CORONA Main Coronavirus thread

[marsh]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

CDC Says "Fully Vaccinated" People Can Stop Wearing Masks, Distancing In Private

MONDAY, MAR 08, 2021 - 11:17

Update (1100ET): As federal health officials including Dr. Fauci chide states for easing COVID restrictions, the CDC has just released new guidelines proclaiming that fully vaccinated people can spend time together indoors without masks or social-distancing.

The CDC's highly anticipated report cites early evidence suggesting vaccinated people are less likely to have asymptomatic infections, and are less likely to transmit the virus to other people.

This is huge news for grandparents who have refrained from seeing children and grandchildren for the past year, as those who are presumably under the protection of a vaccine may now safely visit indoors with unvaccinated people from a single household, so long as none of the unvaccinated household members are considered a severe COVID risk. This means older individuals may visit with their younger, unvaccinated peers, so long as they visit with one family unit, or one individual, at a time.

For the record, according to the CDC guidelines, an individual is considered person is “fully vaccinated” two weeks after receiving the final dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna jabs, or the single-shot vaccine from J&.J. Fully vaccinated people should continue exercising standard precautions while in public, the agency said.

“While the new guidance is a positive step, many more people need to be fully vaccinated before everyone can stop taking most COVID-19 precautions,” the CDC wrote in its report. "It is important that, until then, everyone continues to adhere to important mitigation measures to protect the large number of people who remain unvaccinated."

Summarizing the contents of the report, those who are fully vaccinated are now allowed to...

• Visit with other fully vaccinated people indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing.
• Visit indoors with unvaccinated people from a single household who are considered low risk for severe disease without needing to wear masks or practice social distancing.
• Vaccinated individuals no longer need to quarantine or seek a test following a confirmed exposure to the virus (unless symptoms develop).
• However, they should continue to avoid large or medium-sized gatherings, though the CDC didn't offer specific gathering-size numbers.
• Individuals should continue following all guidance from employers, whether vaccinated or not.
• Even those who have been vaccinated should still get tested if experiencing COVID symptoms.

Read the full report below:

Public Health Recommendation for Fully Vaccinated 3-7-21 3 Pm Clean by Joseph Adinolfi Jr. on Scribd Doc on website


Speaking on CNBC, reporter Meg Tirrell noted that the CDC needed a "carrot" to encourage more eligible adults to get vaccinated. Previously, those who have been vaccinated have been expected to follow all the same precautions as those who haven't. Now, it appears, that is finally beginning to change.

Many more Americans will need to be vaccinated before restrictions like masking and social distancing can be lifted for the broader population. CDC Director Dr. Rochelle P. Walensky said "we know that people want to get vaccinated so they can get back to doing the things they enjoy with the people they love...There are some activities that fully vaccinated people can begin to resume now in the privacy of their own homes." However, "everyone, including those who are vaccinated, should continue with all mitigation strategies when in public settings."

In other COVID news, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said Monday that the number of Britons who have been vaccinated has surpassed 1/3rd of the adult population, while Italy has just surpassed 100K confirmed COVID deaths.

Notably, he CDC's latest guidance included no mention of easing any travel-related restrictions, which remain in place. Looking ahead, patients (and investors) will be looking out for any travel-related advisories.
* * *
As it continues to lead Europe (and trail the UK) in the race to vaccinate its population, the US has notched yet another milestone in the battle against COVID-19: a record 2.9MM vaccine jabs were doled within 24 hours on Saturday, the largest daily tally yet. However, some experts, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, are worried about the possibility of a "fourth wave" of COVID infections, potentially driven by "mutant" strains, which comprise a growing share of new infections.

Over the past week, the average daily number of new doses in the US has been 2.2MM doses/day, the highest 7-day average yet, according to Bloomberg.


Globally, the US is on track to become the second developed western nation to see its total vaccines administered eclipse more than 30% of its population, a milestone first achieved by the UK. Meanwhile, more than 17% of Americans have received both vaccine shots.


Following a brief uptick last week that stoked worries about a possible plateau, the number of new daily cases reported in the US is moving lower once again, with the daily average returning to levels unseen since October on Sunday. Total US COVID hospitalizations have fallen to 40.2K, which, like cases, is at the lowest level since October. Hospitalizations have fallen 70% from their peak in late January, less than 2 months ago. New cases have fallen by roughly the same level.

In total, the US is on the cusp of reaching 29MM total COVID cases, while the global tally nears 117MM.


Some 107MM doses of the three FDA-approved vaccines have been shipped to states across the US, per the CDC.

All of this vaccine optimism has led Goldman Sachs' analysts to project that most advanced economies will pass the 70% threshold for herd immunity by early Q3, even as Europe lags the US and UK, and European Commission Chairwoman Ursula von der Leyen insists that the bloc is tired of being scapegoated for its slow vaccine rollout.


Deaths have slowed, too, but not nearly as quickly as new cases. As the number of patients hospitalized with COVID across the US has dropped sharply, another 839 new deaths were reported across the US yesterday, roughly even with levels from late last year.

But while the immunization outlook appears bright, some experts are still worried that COVID mutations and human complacency may conspire to usher in a "fourth wave" of the virus later this year. While cases continue to drop, Dr. Anthony Fauci has continued to criticize states that have decided to lift restrictions "prematurely" (according to the CDC), warning that the growing prevalence of the mutated strain of COVID first detected in the UK could cause a resurgence in new cases. Late last week, Dr. Fauci warned that "when you have that much of viral activity in a plateau, it almost invariably means that you are at risk for another spike."

Gov. Cuomo announced over the weekend that NY restaurants (outside of NYC) can soon reopen dining rooms to 75% capacity. And earlier Monday morning, the New York Times reported that NYC will start welcoming high school students back to classrooms on March 22. NYC's school system, by far the largest in the country, has more than 1MM students enrolled, with nearly 300K students in high school.



According to the plan, which is expected to be formally announced by Mayor de Blasio on Monday, roughly half of the city’s 488 high schools will offer full-time instruction to most, or all, of in-person students (i.e. students who opted last year to return to classrooms as quickly as possible), while the other half will offer hybrid instruction. The city will also restart high school sports for all students, including those who have opted to continue learning remotely. The sports season will run through the summer this year, rather than ending with the school year.

Student-athletes will be required to wear masks at all times.

Even with the return of as many as 55K high school students who signed up for in-person classes last fall, only about a third of all city students will be receiving any in-person instruction.

The remaining 700K students in the city system have chosen to continue receiving instruction remotely, in large part because of lingering concerns about the health risks.

As more states push forward with reopening measures (even California is loosening some restrictions, while Texas has led the charge to drop all restrictions), Dr. Fauci isn't the only high-profile public health official warning about a potential "fourth wave" of the virus. Writing in a WSJ editorial published online last night, Dr. Scott Gottlieb warned that mutant strains of the virus could cause a resurgence of hospitalizations and deaths if the country isn't careful. Even if cases continue to fall through the summer, the presence of the new COVID variants threatens a resurgence in the fall and winter, once the traditional "flu season" risks becoming "COVID season". "The path to normalcy won’t be linear. As summer approaches, things will likely loosen up, but we may need to reinstate stricter precautions in the fall or winter. Not everyone will choose to get vaccinated, and new variants may leave more of us vulnerable," Gottlieb wrote.

Speaking Sunday on CBS’s "Face the Nation", Dr. Fauci said COVID infections remain "very high" and a rush to lift virus-related restrictions risks triggering another surge.

New mutant strains have caused global COVID cases to plateau over the last two weeks. During the last week in February, after six weeks of decline, new cases rose week-over-week, with the level reported last week remaining roughly flat.

 

[vestige]

Vacillating aren't they?

 

[marsh]

CDC: Fully Vaccinated People May Now Gather Without Masks

The CDC released guidelines Monday for fully vaccinated people, allowing indoor gathering without masks.

www.breitbart.com

CDC: Fully Vaccinated People May Now Gather Without Masks
29

AP Photo/Charlie Riedel
JACOB BLISS8 Mar 202182

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released guidelines Monday for fully vaccinated people, allowing indoor gathering without masks.

The CDC’s new guidelines give fully vaccinated people fewer guidelines to follow. The fully vaccinated population is now able to socialize with other vaccinated people indoors without wearing a mask or physical distancing and socialize with unvaccinated people from a single household who are low risk for severe coronavirus while indoors without having to wear masks or social distancing. Furthermore, the CDC said if asymptomatic, people will not have to quarantine and test following a known exposure.

In addition, the CDC recommends fully vaccinated people while in public, visiting with multiple households of unvaccinated people, and near anyone in the higher-risk population still follow the previous guidelines:

• Stay at least 6 feet from people you do not live with.
• Avoid medium- and large-sized in-person gatherings.
• Get tested if experiencing COVID-19 symptoms.
• Follow guidance issued by individual employers.
• Follow CDC and health department travel requirements and recommendations.

The CDC defined its meaning of a “fully vaccinated person”:

A person is considered fully vaccinated two weeks after receiving the last required dose of vaccine. Although vaccinations are accelerating, CDC estimates that just 9.2% of the U.S. population has been fully vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine that the FDA has authorized for emergency use.

CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky said in a press release, “We know that people want to get vaccinated so they can get back to doing the things they enjoy with the people they love.”

“The benefits of avoiding disruptions such as unnecessary quarantine and social isolation may outweigh the residual risk of becoming ill with COVID-19 or transmitting the virus to others,” the CDC said. “The ability of vaccinated people to gradually resume some aspects of normal life will optimize well-being and may help improve vaccine acceptance.”

Multiple governors have started to end statewide mask mandates and coronavirus restrictions. Last week, Texas became the first to reopen fully. At a press conference, Gov. Greg Abbott (R) said, “It is time for Texas to be open 100 percent,” putting an end to statewide mask mandates and reopening businesses.

 

[marsh]

Newly-Released CDC Guidelines For People Who Are 'Fully Vaccinated' Still Include Restrictions -- Here's The 411

The experts are saying that just because you get "The Jab" life doesn't return to the pre-COVID era for you.

clashdaily.com

Newly-Released CDC Guidelines For People Who Are ‘Fully Vaccinated’ Still Include Restrictions — Here’s The 411

Written by K. Walker on March 8, 2021

The experts are saying that just because you get “The Jab” life doesn’t return to the pre-COVID era for you.

Take note that the term “fully vaccinated” is the key here, it doesn’t mean once you’ve received the full dose of the vaccine, it’s two weeks after that. With the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, that means two weeks after the second dose, and two weeks after the single dose of the Johson & Johnson vaccine.

CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky announced the new guidelines on Monday during a White House COVID-19 briefing.

According to the CDC, fully vaccinated individuals can look forward to the following:

• You can gather indoors with fully vaccinated people without wearing a mask.
• You can gather indoors with unvaccinated people from one other household (for example, visiting with relatives who all live together) without masks, unless any of those people or anyone they live with has an increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19.
• If you’ve been around someone who has COVID-19, you do not need to stay away from others or get tested unless you have symptoms.
  • However, if you live in a group setting (like a correctional or detention facility or group home) and are around someone who has COVID-19, you should still stay away from others for 14 days and get tested, even if you don’t have symptoms.

So, hugging grandkids can happen safely again… as long as you’re only gathering with one household.

Leftist partisan hack Journalist Yamiche Alcindor posted some infographics that explain some of the new rules.

But that doesn’t mean that you can ditch that mask despite having the vaccine.

The new guidelines advise “fully-vaccinated” individuals:

• You should still take steps to protect yourself and othersin many situations, like wearing a mask, staying at least 6 feet apart from others, and avoiding crowds and poorly ventilated spaces. Take these precautions whenever you are:
  • In public
  • Gathering with unvaccinated people from more than one other household
  • Visiting with an unvaccinated person who is at increased risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19 or who lives with a person at increased risk

• You should still avoid medium or large-sized gatherings.
• You should still delay domestic and international travel. If you do travel, you’ll still need to follow CDC requirements and recommendations.
• You should still watch out for symptoms of COVID-19, especially if you’ve been around someone who is sick. If you have symptoms of COVID-19, you should get tested and stay home and away from others.
• You will still need to follow guidance at your workplace

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1368959445821239307

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1368959445821239307
4:57 min

Under a section with the heading “What We Know and What We’re Still Learning”, the CDC explains the reasons for the extra caution.

• We knowthat COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing COVID-19 disease, especially severe illness and death.
  • We’re still learning how effective the vaccines are against variants of the virus that causes COVID-19. Early data show the vaccines may work against some variants but could be less effective against others.
• We know that other prevention stepshelp stop the spread of COVID-19, and that these steps are still important, even as vaccines are being distributed.
  • We’re still learning how well COVID-19 vaccines keep people from spreading the disease.
  • Early data show that the vaccines may help keep people from spreading COVID-19, but we are learning more as more people get vaccinated.
• We’re still learning how long COVID-19 vaccines can protect people.
• As we know more, CDC will continue to update our recommendations for both vaccinated and unvaccinated people.

Did you really think that these COVIDictators would give up the “New Normal” so easily?

Nope. They’re saying, “So what if the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines have a greater than 90% efficacy rate? The Pfizer vaccine showed 94% efficacy rate in a real-world study, but you still need to wear the damned mask, peasant! Because you never know what’s around the corner… Lock down, mask up, and don’t ask questions or we’ll call you a ‘Science Denier’ and a Neanderthal. And, heck, we just might take your kids away.”

Look, it’s important to keep people healthy, but let’s be real — there are other costs besides physical health to consider.

Public Health experts have had an outsized voice for the past year and no one has bothered to ask if this is the world that we want to live in — one with kids struggling with e-learning or no learning at all, businesses shutting down, everyone locked in their home when positive cases of the virus get “too high” in an area, no physical contact with loved ones, no family gatherings for the joys and sorrows of life, no ability to say our final goodbyes in person, or even to bury our dead properly. We don’t even let children see the smiles from strangers. What does that do to childhood development? We have no idea. And no one seems to care. The single focus seems to be to completely eradicate an airborne virus. Good luck with that, the Plague still exists.

Maybe a few public health “experts” need to have a chat with Professor Woolhouse, an infectious disease expert who was part of the U.K. response to COVID. He calls lockdowns a “panic measure” that was a “monumental mistake on a global scale.”

But aside from that, perhaps there would be more vaccine buy-in if people — after making an informed choice — are reassured that they can return to the “Old Normal” because their risk of contracting or spreading the virus is minuscule after being “fully vaccinated.”

 

[Weft and Warp]

This was an interesting video (run time 40:43 min), posted on March 1 2021. Proof Wuhan Lab Manipulated Coronaviruses by ADVChina.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrQxWUYHAvc&list=TLPQMDkwMzIwMjG83pLn0hqUMQ&index=3


They talk about the origin of this virus; the Chinese cultural attitude about medicine (in terms of how/why they performed vaccine trials on children as young as 3 years of age); and talk about the WHO scientists who went to look for the origin of the Wuhan virus (after first giving months for the CCP to clean things up and "disappear" some of the scientists at the Wuhan lab); and include video clips of an interview of one of these scientists before this pandemic started and what he said then, vs. what he says now.

 

[marsh]

Dr. Gottlieb: COVID ‘strains’ will not produce new ‘COVID surge’

An American physician said the U.S. is on track to overcome coronavirus and finally reopen. In an interview over the weekend, former FDA chief Dr. Scott Gottlieb asserted a resurgence of COVID-19 is unlikely despite reports of so-called "new strains."

www.oann.com

Dr. Gottlieb: COVID ‘Strains’ Will Not Produce New ‘COVID Surge’

Workers stand near tents at a drive-up mass vaccination site, Thursday, March 4, 2021, in Puyallup, Wash., south of Seattle. Officials said they expected to deliver approximately 2500 second doses of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine at the site Thursday. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 8:35 AM PT – Tuesday, March 9, 2021

An American physician said the U.S. is on track to overcome coronavirus and finally reopen. In an interview over the weekend, former FDA chief Dr. Scott Gottlieb asserted a resurgence of COVID-19 is unlikely despite reports of so-called “new strains.”

“There’s probably some crossover between the immunity you get from B.1.1.7 and immunity against those other strains,” he explained. “I don’t think we’re going to see another surge of infection this spring, but we might see a plateauing before we see continued declines again.”

Dr. Gottlieb added, the decline in new COVID infections may slow down in coming weeks, but then it will dramatically reduce by early summer due to ongoing vaccinations. He said COVID strains are mere variations of the same virus, which the human immune system is able to handle.

“We have more population-wide immunity from this virus from prior infection as well, so people are going to want to start to do things…and we need to take that into consideration in terms of how we’re putting out guidance,” stated the physician. “Just looking at nursing homes alone, if you look at overall deaths they are declining, but of the deaths that are occurring 13 percent right now are occurring in nursing homes.”

Dr. Gottlieb stressed overall vulnerability to COVID is declining amid mass vaccinations, along with herd immunity built up from prior infections. He also endorsed mass vaccination across all age groups by the end on this year, although debates continue if that would be necessary.

The doctor expects that once people are vaccinated, they will want to leave their houses again and called on public health officials to take this into consideration while writing guidelines. He warned, “we can’t be so far behind aspirations of the public that the message itself gets ignored.”

 

[marsh]

108 illegal immigrants in Texas who tested positive for COVID reportedly released

More than 100 illegal immigrants who tested positive for the coronavirus — after their arrival in Texas since late January — have been released by the Border Patrol into the Lon…

nypost.com

108 illegal immigrants in Texas who tested positive for COVID reportedly released
By Mark Moore
March 3, 2021 | 12:14pm | Updated


Surge in COVID-positive migrants being released in US

More than 100 illegal immigrants who tested positive for the coronavirus — after their arrival in Texas since late January — have been released by the Border Patrol into the Lone Star State and are free to travel to other parts of the US, according to reports.

Felipe Romero, a spokesman for the border city of Brownsville, told Fox News that they are telling the migrants who tested positive to follow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines to quarantine and maintain social distance, but that Brownsville doesn’t have the authority to stop them from traveling to the rest of the country.

He said the 108 positives account for 6.3 percent of the total migrants who received rapid tests at the city’s main bus terminal, a program that began on Jan. 25.

Some of the migrants described to Noticias Telemundo Investiga how they were tested at the border and then allowed to hit the streets despite a positive result for the coronavirus.

Miriam Izaguirre, a migrant from Honduras, said she crossed the Rio Grande on Monday with her young son and surrendered to authorities but was released within a few hours by the Border Patrol.


Migrants approach the US border on Gateway International Bridge in Brownsville, Texas.Sergio Flores/Getty Images

“Right now we were tested for COVID and they separated us … because we were positive,” Izaguirre told news site. “We are waiting right now.”

They expect to board a bus to Houston.

Other migrants who tested positive said they plan to travel to North Carolina, Maryland and New Jersey.


Felipe Romero said migrants who tested positive for COVID-19 are being told to quarantine and remain socially distanced.Christian Chavez/AP

Eva Orellana, a migrant from Honduras, said she and her 3-year-old daughter were going to ride the bus to North Carolina.

”On the way we were wearing a mask all the time, gel, washing our hands,” Orellana said. “Really, I don’t feel anything.”

The immigrants said they didn’t receive any documentation that they had tested positive. They were simply informed that they had.

Others said after the test they were directed to another waiting area than the others, but their movements were not restricted.

A Border Patrol spokesperson told the newspaper that migrants receive an initial inspection for symptoms but that only people with suspected cases are sent to local health authorities for “proper testing, diagnosis and treatment.”


A migrant family approaches the US border on Gateway International Bridge in Brownsville, Texas.Sergio Flores/Getty Images

President Biden has been reversing many of former President Donald Trump’s immigration policies since entering the White House, and US Customs and Border Protection said in a report last month that the border is experiencing a surge of migrants.

CBP also said it was sending additional agents to the border in response to the mounting crisis.
But speaking at a White House briefing Monday, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas denied a crisis existed on the border.

“The men and women of the Department of Homeland Security are working around the clock, seven days a week to ensure that we do not have a crisis at the border, that we manage the challenge as acute as the challenge is,” he told reporters.

 

[marsh]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zTtGJz6KG0
15:37 min
A Hidden Cost of COVID
•Mar 9, 2021


Strong Medicine Dr. Eric Strong - Stanford Med.
A discussion of hospital visitor policies during the COVID pandemic, and the current case for relaxing them.

 

[marsh]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnvdUAiTw54
51:27 min

Improving Stress, Anxiety, and The Immune System Amidst COVID 19

•Mar 9, 2021


MedCram - Medical Lectures Explained CLEARLY
Professor Seheult, MD details fascinating research and links between stress, anxiety, depression, and our immune systems including: How do Olympic athletes optimize health in preparation for competition? How do stress, anxiety, and depression impact our immunity at the cellular level? What are the implications of this for COVID-19? (This video was recorded on March 8, 2021) Roger Seheult, MD is the co-founder and lead professor at https://www.medcram.com He is Board Certified in Internal Medicine, Pulmonary Disease, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine and an Associate Professor at the University of California, Riverside School of Medicine.

LINKS / REFERENCES: Top E.R. Doctor Who Treated Virus Patients Dies by Suicide (NYT) | https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/27/ny... Association of Home Quarantine and Mental Health Among Teenagers in Wuhan, China, During the COVID-19 Pandemic (JAMA) | https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama... Chronic stress, glucocorticoid receptor resistance, inflammation, and disease risk (PNAS) | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti... Synergistic effects of psychological and immune stressors on inflammatory cytokine and sickness responses in humans (Science Direct) | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science... Anxiety about coronavirus can increase the risk of infection — but exercise can help (The Conversation) | https://theconversation.com/anxiety-a... NLRP3 inflammasome-driven pathways in depression: Clinical and preclinical findings (Science Direct) | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science... The inflammasome: Pathways linking psychological stress, depression, and systemic illnesses (Brain, Behavior, and Immunity) | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti... The compelling link between physical activity and the body's defense system (Science Direct) | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science... Exercise reduces depression and inflammation but intensity matters (Science Direct) | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science... Cardiopulmonary Considerations for High School Student-Athletes During the COVID-19 Pandemic: NFHS-AMSSM Guidance Statement (SAGE) | https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full...

 

[marsh]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzOBRIAkbk
11:32 min
271 - COVID-19 and Immunosuppressant Drugs

•Mar 10, 2021


Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

Does taking immunosuppressant drugs put you at higher risk of more serious disease from COVID-19? Dr. Caleb Alexander and PhD candidate Kayte Anderson talk with Dr. Josh Sharfstein about their new research looking into this question. They also discuss future research to tackle the next set of critical questions for the millions of people who need these medications to stay healthy.

 

[marsh]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuXYqtPWngE
1:04:29 min

COVID-19 Vaccine Safety & Effectiveness & How to Address Patient Questions

•Mar 10, 2021


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

During this COCA call, clinicians will receive an update on COVID-19 vaccine safety and effectiveness for the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, including data on COVID-19 vaccine safety in pregnancy. Clinicians will also get information about the v-safe COVID-19 Pregnancy Registry, which collects additional health information that helps CDC monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in people who are pregnant.

 

[marsh]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFw7XlTojKE
31:14 min

CA Governor Won't Give Up Lockdown Policies Because Of "Inequity," Democrats Exploit COVID For Power

•Mar 10, 2021


Tim Pool

CA Governor Won't Give Up Lockdown Policies Because Of "Inequity," Democrats Exploit COVID For Power. Democrat governor Gavin Newsom says there will be no return to normal because normal means inequity. Republican states have been lifting lockdowns, putting an end to COVID restrictions deemed widely unpopular across the country. For this many leftists have heavily criticized Republican governors for their actions. But using social justice as an excuse to maintain COVID emergency powers reeks of authoritarianism.

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Stanford Medical Professor Insists COVID Lockdowns "Worst Public Health Mistake In Last 100 Years"

WEDNESDAY, MAR 10, 2021 - 16:40

Dr. Scott Atlas isn't the only Stanfordite to embrace the principles of the Great Barrington Declaration. The former advisor to President Trump delivered a final address yesterday that summed up his criticisms of the US COVID-19 response, particularly the draconian lockdowns that destroyed millions of jobs and hundreds of thousands of small businesses.


In his speech, Dr. Atlas warned that the response to COVID-19 in the US has underscored a lack of diverse viewpoints on American college campuses and in the American mainstream press.

First, I have been shocked at the enormous power of the government, to unilaterally decree, to simply close businesses and schools by edict, restrict personal movement, mandate behavior, and eliminate our most basic freedoms, without any end and little accountability.

Second, I remain surprised at the acceptance by the American people of draconian rules, restrictions, and unprecedented mandates, even those that are arbitrary, destructive, and wholly unscientific.

This crisis has also exposed what we all have known existed, but we have tolerated for years: the overt bias of the media, the lack of diverse viewpoints on campuses, the absence of neutrality in big tech controlling social media, and now more visibly than ever, the intrusion of politics into science. Ultimately, the freedom to seek and state the truth is at risk here in the United States.

Well, as it turns out, Dr. Atlas isn't alone. In a recent email interview with Newsweek, Stanford's Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor at the medical school, warned that the lockdowns would be remembered as the "biggest public health mistake we've ever made...the harm to people is catastrophic." Bhattacharya was one of the co-authors, along with Dr. Atlas, of the Great Barrington Declaration.

I stand behind my comment that the lockdowns are the single worst public health mistake in the last 100 years. We will be counting the catastrophic health and psychological harms, imposed on nearly every poor person on the face of the earth, for a generation.

At the same time, they have not served to control the epidemic in the places where they have been most vigorously imposed. In the US, they have - at best - protected the "non-essential" class from COVID, while exposing the essential working class to the disease. The lockdowns are trickle down epidemiology.

Bhattacharya explained that his support of the declaration stems from "two basic facts".

"One is that people who are older have a much higher risk from dying from COVID than people who are younger...and that's a really important fact because we know who his most vulnerable, it's people that are older. So the first plank of the Great Barrington Declaration: let's protect the vulnerable," Bhattacharya said.

"The other idea is that the lockdowns themselves impose great harm on people. Lockdowns are not a natural normal way to live."

He also cautioned that lockdowns have aggravated economic inequality by creating an undue burden for the poor. "it's also not very equal," Bhattacharya explained. "People who are poor face much more hardship from the lockdowns than people who are rich."

As of Monday, the Great Barrington Declaration has received signatures from over 13,000 medical and public health scientists, and more than 41,000 medical practitioners, along with at least 754,399 "concerned citizens".

US states are already moving to roll back restrictions, with Texas and Mississippi leading the charge to lift all remaining vestiges of the lockdown, while blue states like Connecticut and Maryland have also laid out plans to ease their COVID measures, as the closures increasingly chafe voters. Meanwhile, federal authorities like Dr. Anthony Fauci have continued to urge states to wait, warning that mutated strains of the virus could cause a resurgence if the US gives them an opening.

 

[marsh]

COVID Researchers to CDC: Open Up the Schools

pjmedia.com

COVID Researchers to CDC: Open Up the Schools
BY JIM TREACHER MAR 09, 2021 3:59 PM ET

AP Feed
We’re coming up on the anniversary of March 13, 2020, the very unlucky Friday the 13th when most of America went into COVID-19 lockdown. If you were like me (and if so, sorry), you did what they told you to do. You socially distanced and got your groceries delivered and washed your hands 20 times a day. You didn’t wear a mask when Anthony Fauci told you not to wear a mask, and you started wearing a mask when Fauci turned on a dime and suddenly insisted you must. Well, this is the first time a pandemic like this has hit the United States in 100 years, you may have thought to yourself. They’re not gonna get everything right the first time, but they have our best interests at heart. Trust the science, right? The economy will take a hit, but it beats being dead!

Almost a year later, that seems like naivete at best. I don’t know about you, but I feel like a sucker. Sure, I haven’t gotten sick, but I also haven’t… well, I haven’t done pretty much anything else. For an entire year. And I’m relatively lucky. Most people can’t work from home, and all sorts of businesses across the board have suffered. Financially, psychologically, emotionally, you name it. We haven’t seen the worst-case scenario we were warned about, but it sure ain’t the best case either.

And now I read stuff like the Stanford doctor who calls the past year the “biggest public health mistake we’ve ever made.” Thousands of other doctors and scientists agree, and they’ve signed something called the Great Barrington Declaration, pleading with public officials to lift the lockdowns because they’re doing more harm to public health than good.

Well, if you’re depending on the CDC to keep guiding you through this, think again. Dr. Tara O. Henderson, Dr. Monica Gandhi, Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, and Dr. Daniel Johnson, writing in USA Today:

CDC misinterpreted our research on opening schools. It should loosen the rules now.

The recent school reopening guidance released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is an example of fears influencing and resulting in misinterpretation of science and harmful policy. In the U.S. 50% of schools are closed and more only partially open. President Biden ran on a campaign indicating that science and data would guide his policy. As we approach the anniversary of the first COVID shut down, this approach is needed more than ever, especially when it comes to schools…

First, children are not at significant risk of poor outcomes from COVID-19. As of March 3, 2021, 286 children have died from COVID in the U.S., compared to >500,000 adults. While the death of any child is devastating, this is similar to the number that dies from influenza each year…

Second, viral spread is minimal in schools with appropriate safety precautions, even in communities with a high disease prevalence…

Third, no science supports mandating 6 feet of distance with children wearing masks. A 6 foot distance between students creates space constraints for schools to open in entirety…



Fourth, despite fear-mongering regarding variants in the U.S., we have not seen evidence that variants are spreading through in-person schools.

Read the whole thing. These aren’t just some yahoos. They’re doctors. They probably wear lab coats and everything. And they’re saying we should open up the schools.

But a lot of people don’t want to do that. The CDC doesn’t want to do that. We’re getting stuff like this:


And our moral, ethical, and intellectual betters in the press are framing such nonsense like this:


Did you know that the CDC gives you freedoms and can take them away? I did not know that was how it worked. I must’ve missed that day in school.

And now they’re even downplaying these vaccines! “Don’t get your hopes up,” we’re told. “You still have to lock down and wear a mask. No, make that two masks! How about three? Can I get three masks?”

Enough. I’m one of the many people who have voluntarily locked down, and a year is more than sufficient. I’m tired of being afraid. I’m tired of watching frauds like Anthony Fauci and Andrew Cuomo soak in accolades for lying to me.

I’m getting the vaccine as soon as I can. I’ll wear a mask when I’m in a private business that requires it, just so all the Karens stay off my back. Beyond that, leave me alone. I don’t want to hear it anymore.

 

[marsh]

What does 95% effective mean for a Covid-19 vaccine? - Economics Observatory

On 9 November 2020, the world woke to the uplifting news that a safe and effective vaccine for Covid-19 was within reach.

www.economicsobservatory.com

6 JAN 2021 DEBOPAM BHATTACHARYA

What does 95% effective mean for a Covid-19 vaccine?
Pfizer/BioNTech’s vaccine was reported as being 95% effective. This number is not your chance of staying Covid-free after vaccination: rather, it estimates how much your chance rises relative to not being vaccinated. With the vaccine, your chance of staying Covid-free is in fact 99.96%.

On 9 November 2020, the world woke to the uplifting news that a safe and effective vaccine for Covid-19 was within reach. Pfizer and BioNTech reported results of their clinical trial for the vaccine to justifiably great acclaim. The vaccine was said to be 95% effective, based on outcomes observed so far. This was followed by news about two other vaccines with similarly high effectiveness.

Many people, including journalists, have interpreted 95% effectiveness as meaning: ‘If I take the vaccine, then there is at most a 5% chance that I will catch Covid-19’. That is not what effectiveness means, as reported in the vaccine studies. Here, we explain precisely what ‘effectiveness’ means statistically, and clarify how sample sizes affect the calculation of this rate and its reliability.

Some media reports have recognised the fact that participants in the Pfizer trial are not a random sample from the full population, since participation is subject to many restrictions in terms of their pre-existing conditions, and of course, the trial’s subjects have to volunteer as well. Therefore, some sub-groups of the population (for example, those in frail health) were excluded from the study, and so we do not know what the impact of the vaccine would be on such individuals.

Furthermore, it is not clear that all participants were regularly tested for infection. What we discuss below, however, is distinct from these issues, and concerns clarification of how to measure effectiveness itself and understand its reliability, allowing for the fact that the study represents a sub-group of the population.

What were the study’s design and reported results?

In the Pfizer study, a total of 21,999 people had received two doses of the vaccine and an equal number had received the placebo. There were a total of 170 Covid-19 positive cases in the study, with eight of them being those who had received the vaccine and 162 of them being those who had received the placebo. The following table summarises this information:

The 95% efficacy that Pfizer reported can be obtained as the percentage reduction of positive cases in the vaccinated group compared with those who received the placebo, which equals 100 x (162-8)/162 = 95.06%. Alternatively, it can be obtained as the percentage of positive cases in the placebo group, which equals 100 x 162/170 = 95.29%.

On the other hand, the chances of remaining Covid-free with the vaccine equals 100 x 21,991/21,999 = 99.96%, which is the number that most potential recipients of the vaccine want to know. Even without the vaccine, it is very high at 100 x 21,837/21,999 = 99.26% (although it is important to remember that the trial group in the study is not representative of the whole population).

What is being estimated here and how reliable is it?

The study was designed to allow one to extrapolate from the small number of participants to the much larger world population. One issue is that the total number of Covid-19 cases reported in the study is quite small compared with the 85 million cases so far reported worldwide and the even larger potential number of cases. This raises the question of the precision of these percentages – that is, what is the margin of error around the reported numbers as a measure of the true efficacy that would result when applied to the entire population?

Note that in general, one needs to account for the sample size in each arm of the trial to obtain efficacy rates. To see why, note that the measure reported above depends solely on the number of positive cases in each arm of the trial. So suppose instead that the table looked like this:

This differs from the previous table in that we have artificially changed the number vaccinated versus the number receiving the placebo among the non-positives and left the number of positive cases unaltered. Then the effectiveness measures calculated above will not change.

But it is obvious that the vaccine is much less effective in this case, since the proportion positive in the vaccinated case has increased from 8/21,999 to 8/3,400 – that is, from 36 per 100,000 to nearly six times that at 235 per 100,000. This issue does not cause problems in interpreting the Pfizer trial because it had an equal number on the placebo and vaccine arms.

How should one take sample size into account?

To see how to take sample sizes into account, note that one can view the incidence of Covid-19 as similar to a coin toss, except that the two outcomes need not be equally likely and their relative chances unknown.

Suppose that the chance of an individual contracting Covid-19 is v when vaccinated, and p when not. The Pfizer trial gives us estimates of these unknown probabilities based on a sample from these respective populations; these estimates are: vest = 8/21,999 = 0.00036 and pest = 162/21,999 = 0.0073.

These numbers tell us that based on the trial, the estimated chance of getting Covid-19 is 36 in 100,000 with the vaccine and 736 in 100,000 without it. We can also calculate the degree of accuracy in these estimates using a statistical model known as the binomial distribution.

It is clear that a summary measure of effectiveness should be based only on how large p is relative to v. Therefore, a reasonable measure of effectiveness in the population is the quantity E* = 1 – v/p, which tells us how much the vaccine reduces infections relative to the base rate.

The estimated value of this is 1 – 0.00036/0.0073 = 95.06%. The ‘confidence interval’ for E* (this calculation also requires knowing the sample sizes on each arm of the trial) equals [94.94, 95.17] which, statistically speaking, is the range that contains the unknown E* with high accuracy.

Indeed, if the sample sizes in the treatment and placebo arms are equal, then both methods would give identical answers. But if they are not, as was the case in the Oxford study reported a few weeks later, then the calculations we suggest need to be applied to make the result correspond to the World Health Organization’s definition of effectiveness as ‘the proportional reduction of disease in the vaccine group’.

Where can I find out more?

• Pfizer and BioNTech announce vaccine candidate against COVID-19 achieved success in first interim analysis from Phase 3 Study: The 9 November press release from Pfizer
• Pfizer’s ‘95% effective’ vaccine: from the New Scientist
• Oxford University trial results in The Lancet: 8 December 2020
• Pfizer protocol details

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

US Household Wealth Hits Record $130 Trillion As "Top 1%" Have Never Been Richer While Poor Drown In Debt

THURSDAY, MAR 11, 2021 - 14:25

The Fed's latest Flow of Funds report released at noon today showed the latest snapshot of the US "household" sector as of Dec 31 2020, which confirmed that not long after the biggest drop in household net worth on record when $8 trillion was wiped out in Q1, 2020, in the 4th quarter of 2020, the net worth of US households soared by $6.93 trillion - the second biggest quarterly increase in history - to a record $130.2 trillion.




As usual, the biggest swing factor was in the value of market-linked securities: in Q4, the value of directly and indirectly held corporate equities increased by $4.881 trillion due to the continued surge in stock prices (after the record $5.95 trillion increase in Q2) to a record $39.8 trillion, while the value of real estate held by households by a far more modest $800 billion. The high rate of personal saving also contributed to the increase in net worth, while the value of real estate held by households increased modestly.

As a percentage of Disposable Personal Income, total assets also hit a new all-time high of 853% of DPI, while net worth was 754% of disposable income, also a record high.

\

Real estate ($32.0 trillion) and directly and indirectly held corporate equities ($39.8 trillion) were among the largest components of household net worth. Homeowners’ real estate holdings minus the change in mortgage debt rose $654.5 billion (a positive value indicates that the value of real estate is growing at a faster pace than household mortgage debt). Finally,owners’ equity as a percentage of total real estate value rose to 65.87% to a level of $21.103 trillion



On the liabilities side, total credit rose from $16.37 trillion to $16.64 trillion.


Household debt grew by 6.5% in the fourth quarter of 2020. Home mortgages increased by 5.2%, after growing by 5.7% in the third quarter. Nonmortgage consumer credit increased at a more moderate 2.3% pace, about the same pace as in the third quarter. The increase in consumer credit reflects growth in auto loans and student loans, while credit card balances continued to decline. Alarming growth in margin debt also boosted household debt growth over the second half of 2020.

Nonfinancial business debt edged up at a modest rate of 0.8%, reflecting increases in corporate bonds outstanding and declines in nonmortgage depository loans. Federal debt rose 10.9%. State and local debt increased 1.7%.

As GDP continued to recover in the third quarter, the ratio of nonfinancial debt to GDP moved down further. In the second quarter, the ratio had spiked, driven by the drop in GDP and the expansion in federal debt related to the fiscal stimulus.

Looking at the various components of nonfinancial business debt, nonmortgage depository loans to nonfinancial business declined $118 billion, reflecting forgiveness of loans extended under the Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP, and weak loan origination. Nonmortgage depository loans had expanded notably over the first half of 2020 as firms tapped their lines of credit at banks and PPP loans were disbursed. Partly offsetting the decline in nonmortgage bank loans, corporate bonds continued to increase, although at a slower pace than in the second and third quarters.



Overall, outstanding nonfinancial corporate debt was $11.1 trillion. Corporate bonds, at roughly $6.5 trillion, accounted for 59% of the total. Nonmortgage depository loans were about $1.1 trillion. Other types of debt include loans from nonbank institutions, loans from the federal government, and commercial paper.

The nonfinancial noncorporate business sector consists mostly of smaller businesses, which are typically not incorporated. Nonfinancial noncorporate business debt was $6.6 trillion, of which $4.6 trillion were mortgage loans and $1.6 trillion were nonmortgage depository loans.



The bottom line is that (especially if one ignores the debt - which clearly will be monetized or hyperinflated by the Fed before it all comes crashing down) the US economy has never been stronger. And while it would be great news if wealth across all of America had indeed risen as much as the Fed claims, the reality is that there is a big catch: as shown previously, virtually all of the net worth, and associated increase thereof, has only benefited a handful of the wealthiest Americans.

According to a record Census Bureau report, over the past decade, during an economic expansion that benefited most Americans, the richest made out the best. In fact, the CB found that the top 5% of households - those making $451,122 on average last year - have seen their inflation-adjusted incomes jump 28% since 2009.

The gain - which helped push inequality to the widest in decades - compares with a mere 11% rise for the bottom 20%, whose income rose to about $15,290 from roughly $13,800 a decade ago. Those in the middle groups - who made between $40,600 and $111,100 last year - saw their incomes rise between 16% to 18%, the data show.



A separate breakdown of the change in net worth, as also discussed previously, one which looks at median net worth by age of head (of household) shows that the oldest Americans - those 65 and older - have seen gains in their net worth by over 60%, while everyone else is either flat or down!



This underscores just how endemic poverty is in America, even in times of economic expansion. While incomes have increased, so has the cost of living, with consumer prices rising 20% since 2009. Meanwhile, while financial assets - those which have grown the most in the past decade - soaring thanks to the Fed's generous monetary policy and benefiting those who own financial assets, this turns out to be a tiny sliver of the population. In the CBO's latest, if somewhat dated, Trends in Family Wealth analysis published in 2016, the budget office showed a breakdown of the net worth chart by wealth group, which sadly shows how the "average" American wealth is anything but, and in reality most of that $100 trillion belongs to just 10% of the US population. The distribution has only gotten worse since then.



Here is how the CBO recently explained the wealth is distributed:

• In 2013, families in the top 10 percent of the wealth distribution held 76 percent of all family wealth, families in the 51st to the 90th percentiles held 23 percent, and those in the bottom half of the distribution held 1 percent.
• Average wealth was about $4 million for families in the top 10 percent of the wealth distribution, $316,000 for families in the 51st to 90th percentiles, and $36,000 for families in the 26th to 50th percentiles. On average, families at or below the 25th percentile were $13,000 in debt.

In other words, roughly 75% of the $7.6 trillion increase in assets went to benefit just 10% of the population, who also account for roughly 76% of America's financial net worth. It also means that just 10% of the US population is worth roughly $90 trillion, while half of the US population was virtually no wealth, and if anything it is deeply in debt.



Even worse, when looking at how wealth distribution changed since the 1980s, an even more dire picture emerges: family wealth grew at significantly different rates for different segments of the U.S. population. In 2013, for example:The wealth of families at the 90th percentile of the distribution was 54% greater than the wealth at the 90th percentile in 1989, after adjusting for changes in prices.

• The wealth of those at the median was 4 percent greater than the wealth of their counterparts in 1989.
• The wealth of families at the 25th percentile was 6 percent less than that of their counterparts in 1989.
• As the chart below shows, nobody has experienced the same cumulative growth in after-tax income as the "Top 1%"

The above is particularly topical at a time when both parties is trying to take credit for any fledgling US recovery. Here, while previously Democrats, and now Republicans tout the US "income recovery" they may have forgotten about half of America, but one entity remembers well: loan collectors. As the chart below shows, America's poor families have never been more in debt.

The share of families in debt (those whose total debt exceeded their total assets) remained almost unchanged between 1989 and 2007 and then increased by 50 percent between 2007 and 2013. In 2013, those families were more in debt than their counterparts had been either in 1989 or in 2007. For instance, 8 percent of families were in debt in 2007 and, on average, their debt exceeded their assets by $20,000. By 2013, in the aftermath of the recession of 2007 to 2009, 12 percent of families were in debt and, on average, their debt exceeded their assets by $32,000.

The increase in average indebtedness between 2007 and 2013 for families in debt was mainly the result of falling home equity and rising student loan balances. In 2007, 3 percent of families in debt had negative home equity: They owed, on average, $16,000 more than their homes were worth. In 2013, that share was 19 percent of families in debt, and they owed, on average, $45,000 more than their homes were worth. The share of families in debt that had outstanding student debt rose from 56 percent in 2007 to 64 percent in 2013, and the average amount of their loan balances increased from $29,000 to $41,000.

And there - as we say quarter after quarter- is your "recovery": the wealthy have never been wealthier, while half of America, some 50% of households, own just 1% of the country's wealth, down from 3% in 1989. And finally, America's poor have never been more in debt.

 

[marsh]

Gavin Newsom Tells Californians They Are Never Going Back To Normal After COVID Because of ‘Acceptance of Inequality’

Follow America's fastest-growing news aggregator, Spreely News, and stay informed. You can find all of our articles plus information from your favorite Conservative voices. During his State of the State Address, California Governor Gavin Newsom said that California is NOT going back to normal...

libertyonenews.com

Gavin Newsom Tells Californians They Are Never Going Back To Normal After COVID Because of ‘Acceptance of Inequality’

By Rich Welsh


During his State of the State Address, California Governor Gavin Newsom said that California is NOT going back to normal AFTER the pandemic.

Folks, that’s a brilliant message to send to an agitated constituency after a year of winging it through the COVID-19 response always tending to be on the totalitarian side with a lot of hypocrisy blended in.

Do you know that saying that whatever starts in California eventually makes its way across the country? Be forewarned folks, because this bullschtein wasn’t done off the cuff. It’s a precursor test to see how much backlash comes of it. If you do not complain then it will come to your town too.

We’ve always known that the Democrats are a group of hypocrites who hate the middle class, or the Great Unwashed if you will. They hate them because Democrats think they are better than them, that filthy middle-class voters should be thankful for them and they’re not. It’s because the Great Unwashed are people who are not sophisticated like them. They look down on them even though for years they claimed to live and breathe just to make their lives better. It was always a lie.

Elected Democrats have now moved into the phase of preparing for total communism. Don’t take that as hyperbole. That would be a mistake. The difference between socialism and communism, at least the main difference, is that under communism, the electorate no longer has the impression that what they want matters.

The Democrats hated having to appease the Great Unwashed for so long and now they have come to realize they don’t need them anymore. They no longer need to kiss up to the Great Unwashed for their votes. They have special voting systems now and that’s all that matters. I know we’re not supposed to talk about that, but isn’t that fact the deciding factor that pushed Democrat tyrants over the edge, the comfort of knowing no matter what they do they will always remain in power? Now they can openly do whatever they want without having to worry about the backlash.

Socialists/Communists have always believed that it was their destiny to create a utopian heaven on earth in their eyes and if the Great Unwashed are resistant then they will do it by force, because it’s good for them, even though Democrats in charge hate them because they don’t love and accept their “wisdumb.” This image they have of a utopian society doesn’t really include the Great Unwashed. They see a Brave New World kind of society where they get to live in comfort without having to do much physical work while the Great Unwashed does everything else, and they are thankful. At least the Woke Supremacy will believe they are thankful, and they will never have to deal with the Great Unwashed again.

This right now is a pivotal moment in our history. If we allow the Gavin Newsoms to get away with their Great Reset we will go past the point where we can do anything about it. The window is closing.

Gavin Newsom gave his State of the State speech from an empty Dodger Stadium, probably just to rub it in, where he vowed to deliver a New And Improved Normal, but it went over about as well as the revelations of when he dined out at a French restaurant with his rich friends and no one wore masks or socially distanced at the dinner even though he had forced a mask mandate and lockdowns on the Great Unwashed clearly revealing that the whole mask mandate thing was nothing more than the new socialist’s uniform that people will wear. And you will wear them!

His speech was the stuff that recall elections are made of:

From excerpts of his speech, Newsom said “we’re not going back to normal” because “normal accepts inequity.” What the hell does that leftist gobbledygook have to do with the COVID pandemic? Thanks to this guy the only company doing great in California is U-Haul.

The governor went on to say that this acceptance of inequality is why Latinos died from COVID at a higher rate than any other racial groups in the state, why wages earned by essential workers aren’t enough to live on, and other things designed to support a power grab.

WATCH:

View: https://youtu.be/Mnzg9oaX7wg
48:51

I am so sick of hearing Democrat politicians say that a virus or our system to deal with a virus is racist. Some group of people had to be the top one to catch the virus, and apparently, Democrats are angry it wasn’t CIS white men. If more Latinos caught the virus than any other group it’s not because our hospitals who by law must accept anyone without regard to being able to pay are racist. It’s not racism that causes poverty in the United States in 2021. There are no laws that allow racism in our health care industry. There are COVID laws however that put many Hispanics and others out of work because of the virus.

I would have to say that Gavin Newsom is a deadly virus because he’s the one who created the skyrocketing unemployment numbers in his state harming millions of lives through mandates of mitigation for a virus that he himself doesn’t take seriously enough to mask up and socially distance himself from his rich friends at a French restaurant!

This clown used Dodgers Stadium as a prop for showing how many Californians have died under his leadership. While the Woke Supremacy blamed Donald Trump for every new case and every death from coronavirus, these tyrants feel they can say anything because after all, it’s not their fault. It’s Donald Trump’s fault.

The message Newsom sent by using a backdrop that only makes people remember they can no longer go to sporting events because of him has to be the most oblivious, least-caring, tone-deaf messaging ever given to a population that has been forced into lockdown for about a year where small businesses have been put out of business forever, where their children are facing psychological problems for being forced into at-home virtual learning and they have no idea how they’re going to pay their bills. And Newsom is telling them that he’s going to use the Great Reset to upend their lives even more for things they have no control over.

If Gavin Newsom believes California is systemically racist through government policy then he has nowhere else to look but at the Democratic Party of California. Democrats have enjoyed supermajorities in the California state legislature for over a decade and they had regular majorities in both houses of the legislature since 1996. The state’s largest cities, Los Angeles and San Francisco have been run by progressive Democrats for decades. Democrats also run most of the smaller cities and towns as well. It is a one-party state and has been for a very long time. If the state is systemically racist because of the “system” then it’s because of the Democratic Party, because the Republicans have no power to be able to screw things up.

You cannot call it oppression when you keep voting for it, and apparently, there are enough people in California who keep voting for it.

 

[marsh]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EL9QyRqOh8
11:18 min

272 Understanding the CDC’s New COVID-19 Guidance for Vaccinated People

•Mar 11, 2021


Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

This week, the CDC released new guidance for vaccinated people who can resume some lower-risk activities. Dr. Tara Kirk Sell from the Center for Health Security talks with Stephanie Desmon about the impacts of “relaxing the rules,” how this might help vaccine uptake, what we might expect next in terms of “Phase 2” guidance, and how we can all help those who are still awaiting their shot(s).

 

[marsh]

EXCLUSIVE: Republicans Send Letter To DHS Secretary About COVID-19 Positive Illegal Immigrants Being Bused To NC

Republicans sent a letter to DHS Secretary Mayorkas demanding to know why illegal immigrants testing positive for COVID are allowed to seek asylum in the U.S.

dailycaller.com

EXCLUSIVE: Republicans Send Letter To DHS Secretary About COVID-19 Positive Illegal Immigrants Being Bused To NC

Photo by Andrew Harnik-Pool/Getty Images

HENRY RODGERSSENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT
March 11, 202111:46 AM ET

Republican North Carolina Reps. Dan Bishop and Richard Hudson are sending a letter to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas demanding answers on why illegal immigrants reportedly testing positive for COVID-19 are allowed to seek asylum in the U.S., specifically their state.

The Daily Caller first obtained the letter Bishop and Hudson will send Thursday, which references reports that illegal immigrants have been waiting to be transferred from Texas to North Carolina, New Jersey and Maryland. The two North Carolina Republicans questioned the Biden administration’s immigration policies, asking why illegal immigrants are reportedly being put on charter busses to go to their state.

Eva Orellana, a 29-year-old illegal immigrant from Honduras who tested positive for COVID-19, told NBC News she was going to take a bus to North Carolina with her 3-year-old daughter.
“On the way, we were wearing a mask all the time, gel, washing our hands,” Orellana said. “Really, I don’t feel anything.”

Hudson and Bishop also asked Mayorkas if the DHS used taxpayer money to bus the illegal immigrants to North Carolina, among other questions. The letter was signed by all North Carolina Republicans in the House. As of March 10, the 7-day average fell to 3.7% positive, the lowest level since October 2020. Republicans fear these policies could cause a spike in the numbers.

READ THE LETTER HERE: Scribd doc on website


Daily Caller Obtained Lette… by Henry Rodgers

The Biden administration has continued to face criticism for reopening several Trump-era facilities at the southern border used to house minors attempting to illegally cross the border. White House press secretary Jen Psaki has said it is a temporary process and mainly in place because of COVID-19.

The letter to Mayorkas asks four specific questions:

• “Was DHS or any other federal government entity involved in funding, planning, or otherwise facilitating the purchase of charter bus tickets from the Southern Border to North Carolina for COVID-19 positive illegal immigrants?”
• “Has your office provided any officials in North Carolina with information regarding illegal immigrants who have tested positive for COVID-19 that are arriving in the state?”
• “What actions are being taken by the Biden Administration to ensure illegal immigrants who have tested positive for COVID-19 are quarantined before they are released into American communities?”
• “The current CDC guidance recommends COVID-19 positive individuals spend at least 14 days in quarantine. Has DHS met all quarantine regulations before releasing COVID-19 positive migrants into the interior of our nation?”

Mayorkas said March 1 that despite the surge of illegal immigrants crossing the border, there is not a “crisis” at the border.

 

[marsh]

Hollywood Line-Cutters Shut Down Vaccine Center › American Greatness

A COVID-19 vaccine center in Pasadena, California, set to take place on Thursday was shuttered after the majority of its time slots were filled with those who work in Hollywood and the media…

amgreatness.com

Hollywood Line-Cutters Shut Down Vaccine Center
By Catherine Smith

March 11, 2021

ACOVID-19 vaccine center in Pasadena, California, set to take place on Thursday was shuttered after the majority of its time slots were filled with those who work in Hollywood and the media, Variety reported.

According to The Los Angeles Times, California officials confirmed that ineligible workers from Hollywood’s production, media, and streaming companies within the first hour took 900 out of the 1,500 available appointment slots at a clinic aimed at people over age 65 and essential workers such as grocery store employees, who live or work in Pasadena.

“Hundreds signed up within the first hour,” city spokeswoman Lisa Derderian said. “It was like rapid fire.”

An email with a registration link was sent last week from the Pasadena Public Health Department to those who qualified for an appointment at the clinic through the state-wide vaccination website.

The email also told workers they would be required to present proof that they worked in an eligible industry and lived or worked in Pasadena, according to The Los Angeles Times.

“They were not in the current tier. A lot of them worked for the streaming, video and production companies or news, and they didn’t live or work in Pasadena,” Derderian said.

“We do check for ID. We will turn you away if you don’t meet the current tier, if you don’t live in town or work in town,” Derderian stated.

“Our health officer will not risk her credentials or the health department’s licensing or the city’s reputation. We are very strict in adhering to the guidelines.”

City officials decided to close the clinic indefinitely because calling 900 people within a few days to verify their eligibility or ask them not to come was just too much, Derderian said.

Residents pointed out that on the registration site, there was a drop-down menu asking what industry the person registering works in: “Service — entertainment, performance.”

Officials also noted that canceling the clinic was particularly difficult news for many senior citizens who had struggled to get appointments, Derderian said.

“Some cried when they learned their appointments had been moved,” Derderian said.
As of Tuesday, no new date has been scheduled for the clinic to reopen.

 

[marsh]

YouTube Blacklists 30,000 Videos It Claims Are Coronavirus Vaccine 'Misinformation'

Google-owned video platform YouTube has reportedly removed more than 30,000 videos that the Masters of the Universe claim made misleading or false claims about coronavirus vaccines over the last six months.

www.breitbart.com

YouTube Blacklists 30,000 Videos It Claims Are Coronavirus Vaccine ‘Misinformation’
57

Kimberly White /Getty
LUCAS NOLAN12 Mar 2021203

Google-owned video platform YouTube has reportedly removed more than 30,000 videos that the Masters of the Universe claim made misleading or false claims about coronavirus vaccines over the last six months.

AXIOS reports that YouTube spokesperson Elena Hernandez has revealed that YouTube has removed more than 30,000 videos that it claims made misleading or false claims about coronavirus vaccines in the last six months, providing the first release of numbers on the topic.

YouTube began including vaccination misinformation in its COVID-19 medical misinformation policy in October 2020.

Since February 2020, YouTube has removed more than 800,000 videos containing coronavirus misinformation, the videos are first flagged by the company’s AI or a human reviewer. The videos are then sent for another level of review before a decision is made on whether or not to remove them.

Videos that violate YouTube’s policy relating to misinformation about vaccines include those that contradict expert consensus on the vaccines from health authorities or the World Health Organization.

Accounts that violate YouTube’s policy rules are subject to its “strike” system which can result in accounts being permanently banned from the platform.

Facebook and Twitter have adopted similar policies to YouTube and have worked to remove misleading information about the coronavirus and vaccines from their various platforms.

 

[marsh]

Over $57 billion in hidden taxes lurking in Biden's $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill

The tax changes include new limitations on the interest expenses that multinational corporations can deduct.

justthenews.com

Over $57 billion in hidden taxes lurking in Biden's $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill

The tax changes include new limitations on the interest expenses that multinational corporations can deduct.

By Nicholas Ballasy
Updated: March 12, 2021 - 12:17pm

There is more than $57 billion worth of hidden tax increases in President Joe Biden's $1.9 trillion coronavirus stimulus bill, Just the News has learned.

The final version of the legislation expands the number of employees who are covered by the $1 million limitation on the deductibility of executive compensation.

According to National Law Review, section 162(m) of the tax code "generally prohibits a public company from deducting more than $1 million in compensation paid to a current or former covered employee in a taxable year," and under current law "the covered employees are the chief executive officer, chief financial officer, and the three other highest compensated officers for the taxable year."

The executive compensation deduction change in the stimulus bill covers 5 more of a company's highest paid employees.

"TCJA [Tax Cuts and Jobs Act] included such a limit, but Dems essentially doubled it to make it more draconian," a House Ways and Means Committee minority spokesperson said. "Dems are under no illusions that their bill is about growth, so them putting a cap on executive pay is just political messaging."

A $500,000 limit on the amount of losses that "passthrough corporations" can use to get liquidity is also tucked inside the bill, according to a Joint Committee on Taxation document obtained by Just the News.

File
Joint Committee on Taxation.pdf

"This was a major area of relief for American small businesses during the pandemic that allowed businesses to get fast tax refunds from the IRS," the committee spokesperson said.

Another tax provision in the stimulus, the second largest rescue package in U.S. history, involves new limitations on the interest expenses that multinational corporations can deduct on tax returns.

Republicans argue that there is a downside to these limits that the Democrats attached to the stimulus bill.

"We make it less attractive for these companies to be based in the U.S. or do business here," the Ways and Means Committee minority spokesperson said. "TCJA was about stopping the bleeding throughout the Obama administration where jobs fled overseas — we succeeded.

Now Democrats are undoing that progress."

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the tax revenue from the changes will generate an estimated $57 billion over 10 years.

Democrats used budget reconciliation to move the bill to Biden's desk, which allowed it to pass without GOP votes. The House passed the final version on Wednesday.

 

[marsh]

Biden speech exposes deep divide on how Americans should live amid the COVID-19 pandemic

"Does Biden know about all the open states?" Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted.

justthenews.com

Biden speech exposes deep divide on how Americans should live amid the COVID-19 pandemic
"Does Biden know about all the open states?" Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted.

By Alex Nitzberg
Updated: March 12, 2021 - 11:10am

In a primetime address on the pandemic’s first anniversary, President Biden told Americans that if they do their part there's a possibility they can gather with friends and family members for barbecues by Independence Day.

But in a nation deeply divided over how people should conduct their lives amidst COVID-19, the president's remarks quickly came under scrutiny amid the ongoing debate between advocates of a more robust nanny state versus those who are eager to return to pre-Covid normalcy.

"This is a free people, this is a free country, how dare you tell us who we can spend the Fourth of July with," conservative commentator Tucker Carlson said on his Fox News program not long after Biden had concluded his speech.

"He can wait for Independence Day to meet his three best friends on the White House lawn but most of us aren't living that way," author and former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson said during an interview on Carlson's program.

"It was a bizarro speech ... in this bizarro world where we're all still desperately afraid of the coronavirus, where cases haven't fallen 90% since January and hospitalizations 70%, where, you know, we know exactly who's at risk from this and how most of us are at very, very low to no risk from this," Berenson said.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) also characterized the speech as "bizarre."

"That was the most bizarre speech from any US President I’ve ever seen. Does Biden know about all the open states? He says everyone must get the vaccine & we might get to have a BBQ with our families on July 4th. Should we tell him most of us have been doing that the past year?" the Georgia Republican tweeted.



GOP Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky tweeted: "If you’re waiting for permission from the chief executive to celebrate Independence Day with your family, you clearly don't grasp the concept of Independence."

During the speech Biden urged Americans to get vaccinated and said that he would instruct states, tribes and territories to make all adults eligible for vaccination no later than May 1.

"First, tonight I'm announcing that I will direct all states, tribes and territories to make all adults — people 18 and over — eligible to be vaccinated no later than May 1," the president said. This "doesn't mean everyone's gonna have that shot immediately," he explained, though people can "get in line beginning May 1" and all adults will be eligible for vaccination.

"I need you to get vaccinated when it's your turn and when you can find an opportunity and to help your family, your friends, your neighbors get vaccinated as well," Biden said. "Because here's the point: If we do all this, if we do our part, if we do this together, by July the 4th there's a good chance you, your families and friends will be able to get together in your backyard or in your neighborhood and have a cookout and a barbecue and celebrate Independence Day. That doesn't mean large events with lots of people together, but it does mean small groups will be able to get together. After this long, hard year that will make this Independence Day something truly special where we not only mark our independence as a nation, but we begin to mark our independence from this virus," the president said.

The Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People put out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says that individuals who have been completely inoculated can visit with other vaccinated individuals inside. It also states that those who have been vaccinated can "Visit with unvaccinated people from a single household who are at low risk for severe COVID-19 disease indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing."

"So Biden says that if we're good little boys and girls, we can get together in small groups by July 4," conservative commentator Ben Shapiro tweeted, while pointing to the CDC recommendations. "In other words, he's promising something by JULY that we're already doing today. And the CDC guidance is already too restrictive by an order of magnitude. But I guess we're supposed to be grateful for any crumbs of liberty offered by his beneficent hand," Shapiro wrote.

 

[marsh]

Tucker Carlson RIPS Joe Biden's Speech: "How Dare you Tell Us Who We Can Spend the Fourth of July With" (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

Joe Biden delivered his very first address as US President on the anniversary of the COVID lockdowns.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Tucker Carlson RIPS Joe Biden’s Speech: “How Dare you Tell Us Who We Can Spend the Fourth of July With” (VIDEO)

By Cristina Laila
Published March 11, 2021 at 8:00pm

Joe Biden delivered his very first address as US President on the anniversary of the COVID lockdowns.

Virtually no one tuned in to the White House’s YouTube channel to watch dementia Joe speak gibberish for 20 minutes.

Joe Biden’s doom and gloom speech was not inspiring at all. He lied about Trump and threatened Americans with indefinite lockdowns if we don’t wear masks and maintain social distancing.

Biden actually believes he has the authority to tell Americans who we can spend the Fourth of July with.

“If we do our part… by July 4, there’s a good chance you, your families, and friends will be able to get together in your backyard or in your neighborhood and have a cookout or a barbecue and celebrate Independence Day… Small groups will be able to get together,” said Biden.

WATCH:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1370183779818553345

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1370183779818553345
1:23 min

But then Biden threatened to take it all away if “we don’t stay vigilant.”

“If we don’t stay vigilant and the conditions change, then we may have to reinstate restrictions to get back on track,” Biden said.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson went off on Joe Biden.

“How dare you tell us who we can spend the Fourth of July with,” Tucker said.

WATCH:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1370185874890235906

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1370185874890235906
.54 min

 

[marsh]

Stanford Medical Professor: Lockdowns “Worst Public Health Mistake in Last 100 Years”

summit.news

Stanford Medical Professor: Lockdowns “Worst Public Health Mistake in Last 100 Years”

“Lockdowns themselves impose great harm on people.”

11 March, 2021
Paul Joseph Watson

Krit of Studio OMG via Getty Images
https://summit.news/2021/03/11/stan...rst-public-health-mistake-in-last-100-years/#


Stanford’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya told Newsweek that COVID-19 lockdowns are “the single worst public health mistake in the last 100 years.”

The medical professor warned that lockdowns are disproportionately impacting the poor and making wealth inequality worse.

He also explained how the areas that imposed the most draconian lockdowns didn’t see the most success in controlling the virus.

“I stand behind my comment that the lockdowns are the single worst public health mistake in the last 100 years. We will be counting the catastrophic health and psychological harms, imposed on nearly every poor person on the face of the earth, for a generation,” said Bhattacharya.

“At the same time, they have not served to control the epidemic in the places where they have been most vigorously imposed. In the US, they have – at best – protected the “non-essential” class from COVID, while exposing the essential working class to the disease. The lockdowns are trickle down epidemiology,” he added.

The professor suggested that policies should have been designed to protect the vulnerable and not used to put entire populations under de facto house arrest.

“People who are older have a much higher risk from dying from COVID than people who are younger…and that’s a really important fact because we know who his most vulnerable, it’s people that are older. So the first plank of the Great Barrington Declaration: let’s protect the vulnerable,” Bhattacharya said.

“The other idea is that the lockdowns themselves impose great harm on people. Lockdowns are not a natural normal way to live.”

Bhattacharya is one of the co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, which has received over 13,000 signatures from medical and public health scientists.

The declaration states that “lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health,” citing “worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come.”

A peer reviewed study published in January by Stanford researchers found that mandatory lockdowns do not provide more benefits to stopping the spread of COVID-19 than voluntary measures such as social distancing.

After analyzing the data, the researchers found “no clear, significant beneficial effect of [more restrictive measures] on case growth in any country.”

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

The Real Reasons Why Millions Of Americans Will Defy COVID Mandates And Vaccines

FRIDAY, MAR 12, 2021 - 0:10
Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

I suspect a large portion of the public is at least partially aware when they are being pushed or lured into a specific way of thinking. We have certainly had enough experience with institutions trying to manage our thoughts over the years. Governments and mainstream media outlets in particular have made the manufacture of public consent their top priority. This is what they spend most of their time, money and energy on. All other issues are secondary.



The media does not objectively report facts and evidence, it spins information to plant an engineered narrative in the minds of its viewers. But the public is not as stupid as they seem to think. This is probably why trust in the media has plunged by 46% in the past ten years, hitting an all time low this year of 27%.

Except for pre-election season spikes, mainstream outlets from CNN to Fox to CBS to MSNBC are facing dismal audience numbers, with only around 2 million to 3 million prime time viewers. There are numerous YouTube commentators with bigger audiences than this. And, if you sift through the debris of MSM videos on YouTube, you’ll find low hits and a majority of people that are visiting their channels just to make fun of them.

The MSM is now scrambling to explain their crumbling empire, as well as debating on ways to save it from oblivion. The power of the “Fourth Estate” is a facade, an illusion given form by smoke and mirrors. Bottom line: Nobody (except perhaps extreme leftists) likes the corporate media or activist journalists and propagandists.

One would think that media moguls and journos would have realized this by now. I mean, if they accepted this reality, they would not be struggling so much with the notion that no one is listening to them when it comes to pandemic mandates and the covid vaccines. Yet, journalists complain about it incessantly lately.

In fact, half the media reports I see these days are not fact based analysis of events, but corporate journalists interviewing OTHER corporate journalists and bitching to each other about how Americans are “too ignorant” or “too conspiratorial” to grasp that journos are the anointed high priests of information.

I actually find this situation fascinating as an observer of oligarchy and being well versed in the mechanics of propaganda. The fundamental narrative of control-culture is that there are “experts” that the establishment chooses, and then there is everyone else. The “experts” are supposed to pontificate and dictate while everyone else is supposed to shut up, listen and obey.

Media elitists see themselves in the role of “the experts” and the public as devout acolytes; a faithful flock of sheep.

But what happens when everyone starts ignoring the sheep herders?

The other day I came across this revealing interview on CBS news about a poll of Americans showing at least 30% will refuse to take the covid vaccine outright. The interview is, for some reason, with another journalist from The Atlantic with no apparent medical credentials and no insight into the data surrounding covid.

View: https://youtu.be/MJ6sEa-YUsg
9:06 min

One thing to note right away is that the discussion itself never addresses any actual facts about the virus, the pandemic, the lockdowns, the mandates, or the vaccines. The establishment keeps telling us to “listen to the science”, but then they dismiss the science when it doesn’t agree with their agenda. When is the the mainstream going to finally acknowledge facts like these:

1) According to multiple official studies, including a study from American College of Physicians, the Infection Fatality Ratio (or death rate) of Covid-19 is only 0.26% for anyone outside of a nursing home. This means that 99.7% of people not in nursing homes will survive the virus if they contract it.
2) Nursing home patients account for over 40% of all Covid deaths across the US. These are mostly people who were already sick with multiple preexisting conditions when they contracted covid.
3) The Federal Government’s own hospital data from the Department of Health and Human Services indicates that capacity for hospital beds is ample in the US and that this has been the case for the past year. Covid patients only take up around 13% of inpatient beds nationally. The stories in the media of hospitals at overcapacity due to covid are therefore inaccurate or they are outright lies.
4) International studies including a Danish study published by the American College of Physicians have proven that wearing masks makes NO significant difference in the spread or infection rate of Covid-19. Interestingly, the states in the US with the most heavily enforced mask mandates have also had the highest infection rates.
5) In March of 2020, head of the NIAID Dr. Anthony Fauci had this to say about mask wearing when being interviewed on 60 Minutes:
“Right now, in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks….there’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better, and it might even block a droplet but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is, and often there are unintended consequences – people keep fiddling with the masks and they’re touching their face.”
6) On Twitter in February of 2020, the US Surgeon General had this to say about mask wearing:
“Seriously people – STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!”
Both the Surgeon General and Fauci later reversed their stance on mask wearing when it no longer suited the control narrative, and are now fervent supporters of enforcing mask mandates. Scientific data continues to show that mask wearing does nothing to stop the spread of Covid.
7) The Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines are made with a brand new technology that has had limited testing. The NIAID used minimal animal testing on mice, but these mice were NOT a type that is normally susceptible to contracting covid the way humans are. These tests were completely inadequate, yet the mRNA vaccines were released for human use anyway.
8) The new vaccines do not contain the virus that triggers COVID-19, as a conventional vaccine might. Instead, Moderna and Pfizer researchers used a new technique to make messenger RNA (mRNA), which is similar to mRNA found in SARS-CoV-2. In theory, the artificial mRNA will act as instructions that prompt human cells to build a protein found on the surface of the virus. That protein would theoretically trigger a protective immune response. The entire Covid vaccine effort was essentially a giant shortcut. This is not an advantage, as the long term effects of any vaccine from 1 year to 5 years to 10 years should be understood before it is injected into human beings.
9) Multiple medical industry professional including the former VP of Pfizer have signed a petition warning about the new mRNA vaccinations. They say far more testing is needed before humans are exposed, and they warned that the vaccines may cause severe autoimmune responses or even infertility.
10) Numerous polls also show that at least 30% to 50% of medical professionals including nurses and doctors plan to refuse the vaccines as well. These people are facing the risk of losing their jobs, but they are still not going to accept the shot. That is how potentially volatile the mRNA vaccines could be; long term health is more important than short term risk.

When all of these facts are taken into account, along with numerous others that I do not have space to mention here, it is not so outlandish for millions of Americans to be skeptical of medical mandates and vaccination over covid.

Why should we worry about getting vaccinated over a virus that 99.7% of the population will survive without difficulty? Why should we allow economic shutdowns, medical passports or invasive contact tracing at all, let alone over a pandemic that less than 0.3% of the population is susceptible to? Beyond that, why should we volunteer to be guinea pigs for a new vaccine technology without knowing what the long term consequences might be?

Even if covid was a legitimate danger, no crisis justifies handing over our civil liberties in response.

The basic establishment narrative is this: “Covid is an existential threat to the public, therefore, we are justified in taking away people’s freedoms, their economy and their privacy. It is for the “greater good of the greater number”. Vaccination is infallible and cannot be questioned. The “experts” are infallible and cannot be questioned. It’s not your body and it is not your choice.

Your body is property of the government and if you do not voluntarily take injections of whatever experimental cocktail we give you, then we will continue to erode your freedoms until you give in and submit. Then, once you have submitted, your freedoms will still never be given back.”

It’s not really a persuasive argument for lot of people.

Media outlets like CBS will rarely mention the overall issue of control and oppression tied to the pandemic response, just as they will never address any facts that run contrary to their message.

What they will do is misrepresent the situation in order to gain compliance. The Atlantic journo basically admits this in the interview above, arguing that the media in particular needs to change the message to better attach incentive to vaccine compliance. In other words, people are easier to manipulate when they are tricked into thinking there is more to gain by submission rather than rebellion.

The medical passport system is the personification of false incentive. The media presents the notion that no one will be “forced” to take the vaccines; but what they don’t mention is that without the vaccine they will not get a medical passport, and without a medical passport they will be cut off from the normal economy. You can be vax free, but you will be punished through poverty and zero access until you give in.

My question is, why do they care so much if people don’t want or trust the vaccine? Why are they so obsessed? If the mRNA cocktail actually works and is not a health hazard, then they should be perfectly safe from infection. The idea that people who refuse are a danger to others is nonsense.

If we are going to start talking about potential “mutations” that bypass vaccine protections, then why take any vaccine? If mutations are really a threat and are not obstructed by current vaccines, then taking a vaccine now is useless.

And, why the constant attempts at public division? CBS and The Atlantic use an obvious ploy to assert that black and brown Americans have different reasons for refusing to comply when compared to apparently white conservatives. Why do they assume that black and brown people are not conservative or that we do not have ample reasons in common? This is never explained or supported.

Finally, as always the media seeks to gaslight anyone that disagree with the prevailing agenda as “conspiracy nuts”, presenting strawman arguments while ignoring all legitimate arguments on the side of liberty. There is such a thing as conspiracy REALITY, and none of these journos would survive a debate on a level playing field against those of us in the alternative media when it comes to covid and the vaccines.

The media and the government’s stalker mentality when it comes to people skeptical of covid restrictions and vaccines is unsettling. They act more like a jilted psychopathic ex-girlfriends rather than people concerned with saving lives. This tells me they are afraid. Their agenda is uncertain, and they have doubts. This is a good thing.

At bottom, covid is a non-issue that has been inflated into a crisis of epic proportions through storytelling and selective fact checking. Millions of people around the world die every year from a myriad of illnesses, some of them as infectious as covid. We don’t shut down our lives, wear diapers on our faces, inject ourselves with untested cell altering cocktails or sacrifice our freedoms because of this. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness continues.

Those who wish to take away our self determination in these matters are the real threat; covid is not.

 

[marsh]

Video: Reporter Calls Out Biden for Outrageous Policy of Releasing Covid-Positive Illegals Into the US * 100PercentFedUp.com * by Leisa Audette

During a White House press briefing last week, Biden’s Press Secretary Jen Psaki couldn’t answer if illegal immigrants test positive […]

100percentfedup.com

Video: Reporter Calls Out Biden for Outrageous Policy of Releasing Covid-Positive Illegals Into the US

By Leisa Audette | Mar 13, 2021

During a White House press briefing last week, Biden’s Press Secretary Jen Psaki couldn’t answer if illegal immigrants test positive and then are released to quarantine “wherever”.

Fox News reporter Peter Doocy has been a superstar during the White House press conferences. He continues to ask important questions about the border chaos.

Peter Doocy: “…Based on what you have said before in our understanding of the policy, it’s just guidance that these migrants who test positive many of them are instructed you should go and quarantine and isolate. Do you know, does the administration know, how many actually do, versus how many actually just go off to wherever?”

It’s clear that Doocy knows the answer to the question he just asked and that Psaki acknowledges it as an “important” question. Doocy is calling attention to the fact that covid-positive illegals are being released into the US to travel to “wherever.” The illegal gets an ankle bracelet and then is released into the US. Psaki doesn’t include that important detail in her response to Doocy’s question.

Trending: Far-Left City Of Evanston, IL Becomes First City In America To Give Reparations To Black Residents…But There’s a Catch

New York Post reports and confirms Biden’s outrageous policy:

The number of migrants testing positive for the coronavirus before being released into the US by the Border Patrol is surging, almost doubling the amount from last week, according to a report.

Felipe Romero, a spokesman for Brownsville, Texas, said 185 migrants rapid-tested at the city’s main bus station showed they were infected with COVID-19, up from the 108 who tested positive last week, Fox News reported Monday.

Since Jan. 25, 1,553 individuals have been tested for coronavirus after crossing the US border there, he said.

Romero said there’s little that Brownsville can do to restrict the migrants from traveling beyond Texas other than advising them to follow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention safety precautions and quarantine.

Migrants who were once held in border camps while they were being processed in the courts for entry are no longer detained as part of the Biden administration rolling back former President Donald Trump’s immigration policy.

Notice that Psaki delivers a load of “word salad” in the video below to dodge the question. Her job is to baffle everyone with her BS answer when she knows what’s going on.

Jen Psaki: Well, I just wanted to convey because I knew you were asking a good question here. That’s the very specific processes that are taken for each scenario…um, and certainly, there are with these in with the individuals who are coming across alternatives who are treated with again noted sometimes ankle bracelets as they come across while they’re waiting for adjudication of their cases. Those are the steps that are taken. Those are the recommendations that are made…and I just noted that testing is…there’s a proposal for testing all of these individuals as they come across…so that’s what our policy processes are. Still, in terms of specific data and numbers, I would certainly refer you to CBP, or I’m happy to talk to them as well…”

View: https://youtu.be/0jMbLO05oL4
1:00 min

Governor Abbott calls out the Biden administration for playing coy with knowing that once they got rid of the Trump restrictions, there would be chaos at the border:

View: https://youtu.be/Rv7u-bOpeW4
27:22 min

 

[StarryEyedLad]

Video: Reporter Calls Out Biden for Outrageous Policy of Releasing Covid-Positive Illegals Into the US * 100PercentFedUp.com * by Leisa Audette

During a White House press briefing last week, Biden’s Press Secretary Jen Psaki couldn’t answer if illegal immigrants test positive […]

100percentfedup.com

Video: Reporter Calls Out Biden for Outrageous Policy of Releasing Covid-Positive Illegals Into the US

By Leisa Audette | Mar 13, 2021

During a White House press briefing last week, Biden’s Press Secretary Jen Psaki couldn’t answer if illegal immigrants test positive and then are released to quarantine “wherever”.

Fox News reporter Peter Doocy has been a superstar during the White House press conferences. He continues to ask important questions about the border chaos.

Peter Doocy: “…Based on what you have said before in our understanding of the policy, it’s just guidance that these migrants who test positive many of them are instructed you should go and quarantine and isolate. Do you know, does the administration know, how many actually do, versus how many actually just go off to wherever?”

It’s clear that Doocy knows the answer to the question he just asked and that Psaki acknowledges it as an “important” question. Doocy is calling attention to the fact that covid-positive illegals are being released into the US to travel to “wherever.” The illegal gets an ankle bracelet and then is released into the US. Psaki doesn’t include that important detail in her response to Doocy’s question.

Trending: Far-Left City Of Evanston, IL Becomes First City In America To Give Reparations To Black Residents…But There’s a Catch

New York Post reports and confirms Biden’s outrageous policy:

The number of migrants testing positive for the coronavirus before being released into the US by the Border Patrol is surging, almost doubling the amount from last week, according to a report.

Felipe Romero, a spokesman for Brownsville, Texas, said 185 migrants rapid-tested at the city’s main bus station showed they were infected with COVID-19, up from the 108 who tested positive last week, Fox News reported Monday.

Since Jan. 25, 1,553 individuals have been tested for coronavirus after crossing the US border there, he said.

Romero said there’s little that Brownsville can do to restrict the migrants from traveling beyond Texas other than advising them to follow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention safety precautions and quarantine.

Migrants who were once held in border camps while they were being processed in the courts for entry are no longer detained as part of the Biden administration rolling back former President Donald Trump’s immigration policy.

Notice that Psaki delivers a load of “word salad” in the video below to dodge the question. Her job is to baffle everyone with her BS answer when she knows what’s going on.

Jen Psaki: Well, I just wanted to convey because I knew you were asking a good question here. That’s the very specific processes that are taken for each scenario…um, and certainly, there are with these in with the individuals who are coming across alternatives who are treated with again noted sometimes ankle bracelets as they come across while they’re waiting for adjudication of their cases. Those are the steps that are taken. Those are the recommendations that are made…and I just noted that testing is…there’s a proposal for testing all of these individuals as they come across…so that’s what our policy processes are. Still, in terms of specific data and numbers, I would certainly refer you to CBP, or I’m happy to talk to them as well…”

View: https://youtu.be/0jMbLO05oL4
1:00 min

Governor Abbott calls out the Biden administration for playing coy with knowing that once they got rid of the Trump restrictions, there would be chaos at the border:

View: https://youtu.be/Rv7u-bOpeW4
27:22 min

Peter Doocy is awesome. He has consistently called out the disastrous Biden administration, and he was all over their gaffes during the presidential campaigns last year. He's much too good for Fox News.

 

[marsh]

The Case against Lockdowns

Summary A year ago, when the COVID-19 pandemic hit most of the world, there was arguably a good case for lockdowns. The initial growth of the epidemic implied a high basic reproduction number, which in turn meant that unless transmission was reduced the virus would quickly sweep through most of...

cspicenter.org

The Case against Lockdowns
March 4, 2021 by Philippe Lemoine2

Summary

• A year ago, when the COVID-19 pandemic hit most of the world, there was arguably a good case for lockdowns. The initial growth of the epidemic implied a high basic reproduction number, which in turn meant that unless transmission was reduced the virus would quickly sweep through most of the population because incidence would continue to grow exponentially until the herd immunity threshold was reached, overwhelming hospitals and resulting in the deaths of millions of people in a few weeks. Lockdowns and other stringent restrictions seemed like a plausible way of reducing transmission to “flatten the curve” and prevent that scenario from materializing.
• Many people continue to reason along those lines, but since then we have learned that, whatever the precise effect that lockdowns and other stringent restrictions have, it is not so large that it can easily be picked up in the data, as it would surely be if restrictions had the very large effect that pro-lockdown advocates claim. In particular, it is not the case that the alternative to lockdowns is herd immunity (at least in the short run), because in practice incidence never grows exponentially for very long even in the absence of stringent restrictions. While it is plausible that, without stringent restrictions, incidence would start falling a bit sooner and faster, the data show very clearly that it always starts falling long before the herd immunity threshold is reached with or without a lockdown.
• Many factors likely contribute, but the main explanation of that fact is probably that, despite what simple epidemiological models assume, people modify their behavior in response to changes in epidemic conditions such as rising hospitalizations and deaths, which reduces transmission and causes the epidemic to recede long before the herd immunity threshold is reached. However, until enough people have acquired immunity through natural infection or vaccination, this is only temporary and eventually incidence starts growing again because people go back to more regular behavior. Lockdowns and other stringent restrictions do not have a very large effect because they are a blunt instrument and have a hard time targeting the behaviors that contribute most to transmission.
• The belief that lockdowns are very effective nevertheless persists because authorities react to the same changes in epidemic conditions as the population, so they tend to implement lockdowns and other stringent restrictions around the time when people start modifying their behavior. This means that the effect of voluntary behavioral changes is attributed to lockdowns even if the epidemic would have started to recede in the absence of stringent restrictions. We know this because that is exactly what happened in places where the authorities did not put in place such restrictions, which are extremely diverse economically, culturally and geographically and therefore unlikely to share some characteristics that allow them to reduce transmission without a lockdown.
• Places where the virus seems to have spread more are those where the population is relatively young, which is exactly what the theory presented here–that voluntary behavioral changes in response to changes in epidemic conditions are the main driver of the epidemic–predicts, since a younger population implies a lower rate of hospitalization and death, which in turn means that the virus will have time to spread more before the rise in hospitalizations and deaths scare people into changing their behavior enough to push the reproduction number below 1.
• The scientific literature on the effect of restrictions on transmission contains many inconsistent results, but more importantly it is methodologically weak and therefore completely unreliable. To be sure, many studies found that restrictions had a very large effect on transmission, which pro-lockdown advocates like to cite. However, those results do not pass a basic smell test since one just has to eyeball a few graphs to convince oneself the studies they come from perform terribly out of sample, which is not surprising since most of them either assume that voluntary behavior has no effect whatsoever on transmission or do not use methods that can establish causality by disentangling the effect of restrictions from that of voluntary behavior changes.
• Even if you make completely implausible assumptions about the effect of restrictions on transmission, and ignore all their costs except their immediate effect on people’s well-being, they do not pass a cost-benefit test. For instance, in the case of Sweden (where incidence is growing again and the government is considering tightening restrictions), if you assume that a lockdown would save 5,000 lives (which is approximately the total number of deaths during the first wave, when the population was behaviorally naive and vaccination was not under way), a 2-month lockdown followed by a gradual reopening over the next 2 months would have to reduce people’s well-being by at most ~1.1% on average over the next 4 months in order to pass a cost-benefit. In other words, for a lockdown to pass a cost-benefit test under those assumptions, you would have to assume that on average people in Sweden would not be willing to sacrifice more than ~32 hours in the next 4 months to continue to live the semi-normal life they currently enjoy instead of being locked down.
• While I use Sweden to illustrate my point because it has been a focal point of the debate about restrictions, this exercise yields a similar conclusion almost everywhere else. The truth is that, from a cost-benefit perspective, Sweden’s much-decried strategy has been vastly superior to what most Western countries have done and it is not even close. Even if you think that it would have been better for Europe and the US to follow Australia and New Zealand’s example by adopting a so-called “zero COVID” strategy after the first wave, which would probably not have succeeded anyway even back then, this boat has already sailed and trying to pull it off now makes absolutely no sense from a cost-benefit perspective. Despite popular but confused arguments to the contrary, which I discuss at the end of this essay, this remains true even if you take into account the threat posed by new variants of SARS-CoV-2.

Almost every country in the world has now gone through 2 or 3 waves of the COVID-19 pandemic and, in most of them, incidence remains high although it has recently been falling almost everywhere. everywhere. Although the vaccine is being rolled out in many places, it is at a very slow pace with most countries facing shortage and distribution problems. This means another flare-up is likely in many places even if the worst of the pandemic is probably behind us. While lockdowns and other stringent restrictions had high levels of support when the first wave hit, this is no longer true and, as we are entering the last phase of the pandemic, the debate about how to deal with it has never been so intense. Sweden went a different route last spring by foregoing a lockdown and, while it remains widely vilified for this decision, even some people who thought it was a mistake at the time have changed their mind and now think other countries should follow Sweden’s example and seek to contain the epidemic without stringent restrictions such as stay-at-home orders, outright business closures, etc.

I’m one of them. Back in spring, I was in favor of lockdowns, but since then I have reached the conclusion that lockdowns and other stringent restrictions do not make sense from a cost-benefit perspective. I now think that, even with the information we had at the time, supporting lockdowns was the wrong call because even though I insisted that it was only a temporary solution and that we should be ready to revise our view as more evidence came in, I should have known that people would not and that lockdowns would quickly become institutionalized. However, in this post, I will not be arguing for this view. I only want to argue that, regardless of what should have been done last spring, the data we have accumulated since then show very clearly that, whatever the precise effect of lockdowns and other stringent restrictions, it is not nearly as large as we might have thought, so their costs far outweigh their benefits and we therefore should avoid them where they are not currently in place and start lifting them immediately where they are.

Back in March, there was at least a case in favor of lockdowns. Indeed, we didn’t know at the time how difficult it would be to reduce transmission, but we knew that

had been measured at ~2.5 and that in most countries thousands of people were already infected, which meant that unless transmission was reduced quickly more than 90% of the population might be infected in a few weeks. Since the evidence suggested that the infection fatality rate (IFR) was around 1% even when people received proper treatment, this in turn meant that in a country like the United States, between 2 and 3 million people would die even if hospitals were not overwhelmed. However, if the virus swept through the majority of the population in a few weeks, the hospitals undoubtedly would be, so most people would not receive proper care, the IFR would consequently rise way above 1% and the number of deaths would actually be much higher. A lockdown would cut transmission and, while it could not prevent a large part of the population from getting infected eventually, because we couldn’t stay locked down forever, it would “flatten the curve” and prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed and the rise of the IFR this would cause.

But while this line of thought was reasonable at the time, it has become clear that it rested on a flawed premise. Even without a lockdown and stringent restrictions, incidence always starts falling long before the herd immunity threshold is reached. In fact, not only are lockdowns and other stringent restrictions unnecessary to prevent the virus from ripping through most of the population in a few weeks, but they don’t seem to be making a huge difference on transmission. This makes a more liberal approach, not unlike what Sweden has done, far more appealing from a cost-benefit perspective and should have radically altered the policy debate. Unfortunately, this has largely not happened, because most people still believe the flawed assumptions of the original argument for lockdowns and have kept moving the goalposts. At any rate, this is the case I will make in this post.

The alternative to lockdowns and other stringent restrictions is not herd immunity
The first thing everyone should acknowledge at this point, although many people still don’t, is that whatever the precise effect of lockdowns and other stringent restrictions is, it can’t be huge. In particular, it’s certainly not the case that, in the absence of a lockdown, the virus quickly sweeps through the population until the epidemic reaches saturation. There is no need for anything fancy to convince yourself of that, you just have to eyeball a few graphs. Here is my favorite: As you can see, Sweden was ahead of the rest of the EU after the first wave, but the rest of the EU has caught up since then and now the number of COVID-19 deaths per capita in Sweden is about average.

Of course, policy is not the only factor affecting the epidemic (that’s the point), so this graph does not show that lockdowns and other stringent restrictions have no effect, but if policy mattered as much as pro-lockdown advocates claim, it would look completely different. Indeed, although Sweden has tightened restrictions to fight the epidemic in recent months and the other EU countries have on the contrary used less stringent restrictions during the second/third wave, restrictions in Sweden remain much less stringent than almost everywhere else in Europe and this was already true during the first wave. In particular, even if they have to close earlier and respect stricter health regulations, bars and restaurants are still open and there is no curfew. If lockdowns and other stringent restrictions were really the only way to prevent the virus from quickly sweeping through the population until saturation is reached, the number of deaths per capita in Sweden would be 3 to 15 times higher and that graph would look very different. Yet people continue to talk as if lockdowns were the only way to prevent that from happening. In fact, as we shall see, most scientific papers about the effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions implicitly rest on that assumption. It’s as if reality didn’t matter, but it does, or at least it should.

The average number of COVID-19 deaths per capita for the EU without Sweden hides a significant amount of heterogeneity: However, as you can see, the picture remains very similar even when you disaggregate and still shows a lot of convergence.

[Very long report continues at The Case against Lockdowns ]

 

[marsh]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y_QTBeR494
1:55:39 min
TWiV 731: The kids aren't alright

•Mar 13, 2021


Vincent Racaniello

On a TWiV tetramer, we review the ongoing outbreaks of Ebolavirus disease in DRC and Guinea, evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infections in children are far more prevalent than are being detected, and recent long COVID estimates from the UK. Show notes at https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-731/

 

[TammyinWI]

Vaccine vs Virus: Fatalities Skyrocket as COVID Vaccines Increase
By Ty Bollinger
March 14, 2021



by Ty & Charlene Bollinger

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, has been in place since 1990 as a way for healthcare providers to document adverse reactions to vaccines. While imperfect in many ways, VAERS provides an early warning for potential health risks of vaccines. In recent weeks, VAERS has reported over 1,600 deaths related to the COVID vaccines manufactured by Moderna and Pfizer.

VAERS and the True Cost of COVID Vaccines
It has been quite a year. At this point in 2020, we still had plans to watch the March Madness tournament, people around the world were gearing up to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day, and millions of hardworking Americans were still employed. We were told that the lockdowns, mask mandates, and utter destruction of the world’s greatest economy were necessary.. And temporary.

Vaccines have been touted by virtually every health agency in the world as our only path back to normalcy. The vaccines were rolled out in record time, skipping important clinical trials and completely devoid of any comprehensive safety studies. Since the first dose was administered on December 14th, early data suggests that we have made a terrible mistake.


With about 98 million doses administered so far, VAERS data suggests that the death toll is somewhere around .003% of those vaccinated. But that number is likely much smaller than the reality.

First, it’s important to know that VAERS is a passive monitoring system, meaning doctors are not required to report adverse events. Several studies have suggested that as few as 5% of all adverse reactions are reported. Using that number to extrapolate the current data, the true number of deaths from the COVID vaccines may be as high as 32,740, or somewhere around .05%.

Current data tells us that about .03% of the global population have died from COVID-19. In the United States, that number jumps to about .16% of the population.

Virus vs Vaccines: Understanding the Numbers
Perhaps the most important question to ask ourselves is: Is the vaccine more likely to kill me than the virus? After all, the entire point of fast tracking these vaccines and using billions of tax dollars to deliver and administer them is to protect us from COVID-19.

And, at first glance, it would seem that the vaccine is still safer than the actual virus. A mortality rate of .05% is higher than the global COVID-19 mortality rate of .03%, but notably lower than the U.S. rate of .16%. But can we trust those numbers?

The most likely explanation for the high mortality rate in the U.S. is simple: false reporting. According to recent data from the CDC, only 6% of deaths attributed to COVID-19 can actually be attributed to the virus. The other 94% were accompanied by other co-morbidities, such as late-stage cancer, immune disease, and injuries.

If a person dies and tests positive for the virus, they’re added to the body count. However, that’s scientifically irresponsible at best and criminally negligent at the worst. If an elderly person comes in with health issues, passes away, and is diagnosed with the virus, they are added to the number of people killed by COVID-19 – EVEN IF THEY HAD OTHER SEVERE UNDERLYING CONDITIONS!

To put that into perspective, there have been reports of people around the country dying from car accidents, drowning, or premature birth who have been counted among the coronavirus victims. And while it’s unlikely that only 6% of reported deaths were primarily caused by the virus, it may be true that as few as 20% of reported fatalities were actually caused by COVID-19.

That would make the total death rate of COVID-19 in the United States approximately .03% – precisely the same mortality rate reported by the rest of the world. Based on all of this information, it looks as though the new vaccines are 67% MORE LIKELY to kill you than the virus itself.

And that should scare you. Because the reality is that this virus has essentially “made the rounds” already. According to HealthLine, the risk of becoming infected with the virus a second time is roughly one-fifth the risk of getting a first infection. And as infection rates plummet, so does the death toll.

But vaccines are headed in the opposite direction. We’re currently in the midst of a massive push to vaccinate the entire global population, with more than 2.2 million doses administered each day in the United States. Compare that with the roughly 45,000 new cases reported each day, and you can see that we are vaccinating almost 50 times more people than are actually contracting the virus.

If there truly is a .05% mortality rate for recipients of the vaccine and a .03% rate for those who contract the virus, we could be signing a death warrant for over 100,000 people a day… 81 times more than the projected mortality rate of the virus itself.

What About Other Side Effects?
These numbers fail to include other adverse reactions, which can be devastating for patients.

As of March 5th, 265 pregnant women had reported adverse reactions to COVID vaccines, including 56 reports of miscarriage or premature birth. None of the COVID vaccines approved for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) have been tested for safety or efficacy in pregnant women. Yet health officials are urging pregnant women to get the vaccine, and many are enthusiastically doing so.

The World Health Organization on January 27th issued guidance advising against pregnant women getting Moderna’s COVID vaccine — only to reverse that guidance two days later, as The New York Times reported. Pfizer announced last month that it was beginning COVID vaccine trials for pregnant women, but they don’t expect the trials to wrap up until January 2023.

This week’s VAERS data also included 1,414 reports of anaphylaxis, with 60% of cases attributed to the Pfizer-Bio-N-Tech vaccine and 40% to Moderna, and 298 reports of Bell’s Palsy.

As of February 26th, only the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines had been approved for emergency use in the U.S., but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration this week gave Johnson & Johnson’s COVID vaccine approval for emergency use. The one-shot vaccine started rolling out this week.

On March 3rd, The New York Times reported that some people are experiencing an “angry-looking skin condition” after their first dose of the COVID vaccine –– with arms turning red, sore, itchy and swollen a week or more after the shot. Doctors said they wanted to share the information to “help prevent the needless use of antibiotics and to ease patients’ worries and reassure them that they can safely get their second vaccine shot.”

Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, an accomplished surgeon and patient safety advocate, wrote a second letter to the FDA urging the agency to require pre-screening for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins in order to reduce COVID vaccine injuries and deaths. Noorchasm argued that at least a fraction of the millions of already infected Americans — especially the elderly, frail and those with serious cardiovascular comorbidities — are at risk of being harmed by a dangerous exaggerated immune response triggered by the COVID vaccine.

But it’s important to remember that these are more than statistics and projections. The numbers we’ve discussed represent real people who may be at substantial risk if they receive the vaccine… and many who have already paid a heavy price.

Vaccine Safety is A Human Problem
According to News Channel 11, WHJL:

Dr. J Barton Williams, called a student of medicine and science, went from doctor to patient when he fell ill weeks ago. Dr. Stephen Threlkeld helped treat him at Baptist Hospital. Threlkeld says the disease quickly went from diagnosis to death. “It was a matter of days,” Threlkeld said. “Just a tragedy.” Williams, an Orthopedic Surgeon for OrthoSouth, died February 8 of multisystem inflammatory syndrome or MIS, a condition usually affecting children and attacking the immune system. “The immune system attacks the body in many ways and causes multi-organ system failure,” Threlkeld said. “It affects the heart, the gastrointestinal tract and other places.” Threlkeld says Williams tested positive for COVID antibodies, meaning he had COVID at one time, but he never knew it. And he had gotten his second COVID vaccine just weeks before his death. “It does seem to be in every case we have seen so far to be related to the virus itself,” Threlked said. “It’s a post-viral, sometimes a few weeks later, a post-viral effect. Not during the first part of it.”

According to Channel 2, KUTV:

Kassidi Kurill, by all accounts, was healthy, happy and “had more energy” than just about anyone else around her. Her family told reporters that she had no known health problems or pre-existing conditions. Four days after Kurill’s second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, she was gone — dead before most of her family could say their goodbyes. According to her father, Kassidi “got sick right away, soreness at the shot location, then started getting sick, then started complaining that she was drinking lots of fluids but couldn’t pee, and then felt a little better the next day.” A few days after her second shot, she knew something was wrong. She woke up early, got ready, and asked her dad to drive her to the local emergency room, where they arrived by 7 a.m. As soon as they walked in the door, Kurill was throwing up. Minutes later, questions were raised about what was making her so sick. 30 hours later, Kassidi was gone. Unfortunately doctors admit that the chances of attributing death to a vaccine are practically zero. Dr. Erik Christensen, Utah’s chief Medical Examiner, can think of only one instance where you would see a vaccine as the cause of death on an official autopsy report, and that would be in an immediate case of anaphylaxis — one where a person received the vaccine and died almost instantaneously, he said. “Short of that, it would be difficult for us to definitively say this is the vaccine.”

A more likely result would be a lack of answers or an “incomplete autopsy.”

And that’s our biggest problem. As long as doctors and health agencies refuse to acknowledge the risks of these untested vaccines, patients will be left in the dark. The gross under reporting of adverse reactions – combined with a falsely inflated death count for the virus – has allowed groups like the CDC to convince the masses that vaccination is safe and necessary.

But that is an impossible claim to make… and one that seems to be increasingly untrue.

We don’t trust these vaccines. We don’t trust the “authorities” who are working so hard to administer hundreds of millions of doses over the next 2 months. And we’re 100% willing to gamble that the vaccine is much more dangerous than the virus.

In fact, we’d bet our lives on it.

Vaccine vs Virus: Fatalities Skyrocket as COVID Vaccines Increase

In recent weeks, VAERS has reported over 1,600 deaths related to the new COVID vaccines. Is the cure more deadly than the virus?

thetruthaboutvaccines.com

 

[seraphima]

Hollywood Line-Cutters Shut Down Vaccine Center › American Greatness

A COVID-19 vaccine center in Pasadena, California, set to take place on Thursday was shuttered after the majority of its time slots were filled with those who work in Hollywood and the media…

amgreatness.com

Hollywood Line-Cutters Shut Down Vaccine Center
By Catherine Smith

March 11, 2021

ACOVID-19 vaccine center in Pasadena, California, set to take place on Thursday was shuttered after the majority of its time slots were filled with those who work in Hollywood and the media, Variety reported.

According to The Los Angeles Times, California officials confirmed that ineligible workers from Hollywood’s production, media, and streaming companies within the first hour took 900 out of the 1,500 available appointment slots at a clinic aimed at people over age 65 and essential workers such as grocery store employees, who live or work in Pasadena.

“Hundreds signed up within the first hour,” city spokeswoman Lisa Derderian said. “It was like rapid fire.”

An email with a registration link was sent last week from the Pasadena Public Health Department to those who qualified for an appointment at the clinic through the state-wide vaccination website.

The email also told workers they would be required to present proof that they worked in an eligible industry and lived or worked in Pasadena, according to The Los Angeles Times.

“They were not in the current tier. A lot of them worked for the streaming, video and production companies or news, and they didn’t live or work in Pasadena,” Derderian said.

“We do check for ID. We will turn you away if you don’t meet the current tier, if you don’t live in town or work in town,” Derderian stated.

“Our health officer will not risk her credentials or the health department’s licensing or the city’s reputation. We are very strict in adhering to the guidelines.”

City officials decided to close the clinic indefinitely because calling 900 people within a few days to verify their eligibility or ask them not to come was just too much, Derderian said.

Residents pointed out that on the registration site, there was a drop-down menu asking what industry the person registering works in: “Service — entertainment, performance.”

Officials also noted that canceling the clinic was particularly difficult news for many senior citizens who had struggled to get appointments, Derderian said.

“Some cried when they learned their appointments had been moved,” Derderian said.
As of Tuesday, no new date has been scheduled for the clinic to reopen.

So you can vote without an ID, but not get vaccinated! And, all those woke Hollywood people shut down the medical services for everybody who registered in Pasadena. Various 'chickens' coming home to roost...

 

[DunDunDuuun]

Biden always looks like a Deep Fake.

 

[marsh]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1371173223530967040

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1371173223530967040
2:19 min

The COVID "back to school" experience

 

[DHR43]

Canadian Doctors Speak Out: The Facts about Covid:

Canadian doctors speak out — Why you shouldn’t be afraid of Covid…

Why you shouldn’t be afraid of Covid I expect youtube to ban this video within hours

citizenfreepress.com

Run Time 11:44

 

[marsh]

EXCLUSIVE: NYC Judge Removes 6-Year-Old From Mother Because She Didn't Wear a Mask While Dropping Her Off at School | The Gateway Pundit | by Cassandra MacDonald

A New York City judge has removed a 6-year-old girl from her mother because she did not wear a mask while dropping her off outside of the school.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

EXCLUSIVE: NYC Judge Removes 6-Year-Old From Mother Because She Didn’t Wear a Mask While Dropping Her Off at School

By Cassandra Fairbanks
Published March 16, 2021 at 4:45pm

A New York City judge has removed a 6-year-old girl from her mother because she did not wear a mask while dropping her off outside of the school.

In a shocking and egregious move, the court also told Dr. Epstein that in order to get short supervised visits with her child — she will have to wear a mask inside her own home.

It was a normal day for Dr. Micheline Epstein, a family physician, when she went to drop her daughter off at the Birch Wathen Lenox School on the Upper East Side last week — until her entire life was turned upside down in an instant.

The tearful mother explained in a phone call that her daughter was already inside the building and wearing a mask when the school nurse and school security attempted to force Dr. Epstein to wear a mask on the public street in front of the building where drop off takes place, Dr. Epstein refused.

“No one got physical or anything, she just refused to wear the mask. They were outside on the public sidewalk,” Dr. Epstein’s boyfriend Jeff Guttenplan explained, adding that the daughter was wearing a mask because they are required to go inside.

The mother explained that the school nurse had came out and was aggressively demanding that she put on a mask, but she was already leaving and did not accept it. “The next thing I know, my daughter is taken away from me,” she cried.

Dr. Epstein is separated from her daughter’s father and they had a shared custody agreement where the child split times between the home equally. The divorce, however, has been bitter.

Following the confrontation at the school, Dr. Epstein left, but would soon find a letter from the expensive college prep school sent to her, her estranged husband, and the attorneys for both parties. The school was demanding that Dr. Epstein was no longer permitted to drop off or pick up her child from the school.

If that wasn’t already bad enough, the father used the notice about the mask situation to request an emergency hearing for full custody — which Justice Matthew F. Cooper granted after berating the already emotionally devastated mother.

“She’s the love of my life,” Dr. Epstein told the Gateway Pundit while trying, and failing, to hold back her tears. “It’s horrible. Please help us.”

Additionally, the court decided that the mother is not permitted to remove her daughter from the expensive school — and told her that she does not have a choice in the matter. She is currently working three jobs to pay for not only her daughters expenses, but the six lawyers she hired to fight what she is referring to as the kidnapping of her child.

On Tuesday, Dr. Epstein was not permitted to see, or even speak to, her daughter — even though it was her sixth birthday.

To get two supervised visits with her daughter per week, she will need to wear a mask inside her own home.

Dr. Epstein said that those who wish to help her can email the school and the judge (mcooper@nycourts.gov) to help advocate for her. She has also launched a GiveSendGo fundraiser to help cover the mounting legal expenses.

“The only thing I want is for people to stand up already and stop with this nonsense,” Dr. Epstein said, still attempting to mask that she has been crying, but unable to contain the complete heartbreak she is feeling.

The Gateway Pundit has reached out to the Birch Wathen Lenox School for comment, they declined and told us to call back tomorrow to speak to a receptionist. We will update this story if a statement is provided.

 

[Zagdid]

SARS-CoV-2 variants with E484K mutation show mRNA vaccine-induced antibody evasion (news-medical.net)

SARS-CoV-2 variants with E484K mutation show mRNA vaccine-induced antibody evasion
By Jocelyn Solis-Moreira Mar 18 2021

A recent study by researchers in Switzerland, China and the UK found that the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine had limited efficacy in identifying mutated receptor-binding domains (RBDs) of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein similar to the B.1.351 and P.1 variants.

The B.1.351 variant was first detected in South Africa, and the P.1 variant in Brazil. Both variants have the E484K mutation, which decreases the neutralizing antibody response produced by vaccines, monoclonal antibody therapies, convalescent plasma, and natural infection.

The current mRNA vaccines have proven effective against the other variant of concern discovered in the United Kingdom last Fall – also known as the B.1.1.7 variant.

The study’s findings may have implications for the longevity of current vaccine models, which were based on ancestral strains of the virus

Researchers write:
"Recognition may, however, be 10-fold reduced for the variants B.1.351/P.1, suggesting that the development of a new vaccine is warranted. The E484K mutation is an key hurdle for immune recognition, convalescent plasma and monoclonal antibody therapy as well as serological assays based on the wildtype sequence may therefore seriously impaired.”

The study “BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine induces antibodies of broader cross-reactivity than natural infection but recognition of mutant viruses is up to 10-fold reduced” is available as a preprint on the bioRxiv* server, while the article undergoes peer review.

How they did it
The team evaluated the cross-reactive binding of antibodies produced after vaccination or recovery of natural infection against RBDs of the spike protein with mutations related to the variants of concern. This included RBD mutant K417N (RBD417), RBD mutant E484K (RBD484), RBD mutant N501Y (RBD501), and an RBD version with mutations at all three sites (RBDtrip).

The E484K and N501Y mutations were located in the RBD area that would allow for direct interaction with the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor of human host cells.

The team collected serum from 11 participants with convalescent plasma and 6 participants who were vaccinated with both Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine doses. The serum was collected from vaccinated individuals 2 weeks after the second dose. The team then performed ELISAs on the donated serum to measure antibody responses.

Reduced antibody binding against mutated RBDs
The researchers found the antibody response induced by convalescent plasma strongly decreased when faced with RBD417 and RBD501 . In addition, they found almost no antibody activity towards RBD484 and RBDtrip.

Antibodies produced by the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine showed a 2.5-3 fold reduced antibody binding to RBD417 and RBD501. However, there was a 10-fold binding reduction with RBD484 and RBDtrip.

The researchers suggest the E484K is the main culprit behind reduced antibody binding as it is present in both RBD484 and RBDtrip. They suggest this may occur because of changes from a positive to negative charge.

When evaluating the overall binding strength between the antibody and the mutated RBDs, they found convalescent plasma antibodies had limited binding strength for the wild-type version.

The antibodies produced by the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine had a stronger binding strength towards the wild-type RBD than antibodies produced from natural infection. These also showed some residual binding to mutated RBDs, indicating low binding strength.

The avidity of vaccine-induced antibodies is much higher for RBD and the mutants than those induced by infection. This reduced affinity of antibodies induced by infection is consistent with the notion that individual RBDs are spaced by 25 nm on SARSCoV-2, too large a distance for induction of optimal antibodies,” wrote the researchers.

The research team concludes that individuals with antibodies from natural infections are may not be protected against the new coronavirus variants, especially if they contain the E484K mutation. Given the vaccine-induced antibody response was weak in identifying mutations in the receptor binding domain, they suggest more updated vaccines are necessary.

*Important Notice
bioRxiv publishes preliminary scientific reports that are not peer-reviewed and, therefore, should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or treated as established information.

 

[155 arty]

Hollywood Line-Cutters Shut Down Vaccine Center › American Greatness

A COVID-19 vaccine center in Pasadena, California, set to take place on Thursday was shuttered after the majority of its time slots were filled with those who work in Hollywood and the media…

amgreatness.com

Hollywood Line-Cutters Shut Down Vaccine Center
By Catherine Smith

March 11, 2021

ACOVID-19 vaccine center in Pasadena, California, set to take place on Thursday was shuttered after the majority of its time slots were filled with those who work in Hollywood and the media, Variety reported.

According to The Los Angeles Times, California officials confirmed that ineligible workers from Hollywood’s production, media, and streaming companies within the first hour took 900 out of the 1,500 available appointment slots at a clinic aimed at people over age 65 and essential workers such as grocery store employees, who live or work in Pasadena.

“Hundreds signed up within the first hour,” city spokeswoman Lisa Derderian said. “It was like rapid fire.”

An email with a registration link was sent last week from the Pasadena Public Health Department to those who qualified for an appointment at the clinic through the state-wide vaccination website.

The email also told workers they would be required to present proof that they worked in an eligible industry and lived or worked in Pasadena, according to The Los Angeles Times.

“They were not in the current tier. A lot of them worked for the streaming, video and production companies or news, and they didn’t live or work in Pasadena,” Derderian said.

“We do check for ID. We will turn you away if you don’t meet the current tier, if you don’t live in town or work in town,” Derderian stated.

“Our health officer will not risk her credentials or the health department’s licensing or the city’s reputation. We are very strict in adhering to the guidelines.”

City officials decided to close the clinic indefinitely because calling 900 people within a few days to verify their eligibility or ask them not to come was just too much, Derderian said.

Residents pointed out that on the registration site, there was a drop-down menu asking what industry the person registering works in: “Service — entertainment, performance.”

Officials also noted that canceling the clinic was particularly difficult news for many senior citizens who had struggled to get appointments, Derderian said.

“Some cried when they learned their appointments had been moved,” Derderian said.
As of Tuesday, no new date has been scheduled for the clinic to reopen.

I hope they get what they deserve!

 

[marsh]

Fauci Blames Coronavirus on Our Failure to Live in 'Harmony With Nature' | Frontpage Mag

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic

www.frontpagemag.com

Fauci Blames Coronavirus on Our Failure to Live in 'Harmony With Nature'
"Living in greater harmony with nature will require changes in human behavior."

Fri Mar 19, 2021
Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

"There's a lot of folks who think that, due to climate change and due to the globalization in general, it is inevitable that we’ll deal with more and more viruses like this," Dr. Fauci told Meet the Press.

The "lot of folks" in question include the patron saint of the pandemic.

In addition to appearing on every single news show on the planet, Fauci occasionally co-authors papers. But "Emerging Pandemic Diseases: How We Got to COVID-19" in the journal Cell is less of an academic paper and more of a survey and an advocacy editorial. It might not be all that significant except that its co-authors are David M. Morens, the Senior Scientific Advisor at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and Fauci who heads it.

If you didn’t know that its authors are prominent figures in the scientific community, you might mistake its contents for the ravings of hippies at an Earth Day rally a generation ago.

"There are many examples where disease emergencies reflect our increasing inability to live in harmony with nature," Fauci's paper insists. "Living in greater harmony with nature will require changes in human behavior as well as other radical changes.”

It goes without saying that the proper way to live in harmony with nature would be to live in caves, hunt buffalo for food, and die at an average age of 38. Fauci’s $2 million D.C. house with its 5 bathrooms and 6,500 square foot lot size, is not in harmony with nature.

His Wesley Heights neighborhood was one of the country’s first “planned communities”: it’s described as “desirable” and “affluent”, and originally banned Jews and black people.

But living in harmony with nature and radical changes are for other people.

The paper lays out a bold prescription for "rebuilding the infrastructures of human existence, from cities to homes to workplaces" to "prioritize changes in those human behaviors that constitute risks for the emergence of infectious diseases". The idea that we can change human behavior by transforming infrastructure is one of the basic ideas of Socialism. From the old Socialist utopian communes to the Soviet Union’s initial efforts to remove kitchens from apartments through Bauhaus and the housing projects of the United States, it ends badly.

But the two NIAID bigwigs essentially argue that every modern human behavior is a disease risk. Imagine lockdown and mask ‘safetyism’ culture applied to every facet of civilization.

“Some, and probably very many, of the living improvements achieved over recent centuries come at a high cost that we pay in deadly disease emergence,” Fauci and Morens contend.

But the agenda goes beyond some nebulous call for less dense living and working conditions to the much more ambitious and politically safer realms of the boilerplate wishlists of the Left.

The paper calls for "minimizing environmental perturbations such as deforestation, intense urbanization, and intensive animal farming" and "ending global poverty".

But the only way to end global poverty is through industrialization and urbanization.

Fauci can have environmental purism or he can have less global poverty, but he can’t have both. And indeed, the coronavirus pandemic, like a number of previous outbreaks, came out of China which has dramatically reduced poverty by moving its rural population into cities.

The paper tiptoes around the China question. Nature appears repeatedly through the paper, even though it’s used as a vague and unscientific term, but China only appears twice.

Fauci calls for an end to “intensive animal farming", but that’s why we don’t randomly eat wild animals from wet markets like the kind that may have caused the pandemic. We have massive herds of cattle, instead of bat soup, because we reacted to past famines with herding, while China learned to eat anything and everything that was available. Including wild bats.

Wet markets are much more in harmony with nature than the cattle herds of Wyoming.

Trapping and killing wild animals, and reselling them at fairs, is more natural. It integrates man with the existing natural ecosystem, rather than attempting to impose our own priorities on it.
And it may have helped cause the pandemic Fauci is exploiting to call for a return to nature.

Ending factory farming would make it harder for Fauci to get the burgers from Chef Geoff's, grilled steak quesadilla from Millie's, and barbecue pork rib tortellini from Sfoglina Van Ness that he loves so much, but living in harmony with nature is for other, less important people.

Fauci isn’t practicing science. This is touchy-feely hippie dogma from a man who is being paid a small fortune to act as a leading health expert and instead sounds like an aspiring leftist guru.

After sprinkling some sage and rosemary, Fauci’s paper warns that, “our increasingly extreme alterations of the environment induce increasingly extreme backlashes from nature”.

So much for science. Instead, Fauci tells us that Mother Nature is angry with us.

But what ‘backlash from nature’ caused the coronavirus pandemic? While the media and the expert class have tried to laboriously connect the pandemic, like everything else from higher crime rates and illegal migration, to global warming, they’ve done so with no evidence.

A paper in February finally managed to laboriously argue that global warming might have helped forests in China grow resulting in more bats which might have led to the pandemic.

In contrast to the usual environmental dogma, this theory blames global warming for not killing enough forests and bats. The logical conclusion must be that, in contrast to Fauci, we should be cutting down more forests and killing more animals to compensate for global warming.

Earlier in their paper, Fauci and Morens argue that, “Gaining a better understanding of the enormous reservoir of bat coronaviruses has been an urgent priority since the 2002 SARS epidemic, and remains so today. Considerable surveillance and phylogenetic and experimental work remains to be done. In 2020, it is among our most urgent research priorities.”

And that might be exactly the problem.

Some months before Fauci's paper, President Trump had ordered the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to cut off all funding to the EcoHealth Alliance which under Obama had provided grants to the Wuhan Institute of Virology to study coronaviruses in bats.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology houses China's only Level 4 lab handling some of the most dangerous viruses around. That, as many non-experts have noted, is quite a coincidence.

An edgy maxim by a medieval Franciscan friar would suggest that the likeliest explanation for a global virus outbreak centering around a virology lab would probably be that very same lab.

Rather than Fauci’s theory of a backlash from Mother Nature.

But Fauci might favor the ‘Mother Nature is Angry at Foolish Mortals Over Cheap Burgers’ theory over the Chinese virus lab theory because the grants were funded by the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases which he heads. There had been chatter about the lack of safety and precautions at the Wuhan Institute of Virology well before the pandemic.

The expert class and the media have dismissed such talk as an “unscientific conspiracy theory” in favor of the much more scientific theory that we’re experiencing a “backlash from nature”.

It’s easier to tell other people to live in harmony with nature from your D.C. mansion than acknowledge the possibility that your organization’s decisions may have been disastrous.

"Science will surely bring us many life-saving drugs, vaccines, and diagnostics; however, there is no reason to think that these alone can overcome the threat of ever more frequent and deadly emergences of infectious diseases," Morens and Fauci's paper concludes.

The top NIAID figures are telling us that drugs and vaccines won't work. Science is futile in the face of Mother Nature's wrath, the expert class, borrowing from a horror movie, lectures us.

We must repent of our wicked industrial ways.

Or perhaps Fauci and Morens should resign, move to Vermont, and live off the land.
"The COVID-19 pandemic is yet another reminder," Fauci's paper insists, "that in a human-dominated world, in which our human activities represent aggressive, damaging, and unbalanced interactions with nature, we will increasingly provoke new disease emergences."
Science can't help us, scientists at the organization that may have caused the disaster, insist.

We're accused of provoking "the latest examples of a deadly barrage of coming coronavirus and other emergences" that will bring us to our knees if we don't bow to Mother Nature.

"COVID-19 is among the most vivid wake-up calls in over a century. It should force us to begin to think in earnest and collectively about living in more thoughtful and creative harmony with nature," the paper concludes.

Collectively and creatively are two things that don’t go together. Neither do credentialed experts who want to be treated like scientists, but insist on rambling about nature like hippie gurus. A scientific argument actually tries to reason out its own understanding of the world. Babbling about harmony with nature never requires any such exercises in logic.

The coronavirus pandemic was either caused by a wet market, the living embodiment of Fauci’s call for harmony with nature, or by the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was funded by Fauci’s own organization. Either way, Fauci’s preferred answers to the pandemic are its likely cause.

Instead of blaming civilization for the pandemic, Fauci might consider a mirror.

And Americans might want to consider whether the people they’re paying to act as their leading scientists, but who dismiss science in favor of nature’s wrath, ought to be replaced by scientists.

[COMMENT: Notice he didn't accept personal blame for funding and collaborating on "gain of function" bioweapon experimentation with the Chinese in Wuhan labs - because such experimentation could not be done in the US.]

 

[marsh]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1372577340245573635

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1372577340245573635
.33 min