Category: Corona Virus

One of the most important and honest Covid-19 interviews to date.

“The lockdown is not a mechanism for disease eradication. It will only delay when the disease happens. You pay the cost now or you pay the cost later.”

– Bhattacharya

For more information:

https://www.hoover.org/publications/uncommon-knowledge

***********

Personal Commentary:

In this interview (data-based, apolitical, and painfully honest) they solemnly agree that it is essential that we (carefully) come out of quarantine. They present the fact that *with* or *without* quarantine the disease will run its course. Because of the quarantine we have extended the timeline of that course. Indeed this was the entire purpose, not to overwhelm the hospitals.

Well, that issue has come and gone, and the hospitals were spared, thank God. We did such a good job that many of them are going bankrupt! (Of course that is also due to the fact that the virus is not nearly as deadly – for the healthy – as originally assumed.) Now we have to figure out what to do moving forward.

When one considers the extra trouble *general* quarantine (ie. quarantining everyone) has & will continue to cause, it makes sense to isolate the high-risk, carefully protect them (like paying healthy nursing home personnel huge bonuses to stay locked-down *inside* of the institutions) & start the job of rebuilding the global economy.

We can do this… we must.

The paper concludes:

And the video expresses concern for Youtube’s oppression of academic discussion.

Try to say it like a proper Brit… it’s fun!

They’re MIXING antibody test with active covid-19 test. Now we don’t know who to believe…

Story Here

Another One Here

Published May 15, 2020

Cardiovascular conditions put Covid-19 patients at highest risk. Just look around you, they’re everywhere:

*Hypertension
*Coronary artery disease
*Congestive heart failure
*Body Mass Index > 30%

Now consider how MANY Americans live w/ these conditions. These are the people who absolutely must avoid infection.

Wearing a mask does not protect me, I get that. But if I should unknowingly be infectious my mask (such a minor inconvenience) may protect those vulnerable people around me.

Nobel prize-winning epidemiologist Michael Levitt suggests that instead of lockdown we should promote:

• FACE MASKS
• HAND SANITIZERS
• TOUCHLESS MONETARY TRANSACTIONS

And protect the most vulnerable in our society.

Sounds reasonable to me.

*********

UPDATE May 8, 2020

“A (cloth) mask is worn to help protect others in case the wearer [unkowingly] has the virus. An N95 mask helps protect the wearer from getting the virus from others.”
– CDC

But as of yesterday masks are no longer *required* in my California county, only recommended.

“businesses may still require face coverings for customers and employees”

In the explanation published in newspaper no mention was made about protecting others. What I believe is happening is that we are finally beginning to embrace the science behind this disease, that is not nearly as deadly as we once believed.

In 12 cases of Covid-19 deaths the following risk factors were noted:

Skip forward to minute 12:25 to hear what you can do now to minimize the effect of covid-19.

• Exercise
• Eat healthy
• Good sleep
• Minimize stress
• Vaping – not good
• Smoking – worse
• Alcohol – not good
• Have your medical conditions under control
• Vitamins – probably good, but a whole other topic

Interview w/ former CDC Intel Officer Dr. Rishi Desai.

At minute 45:00 interviewer Tom Bileyu asks:

“If you were going to have people make a single change that would make the biggest impact on their health to prevent them from getting [complications from] covid-19, what change would you have them make?”

Dr. Rishi Dasai replies:

“I would personally recommend going out and eating some vegetables today. And I cannot think of anything more important than the fiber you get, the nutrients you get, the sense of fulfillment from the proteins you get from eating vegetables.”

Interview published May 7, 2020

SHOW NOTES:

Published May 15, 2020

Read article here.

How did we get this so wrong?

Wittkowski: Governments did not have an open discussion, including economists, biologists and epidemiologists, to hear different voices. In Britain, it was the voice of one person – Neil Ferguson – who has a history of coming up with projections that are a bit odd. The government did not convene a meeting with people who have different ideas, different projections, to discuss his projection. If it had done that, it could have seen where the fundamental flaw was in the so-called models used by Neil Ferguson. His paper was published eventually, in medRxiv. The assumption was that one per cent of all people who became infected would die. There is no justification anywhere for that.

Let us say the epidemic runs with a basic reproduction rate of around two. Eventually 80 per cent of the population will be immune, because they have been infected at some point in time. Eighty per cent of the British population would be something like 50million. One per cent of them dying is 500,000. That is where Ferguson’s number came from.

But we knew from the very beginning that neither in Wuhan nor in South Korea did one per cent of all people infected die. South Korea has 60million people. It is about the same size as the UK. How many deaths were in South Korea? Did they shut down? No. The South Korean government was extremely proud to have resisted pressure to drop the very basic concepts of democracy.

The epidemic in South Korea was over by March, the number of cases was down by 13 March. In Wuhan they also did not shut down the economy. Wuhan had restricted travel out of the city. They stopped train services and blocked the roads. They did not restrict anything social within the city until very late. We have seen, then, in Wuhan and South Korea, if you do not do anything, the epidemic is over in three weeks.

Knowing that the epidemic would be over in three weeks, and the number of people dying would be minor, just like a normal flu, the governments started shutting down in mid-March. Why? Because somebody pulled it out of his head that one per cent of all infected would die. One could argue that maybe one per cent of all cases [people who have symptoms that are serious enough for them to go to a hospital or get treated] would die. But one per cent of all people infected does not make any sense. And we had that evidence by mid-March.