The Great Covid Madness (7)


The following is an article on the British Website “The Conservative Woman” by Laura Perrins… The Johnson regime is an abusive partner [here].

I reproduce the whole thing; in so doing I hope I have not violated any copyright. It’s an essential read. If the BoJo regime is losing “The Conservative Woman”, they’re toast. And justly so. The problem is that the opposition Labour Party is even worse! The British seem to have an entire political class devoted to their destruction.

I SEE we have reached the ‘it’s not me – it’s you’ stage of our abusive relationship with the Johnson administration. This will be followed swiftly with further abusive and dehumanising diktats and laws when we will be told: ‘You made me do it’ and that it is all our fault.
Dear reader, do not underestimate the psychological attack the Johnson Regime is carrying out on the people of this country. For the last few days we have been subject to a relentless campaign from the Government and its media enablers that it is we, the public, who are responsible for the spread of the virus, if we even dare to leave our homes.
In truth, although there are limited exceptions to this rule, the Johnson Regime would rather we didn’t leave home at all. The preferred course of action would be to seal us inside our homes for the next three months because humans have the irritating habit of wanting to actually talk with, and be with, people.
And, of course, we can’t do that as the NHS might collapse at any moment. They never stop telling us that the NHS is days away from collapse – it’s been going on like that for years.
And so, through a combination of outright terror and emotional blackmail, they want us to submit to this authoritarian neo-communist rule that seeks to crush our individual human rights.

So they threaten to abolish support bubbles. They do this because they are monsters. They do not seem to care that support bubbles are there to, you know, support people – often vulnerable people.

That abolishing them could leave older people or single mothers even more isolated and alone than they are already, does not seem to keep them up at night. There is a real cruelty in threatening this. But then, as I have always said, the cruelty is the point.

The Johnson Regime has a rotating team of NHS workers, medical ‘experts,’ modellers, and now the Met Police, coming on our airwaves to threaten us personally with the following array of punishments: Death via Covid, illness via Covid, withdrawal of ‘perks’ (like we are prison inmates) or plain old police power in the form of fines.
And remember folks, this is all because we deserve it, we have asked for it, we are not playing by their draconian, dehumanising cruel and inhuman rules.

The truth is they have no idea if this current lockdown will work. Neil Ferguson – aka Professor Lockdown – admitted as much in the Sunday Times, saying it was ‘a million-dollar question’ whether it will work or not.
Considering this lockdown is costing us billions per day, not to mention the mental health costs and total destruction of the lives of children, you would think he would be a bit surer.
But then, as Andrew Cadman has explained, for the scientists, lockdown is a once in a lifetime opportunity to test their theories in real time.
Ferguson also said that herd immunity would be achieved not just through the vaccination scheme, but because so many people have already been infected with Covid, in London at least.

Remember, dear reader, when we were told a few months back, that to rely on such a scenario – namely, herd immunity through infection – was a monstrous idea?
Here is yet another U-turn. Ferguson also dropped in the idea that multiple vaccinations might be needed because of new variants. He just dropped that in there, although it hasn’t been mentioned before.
The truth is, if this new variant is as transmissible as they say, this lockdown will not stop its spread. Ferguson already admitted that the virus is endemic.
To listen to them, you would think even looking at someone is enough to spread the virus, so this virus will spread. It will spread because it is a virus, not because you met a friend for a walk in the local park.
It will spread because it is a virus that likes human contact and, as we are humans, we will contact each other. Only an utterly dehumanising regime would demand that we act not like humans but like automatons, something akin to the computers that these scientists spend their life working on.

There is a monstrous cruelty in setting up a system of laws that the Johnson Regime knows cannot be abided by, by virtue of our humanity itself.
There is a monstrous cruelty in setting up a system of laws that cannot be abided by without the population suffering significant and serious mental harm.
There is a monstrous cruelty in setting up a system of laws that leaves children self-isolating in their rooms away from families, isolated from friends and school, unable to play music and sport, and unable to hug a relative. It is monstrous.

This system of inhuman laws is, to use a term found in criminal law, a form of entrapment. It is inevitable that these laws will be broken, by virtue of our humanity itself.
As such, it is also a breach of natural law and brings the law into disrepute. To ban or attack people for chatting is morally degenerate. The Johnson Regime and its monstrous system of State power is evil, unethical and immoral. Remember that.

Dear reader, it is not your fault. You did not make them do it. The Johnson Regime is the monstrous, abusive partner made real. It acts grossly unreasonably, places horrific burdens upon you, terrorises you and emotionally blackmails you, and demands you adhere to a regime of coercive control.
Then it tells you it is all for your own good or the good of someone else. Like an abusive partner, the Johnson Regime wants to break you. It wants to break you body and soul. Don’t let them do it. The reckoning will come.

Rebel Yell

Contretemps at the Capitol

After having witnessed probably the largest demonstration in modern times in support of President Trump, we now know that great swathes of the American people know full well the corruption of their electoral system by a Democrat party mafia. The invasion of the Capitol building, although wrong and not justified, was no “insurrection” as the lügenpresse would have us believe. Ashli Babbitt, a four-term servicewoman in the US Air Force, was shot and killed by Capitol police. [Video here:] …[See also, “Her Name Was Ashli Babbitt“]

She was no George Floyd—a drug-dealing thug and criminal turned into a plastic hero by the Swamp Things. She was a patriot and loyal citizen who is now being vilified as a terrorist by the new commissars and their lickspittles in the Fake News media.

Now that the nomenklatura have weaseled their way into power, the coming tyranny is already flexing its muscles. Facebook, Twitter and others are the tech commissars banning or suspending Trump and many more conservatives and right-wing voices. This is all supported by the Democrats—it’s the out-sourcing of censorship; not done directly by the politicians, but by their digital hagfish in the cyberworld.

Purges and cancelling of people has been underway for some time now. These are all hallmarks of a totalitarian regime. Back in the days of Soviet communism, Andrei Sakharov, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, was similarly exiled and vilified in the Soviet Union.

Edward Snowden has pointed out [on RT] :

“Facebook officially silences the President of the United States,” Snowden tweeted on Thursday in reaction to the news. The whistleblower said the decision “will be remembered as a turning point in the battle for control over digital speech.”

….In a follow-up message, Snowden warned that those celebrating the suspension should “imagine a world that exists for more than the next 13 days, and this becomes a milestone that will endure.”

The tech tyrants are the real rulers of America now; Biden and Harris the mere figure heads. As Brendan O’Neill points out on Spiked online:

Not only does cancel culture exist — it is the means through which the powerful, unaccountable oligarchies of the internet era and their clueless cheerleaders in the liberal elites interfere in the democratic process and purge voices they disapprove of. That’s what Twitter’s permanent suspension of Donald Trump confirms….

…The new capitalists’ cancellation of the democratically elected president of the United States is a very significant turning point in the politics and culture of the Western world. We underestimate the significance of this act of unilateral purging at our peril. It demonstrates that the greatest threat to freedom and democracy comes not from the oafs and hard-right clowns who stormed the Capitol this week, but from the technocratic elites who spy in the breaching of the Capitol an opportunity to consolidate their cultural power and their political dominance….

…Twitter’s ban on Trump is extraordinary for many reasons. First, there’s the arrogance of it. Make no mistake: this is the bosses vs democracy; corporates vs the people; exceptionally wealthy and aloof elites determining which elected politicians may engage in online discussion, which is where most political and public debate takes place in the 21st century. Those who cannot see how concerning and sinister it is that a handful of Big Tech companies have secured a virtual monopoly over the social side of the internet, and are now exploiting their monopolistic power to dictate what political opinions it is acceptable to hold and express in these forums, urgently needs a wake-up call.
Secondly, there is Twitter’s deeply disturbing justification for why it suspended Trump. It says Trump’s account ran the ‘risk’ of ‘inciting violence’. And yet the two tweets of his that it cites do nothing of the sort. In one, Trump describes his voters as ‘great American patriots’ and insists they will have a ‘GIANT VOICE’ in the future. In the other he confirms that he will not be attending the inauguration of Joe Biden. That’s it. In what warped moral universe can such standard, boastful Trump-made statements be interpreted as calls for violence?

And it’s not only politics either. In the Age of Covid, the same left-wing totalitarianism is pervasive. Contrary scientific viewpoints are now being outlawed and censored. The British sociologist, Frank Furedi, in discussing the necessity of scepticism in all things, especially science, remarks:

Over the past, pandemic-dominated year, this crusade against scepticism has gone into overdrive. For instance, Big Tech companies like YouTube, Twitter and Facebook have used the threat posed by the pandemic to justify censoring and regulating debate over Covid-related policy. When YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki announced that anything that contradicted the recommendations of the World Health Organisation would be removed, she seemed to have mistaken herself for God’s voice on earth.

This is the position we are in. An arrogant shower of ignorant degenerates seeks to annihilate everything in Western Civilization. They have gained power in the USA and in other European countries. Freedom is ending. Unless…we do something about it.

With regard to the Contretemps at the Capitol, don’t include me with the weak-kneed shower saying how terrible it was and how it “was a blow against American democracy” or any such self-serving codswallop. All last year, the Democrat party, rotten mayors, and bent Governors, all supported and abetted the rioting mobs of anarchists and the BLM rabble. Thousand of livelihoods were destroyed, billions of dollars in damage, and the rule of law openly violated and supported by Democrat politicians, especially comradess Harris who offered to front bail money for arrested thugs.

I must admit to a little schadenfreude seeing those sniveling Democrats hiding under their desks getting a little of their own medicine – it doesn’t feel so good when you’re on the receiving end, does it? Besides, the damage to property and ordered government during the Democrat riots was a million times worse.

To all the “Never-Trumpers”, the fake conservatives, and the milquetoast RINOs, and the George Will paneled-salon ponces– this is what your attempts to undermine the Trump presidency have resulted in. God rot the lot of you.

I have no doubt that the 74 million votes that Trump received will be back with a vengeance. The Fake News hacks, the nomenklatura, and the assorted cretinous mobs on the streets had better take note.

Rebel Yell

The Great Covid Madness (6)

An excellent analysis of empirical data relating covid infections and deaths with lockdowns and other “non-medical interventions”. Dr Ivor Cummins on his podcast (The Fat Emperor) discusses real data (not computer models) with Joel Smalley, MBA, Data Scientist; Dr Claire Craig, Diagnostic Pathologist; Dr Johnathan Engler, MBChB, Biotechnologist, and Marie Oldfield, Chartered Statistician and Scientist with the Royal Statistical Society.

They look at how diseases flow through populations and what, if any, effects do lockdowns and mask wearing have on covid death rates. Not surprisingly, they have no effect at all on arresting the spread of the disease and likely a deleterious effect. Far greater damage to health, in the long run, is caused by lockdowns, without even considering the disastrous social and economic effects.

Basically, the hysterical reactions of governments to the coronavirus constitute one of the most colossal policy failures of all time.


Rebel Yell

The Great Covid Madness (4)

Remember what The Duke said…we are being forced to live it vicariously through our political leaders.
Here we are at the end of the worst year in memory, rendered even worse by the united folly of the political class of most Western countries, beating our lives and livelihoods into a pulp because they cannot recognize a mistake or come to grips with the fact that they may have to learn something about medicine and biology.

After a few months when it became apparent that covid-19 was not the Black Death, or the Great Plague, some common sense might have been injected into the maelstrom of doom propaganda and hysteria. But no, politicians love their new tyrannical powers. Lock everybody up, that will do it. So what if millions lose their jobs, businesses and livelihoods? –After all, we are “saving lives”!

By now, it is perfectly apparent that these lockdowns have had no effect on stopping the coronavirus (impossible anyway) but plenty of effect on destroying lives. A paper in The Lancet[here] one of the world’s leading medical journals, reports, after surveying the effects of lockdowns in a multitude of countries, that….

We accessed publicly available COVID-19 surveillance data from the top 50 countries in terms of reported cases to assess the impact of population health interventions (e.g. containment measures such as lockdowns, border closings), country-specific socioeconomic factors, and healthcare capacity on overall COVID-19 cases (recovered or critical) and deaths.

Findings include:

When COVID-19 mortality was assessed, variables significantly associated with an increased death rate per million were population prevalence of obesity and per capita GDP (Table 4). In contrast, variables that was negatively associated with increased COVID-19 mortality were reduced income dispersion within the nation, smoking prevalence, and the number of nurses per million population (Table 4). Indeed, more nurses within a given health care system was associated with reduced mortality (Fig. 1). Mortality rates were also higher in those counties with an older population upon univariate analysis, but age as a factor was not retained in multivariable analysis (Fig. 2). Lastly, government actions such as border closures, full lockdowns, and a high rate of COVID-19 testing were not associated with statistically significant reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.

It is a detailed and dense paper, but worth the effort.

Another, very recent, paper in Frontiers in Public Health [here] from French researchers analyzed various effects and measures over 160 countries. [The section on Principal Component Analysis is most revealing].

Results: Higher Covid death rates are observed in the [25/65°] latitude and in the [−35/−125°] longitude ranges. The national criteria most associated with death rate are life expectancy and its slowdown, public health context (metabolic and non-communicable diseases (NCD) burden vs. infectious diseases prevalence), economy (growth national product, financial support), and environment (temperature, ultra-violet index). Stringency of the measures settled to fight pandemia, including lockdown, did not appear to be linked with death rate.
Conclusion: Countries that already experienced a stagnation or regression of life expectancy, with high income and NCD rates, had the highest price to pay. This burden was not alleviated by more stringent public decisions. Inherent factors have predetermined the Covid-19 mortality: understanding them may improve prevention strategies by increasing population resilience through better physical fitness and immunity.

An article in Spiked in the UK [here] highlights the little-mentioned side effects of lockdowns, namely, the increase in deaths caused by the interruption of normal medical practice…

The effect on broader health has been similarly catastrophic. Hospital appointments, operations and screenings have been cancelled, often in cases where capacity was nowhere close to being reached. Patients took ‘stay at home’ messages far too much to heart and didn’t get serious illnesses checked out, including cancers which could have been detected and stopped. The number of Brits waiting for routine hospital treatment has risen from 1,613 to over 160,000 this year – a hundredfold increase.
In the developing world, where Covid itself has had a much lesser impact than in the West, lockdowns have disrupted an estimated 80 per cent of programmes aimed at treating tuberculosis. In 2019, TB killed 1.4million people worldwide. But this year, thanks to a 25 per cent reduction in case detections, 1.7million deaths have been projected.

In Canada, in the great province of Ontario, another lockdown is in place until January 23rd. What is the status of the pandemic of this “terrifying disease” [aka bad ‘flu]….

Ontario population: 14.7 million.
Total hospitalized patients: 823 [or 1 in 17 861]; in ICU 285; on ventilator 194.
Total beds: ~34 700 [here]

Acute care beds: 22 400.
ICU: 2012.

In the city of Ottawa (population ~950 000), capital of the Frozen North, total hospitalized patients 13, in ICU 1. 89% of acute beds are occupied, 83% of ICU beds occupied out of a total of 1224 beds. So just over 1% are COVID-19 patients. Since acute beds are usually 90–95% occupied, only a small increase would lead to big problems. This is not a product of a mass pandemic, but a feature of health systems always working at near capacity.

Even worse, these lockdowns lead to massive cancellations of general procedures and surgeries. As the Toronto Sun [here] reports…

To free up beds, Ontario’s hospitals have cancelled 52,700 surgeries since March 15, and are delaying 12,200 additional surgeries each week that operation rooms remain idle…

“As of April 23, there were 910 hospitalized COVID-19 patients leaving over 9,000 unoccupied acute care hospital beds including over 2,000 critical care beds,” an FAO statement says. “As a result, the province has a significant amount of remaining available capacity to accommodate COVID-19 hospitalizations.”

So if there are 823 patients now (December 27), why is it likely that hospital capacity will be overwhelmed?

That never happened in the spring and it will not happen now. More critical and rational thinking is required by political leaders, and less attention paid to hysterical and fear mongering journalists. It is time to end this foolishness of lockdowns and let the young and productive get back to work and play. Locking people up is absurd. And worse than useless.

Politicians need to understand that scientific thinking requires open inquiry and debate, not rote chanting from a government script. It is time to get back to rationality.

Rebel Yell

Why the abandonment of standardized testing is the key to enthroning privilege

Razib Khan gets to the point in a wonderful way. Every time standard intelligence testing comes under attack, the people most benefitted are not the poor, the disfavoured or the outsiders, but the classes that are already privileged. No competition is allowed to come from the capable but unconnected, the poor who have talent, or the outsiders with sharp brains. It is a clsoing of opportunities in the name of equality of outcomes.

Razib writes:

“Tests are imperfect. But what is the alternative? Over the past few years graduate schools have been removing the GRE as a requirement for admission. What will the consequence be? If the history of China is any guide, those with connections and pedigree will benefit. Without a hard-to-fake entrance exam, recommendations from those you trust will loom large again. The abolition of the GRE will be a back door through which the “letter of introduction” returns. Who will be hurt by this? Who will benefit? There are many answers here, but one thing seems obvious: those without connections will suffer. International students. Those from working-class backgrounds. Non-traditional older students trying to turn their life around with the benefit of hindsight. When academics rely on networks of those they already know, the circle of inclusion will begin to narrow. Ironically, attempts to “foster inclusion” by removing standardized testing will inevitably constrict the space of those included.”


Read the whole article here, and support Razib Khan with a subscription, if you agree.

The Great Covid Madness (3)

Since Charles Mackay wrote his classic book “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” [here] in 1841, detailing such absurdities as the South Sea Bubble and the Tulip mania, nothing has come close until the Great Covid Madness of 2020. Charles Mackay should be around now. It truly is one for the history books.

When it started in early 2020, it just might have been the Big One judging by the response of the Chinese in February. But when its nature as a coronavirus became known, a cause of respiratory infections, the first line of defense should have been known—was known, but ignored. Protect the elderly and infirm in retirement homes and care facilities, as they are always the population group affected every year by influenzas, pneumonia and like maladies. Of course, this policy was not followed anywhere; in fact, in Britain and New York state, and doubtless many other places, the exact opposite: sending back to care homes old folks who had picked up the virus in hospital thereby turning them into infectious agents for thousands of others. Brilliant, Governor Cuomo and PM Johnson!

After the spring wave passed and wrought havoc on the elderly (about 90% of deaths are of old people and 90% of those have two or more co-morbidities), governments should have had some time to prepare for testing and quarantining if necessary later. Rising numbers of “cases” were reported every day. Hospitals would be overwhelmed. The dead would be piled high.

Of course, none of this happened. All of the fatuous computer models were proved wrong time and time again, but the politicians, as smart as a sack of hammers, screamed for more lockdowns (which have had no effect on the transmission of the virus), more social distancing (again shown to be useless) and business closures (of course, destroying the livelihoods of millions will stop people getting sick!).

Much of this hysteria stems from the obsession with “cases”. What is a “case”? It seems, though this is never clearly stated, that a “case” is a positive test result. All positive test results are the sum of the true positives and the false positives, the true positives (TP) being a positive test result for a person who actually does have the virus, and a false positive (FP) being a positive test result for a person who does not have the virus. Other parameters that are never made clear in official statistics are:

What is the accuracy (sensitivity) of the test?
What is the prevalence of the virus in the general population?

It turns out that these two parameters have a huge effect on the credibility of any testing regime. This is very clearly explained in an article by D. Mackie in Lockdown Sceptics [here].  

Consider a test with an accuracy of 95%. This means testing a population group that is virus-free, no-one is infected, will result in 5% of the tests showing up positive; these are the false positives. Many people assume that this means that if they take a test, they can be 95% sure that the result is correct for them.
Not so. Here’s why.

Suppose that an oracle has informed us that 5% of the general population has the virus. Test a set of 100,000 people.
5,000 people will have the virus and 95,000 will not. The 5,000 infected people show up positive—the true positives. But 5% of the uninfected subgroup will show up as positive, and 5% of 95,000 is 4,750. So, the total number of positive test results (“cases”, remember) will be the true positives plus the false positives–TP + FP = 9,750.

You go to the clinic and take a test which comes back positive. Your question, understandably, is what is the likelihood that your positive test result is a true positive and not a false positive? That likelihood is the ratio of the true positives to the total positives, that is, TP/(TP + FP), in this case, 5,000/9,750 or ~0.52, or about 52%. That is, about evens. Nothing like 95%.

It gets worse. If the prevalence is much lower, say 1%, then our set of 100,000 people will give 1,000 people infected and 1,000 true positives. But the uninfected will number 99,000 and 5% of these will give a positive test result giving 4,950 false positives for a total positive test result number of 5,950 (TP + FP).

Then, in that case, the likelihood of your positive test result being a true positive and not a false positive is 1,000/5,950 = 0.168 or about 16%. So it’s overwhelmingly likely that it’s a false positive.

Note that this change is dependent on the prevalence of the virus and not on the accuracy of the test! Assessing the reliability of testing is hugely dependent on these prior probabilities, both of which are very uncertain.

Based on a recent article in the British Medical Journal [here] it seems that the 95% accuracy may be way too optimistic. Here, the authors say…

Pooled analysis of 16 studies (3818 patients) estimated a sensitivity of 87.8%
(95% CI 81.5% to 92.2%) for an initial reverse-transcriptase PCR test.

…which, if true, makes the test statistics much less credible in terms of true positives. However, politicians are basing their house arrest measures on such figures. And no “journalists” are asking any serious questions.

More on testing credibility and the folly of lockdowns in an upcoming issue of the “Great Covid Madness”. Stay tuned.

Rebel Yell