally I am interested in providing meaningful and actionable feedback and or advice to my Michigan politicians (and national ones as well). I know I cannot do this by simply saying, “I don’t like it, it doesn’t work”.

I have been actively following and commenting on my Governors (Whitmer) actions in Michigan. I, like you, conclude that many of the restrictions she has put in place do not provide meaningful benefit. The question is, which ones?, why aren’t they worth the cost?, what alternative am I offering? I have to temper my comments to accommodate the fact that I am providing feedback to a politician, and that I am one of millions. It might feel good to just say, “Governor Bad, Legislature (republicans) Good”, but over many decades of experience in HOW does one actually influence anothers behavior (I spent many years in Root Cause Analysis), I have found that that tactic simple fails. I need to understand WHY someone does something, or says something. The very first foundation stone of such a lofty goal is common understanding, even if at the most seemingly insignificant point. Hence my continue campaign:
What do you mean by “Lockdown”: Shooting anyone within 6 feet of another person? Encouraging people to be “polite” and given them “space”? Shutting down all business?, shutting down open offices (ala Google)? The practice and definition of “lockdown” literally seems to run the entirety of all possible actions. In this context, “End the Lockdown” has no meaning.

What do you mean by “benefits”…you get the picture (I hope). No useful definition leads to no useful request.

In the end, my request to our Governor (Michigan) is this:
Obey the Law as written. That means that you must collaborate with the Legislature to formulate any future restrictions. By collaborating with the myriad of other elected politicians, some of whom specifically represent my little corner of the world, I am confident that the resulting policy will be more nuanced, have a closer relationship to what people in very different circumstances want or will tolerate, and will very likely result in a higher cost to benefit ratio (even if it is still negative… 🙂 ). Politics is the art of the possible, not of the best (or the worst).

Regards,
Ethan Brand

Ethan Brand
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 14, 2020 3:02 pm

Hi Willis (yea, I just won’t give up 🙂 ).
A true story (and I convey as a “parable”):

A number of years ago, I was a Fire Protection Engineer at a Commercial Nuclear Power Plant. I was part of the plant “team” interfacing with some inspectors from the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). Nothing unusual, just a regular periodic inspection. During the inspection one of the NRC inspectors took issue with, and was threatening a “violation” having to do with how we stored Acetylene tanks (the smallish ones used for welding). He was asserting that our method of securing the tanks was inadequate and could lead to a fire…”fire bad”. The discussion went on for some days (the inspections are complex and involve a dozen or so engineers, inspectors, etc). The NRC was nearly at the point of issuing the violation, and we seemed to be at an impasse. I started digging around more with WHY the inspector felt we were in violation of NRC regulations. We were trading regulatory quotes, exchanging procedures, arguing risk etc..but weren’t really getting anywhere. I was determined to get a better understanding of why the inspector was concluding we were violating regulations. Long story, but it turns out that the inspector had seen a YouTube video of a fire involving an Acetylene tank, and was using that as “evidence” that our storage method was inadequate. Having gotten this bit of insight, I investigated the YouTube video…it turns out it was a “fake”, a stunt, ie not real. Now, if I were to reveal in “public” this bit of information, we would likely have been stomped but good (never piss off the cops). Fortunately, I had a good professional relationship with his “boss” and was able to have a quiet sidebar discussion (off the record). The Acetylene storage violation was quietly “disappeared”. The lesson in all this? Definitions matter. Common understanding matters, endeavoring to understand why someone does something (no matter how seemingly egregious or absurd) is an absolute requirement for useful communication. It’s my personal mantra.

Lecture hall closed… 🙂

Best Regards,
Ethan Brand

Old.George
Reply to  Ethan Brand
May 14, 2020 5:21 pm

“endeavoring to understand why someone does something (no matter how seemingly egregious or absurd) is an absolute requirement for useful communication.”
Mind reading is so iffy. He could have been thinking this or that or this other thing. Maybe no one knows why, not even his conscious self.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ethan Brand
May 14, 2020 3:39 pm

Ethan
Note that early in his blog, Briggs says, “The spread in death rates is more then sufficient proof against lockdowns, as we’ll see.”

Ethan Brand
May 14, 2020 8:39 am

Hi Willis
Thanks again for your interesting post:
Couple comments:
You say:
“How many children should starve in order to make you feel safe”
Wow…almost kept me from reading further…(fortunately is was near the end of the post..:) ). Got to admit this smacks of the AGW battle cry “Oh, But What About the Poor Children?”

Next:

“Of course, the local petty tyrants who have vastly expanded powers under the “emergency” want to hold on to them. So they’re now saying that we have something new to fear, a “rebound” or a “second peak” … me, I’ve said before that I think we will see very little in the way of any second peak, for a simple reason:

As Sweden has shown, the virus laughs at our pathetic western-style “shelter in place” regulations.

Too many people in “essential” jobs, too many deliveries, too many people coming and going from the households. Combine that with a very infectious virus, and the shelter in place will have little effect … and since it has had little effect when it was there, I say it will have little effect when it is removed.”

I think this is a great observation….starts to go the heart of WHY certain places may fair better than others.

Next:

“Now, here’s my argument. The various local instant totalitarian rulers derive their power from the State of Emergency. But the emergency is past, we can’t flatten the curve now. We’re past that, which means there is no further emergency. So them holding onto that power now that the emergency is ended is illegitimate and illegal. It’s also in some cases unconstitutional.”

Absolutely love this! Here is Michigan we are preparing to battle this in court. The lawsuit filed by the State Legislature against Governor Whitmer is scheduled for oral arguments in the Michigan Court of Claims on Friday, May 15, 2020. I have carefully read our salient Michigan Statutes and the text of the filed lawsuit. I observe that the recent Wisconsin Supreme Court decision against Governor Evers is much murkier than the case against Whitmer. I am every hopeful that the court will reign in our self appointed “Empress” 🙂

General Comment:
The analysis provided by various WUWT posters is all over the map (a strength of WUWT), BUT some analysis differences are glaring. Until I see some direct discussion amongst the Istvans/Moncktons/Eschenbachs, etc, my overall confidence in particular posts is lower than usual (for WUWT).

One specific comment: The conflicting battle crys:
Lockdowns Don’t Work
Lockdowns Work

Huge problem:
I see no useful or consistent definition of “Lockdown”. Sweden version?, Korea version, North Dakota version?
I see no useful or consistent definition of “Work” (s).
From what I see, there is no attempt to resolve this fundamental flaw in the battle lines. Until this is directly addressed, the resulting debate is entirely without merit.

The whole Covid debate has degenerated into a mud flinging fight with everybody claiming that their “mud” is the “right” mud.

Regards,
Ethan Brand

Ethan Brand
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 14, 2020 11:21 am

Hi Willis

Great timing….see my next comment…. 🙂

What exactly do you mean by “lockdowns”?
What exactly do you mean by “benefits”?

Regards,

Ethan Brand

Ethan Brand
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 14, 2020 11:41 am

Hi Willis

Good natured “dig” follows….
You took my Lockdowns Don’t Work/ Lockdowns Work out of context, the entire related comment segment is:
“One specific comment: The conflicting battle crys:
Lockdowns Don’t Work
Lockdowns Work

“Huge problem:
I see no useful or consistent definition of “Lockdown”. Sweden version?, Korea version, North Dakota version?
I see no useful or consistent definition of “Work” (s).
From what I see, there is no attempt to resolve this fundamental flaw in the battle lines. Until this is directly addressed, the resulting debate is entirely without merit.”

By only reading/quoting the beginning of the comment you removed the key context of lack of definitions…which is further explained in the next comment (wrt Briggs).

You frequently chide commentors for not quoting what you actually said..I would take this one step further and note that the quote should be in context….

Best Regards,
Ethan Brand

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ethan Brand
May 14, 2020 2:02 pm

Ehan
I raised this question about the lack of definition and subsequent careless use of the term “lockdown” three days ago in the guest article by Chris Gillham. The term is being used by many authors and covers a spectrum of behaviors. Although, if I may speak for Willis, I think that the main point of contention is shuttering businesses. That which prohibits commerce is an unprecedented move and has unintended consequences well beyond ‘social distancing.’

Ethan Brand
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 14, 2020 6:08 pm

Hi Willis

I love the way cascading comments and replies get mixed up! 🙁

From another of your comments :
“We can fight the virus with minimum or no harm to the economy.”

I absolutely agree. The question is: How? Not just me, not just you. 8 BILLION people with 8 BILLION times x opinions. That’s the question always worth going after, because its the aggregate actions of those 8 BILLION people that are actually going to shape the future.

I have a deep respect for WUWT. I like to think it is occasionally read by folks outside our little echo chamber here. I like to think the some of the posts and comments here might just make a difference. I try to aim my comments to improve the clarity, logic, reasoning, and precision of language. When I advertise WUWT to others, I sometimes get the feedback that it is seemly too right wing, knee jerk conservative, etc. Obviously some posts and comments do fall into that category, but the overall quality of the discussions on WUWT is, IMO, far superior than most (or perhaps any) other centers of such discussion. Clearly that is an intentional goal of the major authors and keepers of WUWT. High expectations require high standards. OTOH WUWT cannot rest of it laurels. We must question ourselves, we must continually be open to critic, and above all we must strive to understand why we do not agree, because, in the end, we are not all going to agree.

Thank you for years of entertaining, interesting and informative posts.

Regards,
Ethan Brand

Jack Black
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 15, 2020 2:16 am

Well yes Willis, how very true. Lockdowns “work” but for whom and in what fashion?
Such a shame that Lord Monckton succumbed to the false narrative, and became embroiled in the forest of the numbers. Mostly these numbers have no meaning, because they have no verifiable context. Sometimes (often) demonstrations of mathematical prowess tell us absolutely nothing about the imperative behind the numbers. Always remember the legal maxim , “Cui Bono”. Always remember the principles of Aristotle, especially his “refutations” of bogus and hokum logic !

Correlation does not prove causation, and this Global Panic-demic has striking similarities to the long running AGW CO2 scandal, and indeed many of the same beligerants. Strange that, eh?

In the future; the late 20th / early 21st Century will be known as the Age of Discombobulation !

W & C – Lang may yer lums reek !

Chris Barron
Reply to  Jack Black
May 15, 2020 2:48 am

“Correlation does not prove causation, and this Global Panic-demic has striking similarities to the long running AGW CO2 scandal, and indeed many of the same beligerants. Strange that, eh?”

Yes, yet another invisible enemy.

Apologies if it’s bad taste, but I’m reminded of what Goering said at the Nuremberg trials

QUOTE
But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
― Hermann Goering

Jack Black
Reply to  Chris Barron
May 15, 2020 3:57 am

Whilst holding an unlit giant Panatella……

“Never, in the field of Human conflict, have so many, paid so much, to so few. We shall fight them in the hills, and from our homes, and on the beaches, …. drawl, drawl & etc.” [paraphrased].

Jams unlit cigar in corner of mouth, and strides off to waiting limousine.

The hoi polloi are destined never to learn the lessons of true history, because the elites always made it up to suit themselves. Omitted it from school curriculum etc. Now though they can’t put back into the bottle the Genie of the vast Internet’s of freely available knowledge.

Just remember to use YOUR own brain an the sound principles of Aristotle to logically discern what’s likely to be true and what’s not. It’s not an infallible method, but better than most, and remember that “you know your over the target, when you start getting the most flak” ……

FYI : http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/sophist_refut.html

Reply to  Jack Black
May 15, 2020 4:57 am

Well stated Jack Black.

Also remember: your =/= you’re (ref that last quote.)

Jack Black
Reply to  Chris Barron
May 15, 2020 5:29 am

@_Jim

It’s the possessive pronoun, and not an abbreviation of the present participle in the above case though, and so “YOUR own brain” is correct. (not to be pedantic, you understand) 😉

Reply to  Jack Black
May 15, 2020 5:50 am

erm … no. Wrong quote.

Quote was: “you know your over the target, when you start getting the most flak

Quote should be: “you know you’re over the target, when you start getting the most flak

Contraction of “you are” is “you’re” versus ‘possessive pronoun’ “your”. (Did I not say “last quote”?)

JUST for reference, link to the comment: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/13/attention-citizens-the-covid19-emergency-is-over/#comment-2994956

Jack Black
Reply to  Chris Barron
May 15, 2020 8:52 am

@_Jim

It was Google spell check what done it, but well yeah but no but, its still minor faux pas, and such a well known quote that I doubt if anyone misunderstood the sense though. We are no even in charge of our own words anymore, and there’s no consistency…. Sometime it auto correct, and sometimes it does not, and sometimes it just instep gibberish. Hu is on first base !

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ethan Brand
May 14, 2020 12:59 pm

Good points, Ethan.

And a comment on the coment of Wills: “How many children should starve in order to make you feel safe”

Does anyone know how many children in the United States have starved as a consequence of social distancing? The implication is this is a large number, but I can’t seem to find any statistics on it. Willis?

Ethan Brand
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 14, 2020 3:10 pm

Hi Willis

“I say again, WE CAN FIGHT THE VIRUS WITHOUT KILLING THE ECONOMY!!! Not sure why this is so hard for folks to grab on to.”

I have absolutely no argument with this…and it really misses the whole point of my comments.

Best Regards,
Ethan Brand

Jack Black
Reply to  Ethan Brand
May 15, 2020 2:49 am

Yes, “We” Humans can indeed fight “the virus”, and indeed all viri, and that’s why as a species we developed / evolved an immune system for doing so. There is actually no legislative right or sanction that can prevent the appearance if new strains of virus, even though there is a rather strong suspicion that this current panic-demic was caused by a man-made chimera.

Viruses do not ” think” or “plan” attacks, and do not actually kill people. Rather it is the response or over reactive response to infection that causes many deaths. Nutrient and immune deficiency caused by living in air conditioned sterile environments, and eating vacuum sealed, or inert gas packaged and gamma irradiated, chemically preserved “foods”, must be a significant factor in very many deaths, but this goes largely uninvestigated.

We do not, and will never have the “right” to live in a “germless” environment, free from all risks, and Government regulations and draconian laws cannot ever make it so.

Smell the Covfefe ?

Jeff Alberts
May 14, 2020 8:42 am

“And that doesn’t count the loss of life from increased suicides and from delayed medical diagnosis and procedures. Nor does it count the fact that some 20% of the lost jobs are not expected to return. And we have calls to mental-health hotlines skyrocketing, and domestic violence through the roof. In a most ironic outcome, we have hospitals and doctors going bankrupt, and thousands of nurses being furloughed, because “non-essential” medical procedures are forbidden. Then there are the huge financial losses, both to the economy and to the government.”

It should also be noted that reports of child abuse (both physical and sexual) have gone up during lockdowns. So apparently those who scream “So you want more deaths???” actually want more child abuse.

Kermit Johnson
May 14, 2020 8:57 am

What is missed here, IMHO, is motives of the people in charge. In Brussels, this was seen as a lifeline thrown to a drowning man. Their socialist promises were just about to come crashing down on their heads when this came to save them. Now with the virus to blame, they can not only maintain power, but they can appear to be the saviors of the people.

In the US, the leftist politicians saw the promise of it right away too. Plus, they desperately want to get rid of Donald Trump. It is doubtful to me that those in power in places like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco will abandon the lockdown willingly when it is the perfect way to avoid the accountability of decades of mismanagement.

A good article and a good discussion.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Kermit Johnson
May 14, 2020 1:07 pm

“It is doubtful to me that those in power in places like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco will abandon the lockdown willingly when it is the perfect way to avoid the accountability of decades of mismanagement.”

I think it is a sure bet that the people will have the final say about these lockdowns. With a few exceptions, the various States are opening up their economies, and barring a huge infection outbreak, they will continue to do so, and people sitting in States that are not relaxing restrictions will see what is going on (they see it already) and will take legal action to put a stop to their petty dictator’s overreach.

Some Democrat States may want to continue the lockdown but their people are not going to allow it once they see other States opening up successfully..

May 14, 2020 9:10 am

DEATH RATES BY AGE
https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid#case-fatality-rate-of-covid-19-by-age

Deaths from Covid-19 increase sharply with age.

Maybe Covid-19 really IS a Wuhan lab designer virus – designed to wipe out China’s huge elderly population, now supported by “the few” due to their one-child policy.

Attaboys all around Beijing!

Hey wait a second – all the guys in charge of the CCP are old farts too!

“Hello, Wuhan Lab? It’s Beijing, Communist Party Headquarters. You plicks!” 🙂

May 14, 2020 9:12 am

Wrong us usual.

Jack Black
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 15, 2020 2:57 am

Haha, yes. That reminds me of the story of the Sheriff’s Depute who stopped the local town inebriate for weaving about the highway. Leaning in the window, the Depute says… “Drunk again, Charlie?”; Charlie replies… “… funny that, so am I” 😄

Glad you humour/sarcasm hasn’t yet deserted you Willis !

Steve Oregon
May 14, 2020 9:37 am

The last thing needed is any more data or chit chat about COVID.
1 of 1000 news bites.
Delta Airlines says they’ll have 7000 too many pilots by fall.
The chain reaction from every shutdown detriment is snowballing toward a calamitous depression.

Reply to  Steve Oregon
May 14, 2020 10:38 am

So the most significant economic event in at least a decade and more likely in a hundred years if not ever, should not be discussed?
No more “data or chit chat” about it…even though tit is already causing a worldwide economic tsunami which no one knows how bad it will be or how and even if it will end?
The last thing we need to do is present or examine data, and discuss relevant aspects, or what seem to be leading us all towards a calamitous depression?
Really?
The ostrich approach will prevent something bad from happening…is that the logic?
Sorry to say so…but this comment is incoherent.
Is it serious or not?
Do we need to worry about it or pretend it is not occurring?
Is it worse when we discuss it that it would be if everyone shut up?
What the hell is a news bite?
Why should we focus on Delta airline pilots?
How about farmers and meat packers and retailers?
This might end or at least seriously disrupt the movie theatre industry too.
Is that part bad?
What if the upshot is that people become more focused on things that are important, and intolerant of deceptive bullsh!te?

Steve Oregon
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
May 14, 2020 12:33 pm

You misread my comment.
I was saying the shutdown depression is far more urgent to be covered. Not COVID.
It isnt COVID destroying economies.
It’s the reckless shutdowns and the impacts are far worse than the coverage suggests.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
May 14, 2020 5:52 pm

“Is it worse when we discuss it that it would be if everyone shut up?”

It’s only worse if the discussion gets into pure speculation about what is happening in the economy. Facts are fine. Handwringing over imaginary fears does noone any good (this is directed at the audience in general). All that does is agitate people for no good reason.

Just the facts about the economic recovery please. Leave the speculation and fearmongering out of the discussion.

Reply to  Steve Oregon
May 14, 2020 10:38 am

So the most significant economic event in at least a decade and more likely in a hundred years if not ever, should not be discussed?
No more “data or chit chat” about it…even though tit is already causing a worldwide economic tsunami which no one knows how bad it will be or how and even if it will end?
The last thing we need to do is present or examine data, and discuss relevant aspects, or what seem to be leading us all towards a calamitous depression?
Really?
The ostrich approach will prevent something bad from happening…is that the logic?
Sorry to say so…but this comment is incoherent.
Is it serious or not?
Do we need to worry about it or pretend it is not occurring?
Is it worse when we discuss it that it would be if everyone shut up?
What the hell is a news bite?
Why should we focus on Delta airline pilots?
How about farmers and meat packers and retailers?
This might end or at least seriously disrupt the movie theatre industry too.
Is that part bad?
What if the upshot is that people become more focused on things that are important, and intolerant of deceptive bullsh!te?

David Hartley
May 14, 2020 10:12 am

Th anomaly would seem in some respects to be New York. What about the latency and repercussions of 9/11. It was known to cause respiratory problems at the time. How do you factor that in? Over to you chaps

May 14, 2020 10:28 am

“50% are completely asymptomatic”

This is not at all the case.
It is more like, “about 50% of cases are mild or asymptomatic.
There is no data indicating half of all cases are “completely” asymptomatic.
That is just an outright exaggeration.
Words have meanings, and completely means something very specific.

As well,
“~85% do not develop the serious Covid-19 symptoms”
is similarly incorrect and is a misuse of language.
Somewhat over 15% develop SEVERE disease symptoms.
You cannot pretend to be speaking factually while distorting and exaggerating.
When anyone does that, any people who are trying to be serious and FACTUAL will simply not pay attention to you any more, although people who are similarly inclined will give you praise and kudos for being “on message.”

When attempting to communicate concisely and accurately, one might consider leaving out absolutes and strong adjectives…words like “completely” when a word like “relatively” is closer to the truth…and instead using stronger verbs.
Some number of people report having absent symptoms, although in many cases when such people are questioned more carefully it turns out many of them had SOME symptoms, just that they were not very inconvenient or too very unpleasant. Some people are more soldierly, and some people are whiners and complainers.
Also, it is known most children do not experience this disease in the same way as adults, and that young adults are more likely to have a mild case than older but perfectly healthy adults.
Someone who gets symptoms identical to a really bad cold might consider themselves to be “seriously ill” if they were calling in sick two years ago, but not if they got COVID and then felt better two to five days later…because only having what seemed like a cold might make someone with COVID ecstatically happy to have gotten off so lightly from something k!lling other people.
Very few people who are not really old or frail ever see a doctor or go to a hospital when they get a really bad flu and are sick as hell for a week. Everyone knows you just have to suffer through it and it will be over after a short while…which may seem long in the minute to minute aspect but not in retrospect.

So context is important and has to be taken into account.
“Everything” I have read and learned indicates that a substantial number of people, perhaps 20% (but no one really knows because no place has had comprehensive testing and almost no one has had a reliable antibody test) have a case than appears to be asymptomatic. This is actually not at all unusual for a disease that gives some people a very bad illness, it was just largely unknown prior to recent weeks.
Another large batch have mild symptoms, by self reporting standards anyway.
So perhaps something like half of people know to have been infected do not have what most would consider a really bad illness…although in other times many of these people might have called in sick from work for one or more days.
Another tranche get sick…very sick, like case of the flu sick, and not just a cough, cold, or mild sniffle. But a fever and a feeling of being really very sick.
And about 15-18% of people get what a doctor would call a severe illness…requiring hospital care, and many of them need to be getting intensive care in an ICU unit.

So saying 85% of people do not get a “serious” illness is a misuse of language…serious and severe are not interchangeable terms.
So you ought to recognize that you are deploying deceptive terminology in order to exaggerate.
Exaggeration comes in two distinct flavors…minimizing something or inflating it unrealistically.
It is amazing to see global warming skeptics enthusiastically embrace all of the lessons of how to be deceptive, uncritical, unscientific, and unrealistic, that has been the subject of many years of intensive discussion here in the context of climate alarmists.
Selective attention, moving goalposts, exaggerations, willful blindness to information contrary to one’s predetermined point of view…these are not characterizes of people who are being realistic or scientific or who are striving to be serious and factual.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
May 14, 2020 10:39 am

AND he (McGinley) never cites a single study … how to ‘cross check’ then?

Lori
May 14, 2020 10:37 am

Very good analysis, Willis! Unfortunately, all the models out there that various media outlets quote are completely bias. Forecast models are causing fear, so regardless of the actual reality of what is going on right now, the media and it’s supporters are being guided by which model serves their narrative best. The narrative is more important than the truth and the line between science and politics are blurred to my great disappointment.