[absolute galore]

Wow. Smelling a little desperate? The NYT must be paying Krugman a premium for vaccine propaganda columns; this is his second in a row. I thought the one from Oct 30 was bad, but here we have the cake.

I point this guy out because he is part of the high priesthood of the Coastal Elites. Yet his “opinions” are not one tenth the value of the article Dr.D linked yesterday about the trucking problem. Not nearly as well-written, either. I would put economists ahead of footballers as persons from whom not to take medical advice. Krugman is almost as smart as the crust on Albert Einstein’s mustache.

Incidentally, the fact that breakthrough infections happen — that some people get the virus despite being vaccinated — actually strengthens the case for mandates, because it means that even those who’ve gotten their shots face some danger from those who refuse to follow suit.Vaccination, then, should be considered a public duty, not a personal choice. But there would be a strong argument for public promotion of vaccines even if we were to somehow ignore the harm the unvaccinated impose on others and look only at the personal choice aspect. For this isn’t an area in which individuals can be relied on to choose well.
Ah yes, The Science! The vaccines don’t work, so get vaccinated to protect the vaccinated.

Medicine, in case you haven’t noticed, is a complex and difficult subject. As a result, it’s an area where it’s a bad idea to leave people entirely to their own devices. The clamor for unproven treatments like taking hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin reminds us why we require that physicians be licensed and drugs be approved, rather than leaving it up to the public to decide who’s qualified and which medication is safe and effective.
Right. Let’s let the technocrat big pharma experts determine what we should put in our bodies. Like experimental vaccines. That don’t work.

He goes on to make the argument that unvaccinated hospitalizations cost the public money. Right. So does paying many billions for vaccines that don’t work. And then there are the apparently increasing number of double vaxxed now being hospitalized.

He makes the “just like other mandated childhood vaccines”, claiming Covid 19 is equivalent. He must have missed his epidemiology lectures while going to Harvard for economics.

Hey Paul. You suck as an economist. Please don’t branch out now.

No, Vaccine Mandates Aren’t an Attack on Freedom
Nov. 1,
By Paul Krugman
Opinion Columnist
Sign up for the Paul Krugman newsletter, for Times subscribers only. A guide to U.S. politics and the economy — from the mainstream to the wonkish. Get it with a Times subscription.
The Delta surge in Covid-19 seems to be receding. That’s good news, and not just because fewer people are dying. Fear of infection was one reason the economic recovery hit an air pocket in the third quarter. Resuming normal life will be a huge relief.
But the U.S. right is, in effect, trying to keep the pandemic going. We talk a lot about misinformation on social media, some of which — surprise! — appears to be the product of Russian disinformation. However, the role of the right-wing establishment has surely been far more important. Fox News serves up anti-vaccine messages almost every day. Republican governors have tried to ban vaccine mandates not just by local governments and school districts but by private businesses. Multiple Republican attorneys general have filed suit to stop federal vaccine mandates.
The expressed rationale for all this activity is that it’s about protecting freedom. In reality, while there are several reasons for vaccine resistance, politics is a significant driver of the agitation. A successful vaccination campaign could mean a successful Biden administration, and the right is determined to prevent that, no matter how many avoidable deaths result from vaccine sabotage. It’s noteworthy that Fox has a very strict vaccination policy for its own employees.
Still, the case against vaccine mandates, however disingenuous, needs to be answered on the merits. Yet I at least have rarely seen the case against a right to refuse vaccination fully explained, even though you could hardly come up with a better example than Covid-19 vaccination if you wanted to design a hypothetical situation in which arguments for freedom of choice don’t apply. And I think it’s worth spelling out exactly why.
First, personal choice is fine — as long as your personal choices don’t hurt other people. I may deplore the quality of your housekeeping, but it’s your own business; on the other hand, freedom doesn’t include the right to dump garbage in the street.
And going unvaccinated during a pandemic does hurt other people — which is why schools, in particular, have required vaccination against many diseases for generations. The unvaccinated are much more likely to contract the coronavirus, and hence potentially infect others, than those who’ve had their shots; there’s also some evidence that even when vaccinated individuals become infected, they’re less likely to infect others than the unvaccinated.
Incidentally, the fact that breakthrough infections happen — that some people get the virus despite being vaccinated — actually strengthens the case for mandates, because it means that even those who’ve gotten their shots face some danger from those who refuse to follow suit.
And the harm done to others by rejecting vaccines goes beyond an increased risk of disease. The unvaccinated are far more likely than the vaccinated to require hospitalization, which means that they place stress on the health care system. They also impose financial costs on the general public, because given the prevalence of insurance both public and private, their hospital bills end up being largely covered by the rest of us.
Vaccination, then, should be considered a public duty, not a personal choice. But there would be a strong argument for public promotion of vaccines even if we were to somehow ignore the harm the unvaccinated impose on others and look only at the personal choice aspect. For this isn’t an area in which individuals can be relied on to choose well.

Medicine, in case you haven’t noticed, is a complex and difficult subject. As a result, it’s an area where it’s a bad idea to leave people entirely to their own devices. The clamor for unproven treatments like taking hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin reminds us why we require that physicians be licensed and drugs be approved, rather than leaving it up to the public to decide who’s qualified and which medication is safe and effective.
So you have to wonder why anyone would consider it a good idea when Florida’s surgeon general urged people to downplay medical advice on vaccines and rely on their “intuition and sensibilities.”
Finally, the most contentious area in this whole argument involves vaccine and mask requirements for schools. And in this area, opponents of mandates aren’t making decisions for themselves — they’re making decisions for their children, who have rights of their own and aren’t simply their parents’ property.
Now, U.S. law and tradition give parents a great deal of leeway, especially when religious beliefs are involved, but not absolute power over their children’s lives. Adults can’t choose to deny their children basic education; they can’t turn down lifesaving medical treatment. That’s why we have longstanding vaccine mandates for many childhood diseases. And the same logic applies to Covid-19.
Again, I don’t know how many people really believe that vaccine requirements are an attack on freedom. But in any case, it’s important to understand that freedom is no reason to block a potential medical miracle.
More on Covid vaccination.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
Paul Krugman has been an Opinion columnist since 2000 and is also a Distinguished Professor at the City University of New York Graduate Center. He won the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on international trade and economic geography. @PaulKrugman

[absolute galore]

One of the biggest idiots at the New York Times –and that is a title with plenty of competition–is Paul Klugman. Here he conflates all sorts of unrelated stuff. But most egregious and glaring, is the idea that the republican governors opposing vaccine mandates are anti-vax crusaders. As far as I know, all of them have urged people to get vaccinated, and have made it very easy to do so. Vaccine mandates are not to be confused with vaccine campaigns. What they oppose is the federal government making it mandatory to be vaccinated.in order to keep your job.

He writes: After all, a successful vaccination campaign that ended the pandemic would have been good political news for Biden.

And yet. The vaccine campaign has supposedly reached the goal they told us would achieve herd immunity. There is now scientific evidence (that even Paul Krugman and the NYT must acknowledge) the vaccines do not in any way stop the spread of Covid. Right there is the end of the mandate discussion, freedom or not.

And he also conflates opposition to the vaccine mandates as GOP. Maybe people are or will be driven that way, but that is also a lie. And: He is calling out many police, firefighters, first responders, nurses, as cowards? Are you kidding? Where was his dumb ass seated for the last 20 months? At home in his pajamas with his laptop, bet on it.

Of course now they are making the argument, presumably with a straight face, in one of the links today that the unvaxxed must get vaccinated…to protect ourselves from the vaccinated!! I didn’t think it could get more insane, but I was wrong.

PAUL KRUGMAN: The cowards, not the crazies, are destroying America

4StateAdmin October 30, 2021 0 Arkansas News, Hot Springs, Little Rock, News

PAUL KRUGMAN: The cowards, not the crazies, are destroying America

In July, Kay Ivey, governor of Alabama, had some strong and sensible things to say about covid-19 vaccines. “I want folks to get vaccinated,” she declared. “That’s the cure. That prevents everything.” She went on to say that the unvaccinated are “letting us down.”

Three months later Ivey directed state agencies not to cooperate with federal covid-19 vaccination mandates.

Ivey’s swift journey from common sense and respect for science to destructive partisan nonsense–nonsense that is killing tens of thousands of Americans–isn’t unique. On the contrary, it was a recapitulation of the journey the Republican Party has taken on issue after issue, from tax cuts to the Big Lie about the 2020 election.

When we talk about the GOP’s moral descent, we tend to focus on the obvious extremists, like the conspiracy theorists who claim that climate change is a hoax and Jan. 6 was a false-flag operation.

But the crazies wouldn’t be driving the Republican agenda so completely if it weren’t for the cowards: Republicans who clearly know better but reliably swallow their misgivings and go along with the party line. And at this point crazies and cowards essentially make up the party’s entire elected wing.

Consider the claim that tax cuts pay for themselves. In 1980, George H.W. Bush, running against Ronald Reagan for the Republican presidential nomination, called that assertion “voodoo economic policy.” Everything we’ve seen since then says that he was right.

But Bush soon climbed down, and by 2017 even supposed “moderates” like Susan Collins accepted claims that the Trump tax cut would reduce, not increase, the budget deficit. (It increased the deficit.)

Or consider climate change. As recently as 2008, John McCain campaigned for president in part on a proposal to put a cap on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. But at this point Republicans in Congress are united in their opposition to any substantive action to limit global warming, with 30 GOP senators outright denying the overwhelming scientific evidence that human activities are causing climate change.

The falsehoods that are poisoning America’s politics tend to share similar life histories. They begin in cynicism, spread through disinformation, and culminate in capitulation as Republicans who know the truth decide to acquiesce in lies.

Take the claim of a stolen election. Donald Trump never had any evidence on his side but he didn’t care; he just wanted to hold on to power or, failing that, promulgate a lie that would help him retain his hold on the GOP.

Despite the lack of evidence and the failure of every attempt to produce or create a case, however, a steady drumbeat of propaganda has persuaded an overwhelming majority of Republicans that Joe Biden’s victory was illegitimate.

And establishment Republicans, who at first pushed back against the Big Lie, have gone quiet or even begun to promote the falsehood. Thus this week, The Wall Street Journal published, without corrections or fact checks, a letter to the editor from Trump that was full of demonstrable lies, and in so doing gave those lies a new prominent platform.

The GOP’s journey toward what it is now with respect to covid-19–an anti-vaccine, objectively pro-pandemic party–followed the same trajectory.

Although Republicans like Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott claim that their opposition to vaccine requirements is about freedom, the fact that both governors have tried to stop private businesses from requiring customers or staff to be vaccinated shows this is a smoke screen. Pretty clearly, the anti-vaccine push began as an act of politically motivated sabotage. After all, a successful vaccination campaign that ended the pandemic would have been good political news for Biden.

We should note that this sabotage has, so far at least, paid off. While there are multiple reasons many Americans remain unvaccinated, there’s a strong correlation between a county’s political lean and its vaccination and death rates in recent months. And the persistence of covid, which has in turn been a drag on the economy, has been an important factor dragging down Biden’s approval rating.

More important for the internal dynamics of the GOP, however, is that many in the party’s base have bought into assertions that requiring vaccination against covid-19 is somehow a tyrannical intrusion of the state into personal decisions. In fact, many Republican voters appear to have turned against long-standing requirements that parents have their children vaccinated against other contagious diseases.

And true to form, elected Republicans like Ivey who initially spoke in favor of vaccines have folded and surrendered to the extremists, even though they must know that in so doing they will cause many deaths.

I’m not sure exactly why cowardice has become the norm among elected Republicans who aren’t dedicated extremists. But if you want to understand how the GOP became such a threat to everything America should stand for, the cowards are at least as important a factor as the crazies.

Paul Krugman, who won the 2008 Nobel Prize in economics, writes for the New York Times.
OMG Share it!

[absolute galore]

Thanks,TDK! Great link! I was pretty far away. It was general admission, so we waited all night on line in the rain to get into the stadium. Don’t really remember much, although one of the guys disappeared and actually went missing for a couple of months before turning back up. I went off to college in Buffalo for five years a few months after this concert. Several lifetimes ago, that was.

[absolute galore]

I saw Foreigner in Philadelphia in ’78. They opened for the Rolling Stones. Drove myself and a few buddies from New York in my Pontiac Catalina station wagon. Waited all day in pouring rain for the concert to start. I was 18 so I guess I didn’t mind much.

[absolute galore]

Germ posted this from The Guardian piece he linked to: “Research reveals fully vaccinated people are just as likely to pass virus on to those they share a home with”

” …whether an infected individual is themselves fully vaccinated or unvaccinated makes little or no difference to how infectious they are to their household contacts. ”

Okay! We’re getting somewhere when a MSM shill like this admits the vaccines do not stop the virus, do not even slow it down, lose most effectiveness after 3 MONTHS. So naturally, the most important thing we can do is give it to those who don’t get seriously ill from the virus. Fauci’s ear wax is more intelligent:

“Prof Rowland Kao, an epidemiologist at the University of Edinburgh, who was not involved in the work, said the estimates of high rates of transmission among household contacts underscored the need to vaccinate teenagers and give boosters to vulnerable people.

“The vaccinations of younger persons to slow down transmission in the community, and the boosters to directly protect against severe infection and hospitalisation,” he said.”

And by the way, have they checked the recent vaccine status of those hospitalized with Covid?

I seriously cannot take much more of this evil stupidity/mass psychosis whatever the fuck it is. I think it’s probably getting unhealthy following all this bullshit and expecting somehow some way people will regain some ability to think. The rollout to the kids shows this is just not going to happen at this point. Logic just rolls off like water on a duck.

[absolute galore]

@Triv — The bloodline thing is just a little too CW TV for me. I also have a difficult time believing these nefarious global mafioso are taking over the world by intentionally spiking my Capt’n Crunch with extra iron filings buried in the Crunchberries. I don’t say this to demean your knowledge of nutritional science–perhaps I am suffering from too much iron. I do plan to get a blood profile anyway, so I will add whatever markers I need to get that info. No doubt the many toxins freefloating in the modern environment have a detrimental affect on us humans–good to have an understanding of how things work to a degree.

However, you mention you suffer from stress. I imagine I would be stressed too, trying to keep track of my health at the molecular level like that. And taking my entire world view from some psycho rich dude.
Anybody who uses the phrase “laughing out loud” every other paragraph just does not strike me as someone worth paying much mind.

Of course there are rich miscreants taking advantage of all kinds of situations, and there are evil actors afoot. But in general, there is fate and there is the unforeseen consequences of the actions of humans over time. Somebody has to get the role of rich asshole.

For me, it’s more about systems behavior than bloodlines. I think James Kunstler touched on this in the interview linked above. He did not say it using his favorite definition of history–It seemed like a good idea at the time–but that is the camp I tend to fall into.

[absolute galore]

Covid/vaccine headlines from today’s NYT:

F.D.A. Panel Considers Pfizer Shot for Younger Children
Federal officials hope the pediatric dose can help close a major gap in the nation’s vaccine campaign. Here’s the latest on the pandemic.

The Morning: Covid-19 cases have been falling in every region of the U.S., offering hope.

Business updates: Days from its Nov. 1 deadline, Tyson Foods said that 96 percent of its U.S. workers were vaccinated.

Vaccines for Young Kids May Be Coming. An Expert Explains Why That Matters.

Here’s what happens next if an F.D.A. panel recommends pediatric Covid shots.

Long Covid and the Blind Spots of American Medicine

This Flu Season Is Different. Here’s How to Prepare.

My Kid Fears Shots. How Can We Prepare for the Covid Vaccine?

Is It Covid-19 or the Flu?

Are we ready for a pandemic novel? Gary Shteyngart thinks so, and is getting heavy praise for his attempt.

(considering most of the reporting is already fictionalized, Gary is a bit behind….)

This last one, I actually decided to click on (by copying the headline and searching “incognito”). Wow. It sure is counter to a lot of the information we receive here on TAE. From that standpoint, it is an extremely insidious piece of MSM covid vaccine propaganda. I’m pasting below:

‘There’s Almost No Incentive at All to Give Him the Vaccine.’
Oct. 25, 2021

By Jessica Calarco
Dr. Calarco is a professor of sociology at Indiana University. She has been leading a research study involving surveys and interviews of 250 mothers of young children, whose vaccination decisions she has tracked since 2018.
Before the Covid-19 pandemic, a mother I interviewed as part of my study on pandemic parenting said, she never had a problem with vaccines. Her 2-year-old son got all his recommended immunizations on schedule. When it comes to the Covid-19 vaccines, however, the mother, who is white and has a college degree, says she isn’t so sure.
“I just feel there’s almost no incentive at all to give him the vaccine,” she said. “Even if there was like no risk to it. It just seems why would we even get it for him? If he were to get it, he would be able to heal pretty quick. And it’s unlikely that he would spread it to others.” (All the mothers agreed to take part in this research on condition of anonymity.)
Vaccination for younger children could be available very soon, and while many parents have longed for it, there’s a substantial group of parents who are uncertain. A recent report from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that only a third of parents with children ages 5 to 11 say they will vaccinate their children right away. Less than a quarter of parents with children under the age of 5 say they plan to do the same when a vaccine is available for that age group.
Even among children who are currently eligible — ages 12 to 17 — vaccination rates are lower than would be expected. About 59 percent of kids in that age group have received at least one dose.
These numbers contrast with the uptake rates for most other vaccines for children. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests that the portion of American children vaccinated by age 2 is more than 90 percent for polio, measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B and chickenpox, and more than 80 percent for diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis.
So, what’s different about the Covid-19 vaccines? Certainly they are more politicized than other vaccines, and there’s a great deal of misinformation and disinformation shared about them online. But, as I’ve covered in my research, those factors cannot entirely account for why so many parents — including politically liberal parents, highly educated parents and parents who previously followed vaccine protocols — are not planning to vaccinate their children against Covid-19.
What I’ve argued in my recent study — which draws on interviews with 80 mothers of young children whose vaccine decisions I’ve been following since 2018 — is that to explain why so many parents see little incentive to vaccinate their children against Covid-19, we need a theory of “moral calm.”
Opinion Conversation Questions surrounding the Covid-19 vaccine and its rollout.
• Should pregnant women get the vaccine?
Gil Mor, a reproductive immunologist, explains why old science has led to conflicting advice.
• As more vaccine mandates arrive, how will we handle verification?
Tom Frieden, a former director of the C.D.C., describes how a safe and secure system could work.
• Are vaccine mandates a problem for civil liberties?
Two writers from the A.C.L.U. argue that actually, it’s quite the opposite.
• How many people have died because of undervaccination?
Comparing different areas of the U.S. suggests there have been many preventable deaths.
A moral calm is essentially the opposite of a moral panic — a term popularized in the 1970s by Stanley Cohen, who was a professor of sociology at the London School of Economics. If a moral panic is a situation in which exaggerated or misleading claims about the harm associated with some phenomenon lead to widespread fear of that phenomenon — such as the violence supposedly caused by video games — then I argue a moral calm is a situation in which we might expect widespread concern about some potentially harmful phenomenon but get the absence of fear instead.
Examining the moral calm around children and Covid-19 can help explain the hesitation around the vaccines and reveal what it may take to convince parents that their children should contribute to the public good.
In the United States, children are often sentimentalized, and parents fret about wildly inflated threats to children’s health, leading them to check Halloween candy for razor blades or wring their hands over teenagers eating Tide Pods. It would not have been surprising to see widespread panic among American parents about the possibility of their kids getting seriously ill from or even dying of Covid-19.
And yet, in interviews, that’s not what I hear from most mothers in my study. An Asian American mother with a master’s degree in mental health counseling said she would “probably not” seek the vaccine for her children because “the data shows that they’re not very high risk at all.”
Recent evidence has shown that Covid-19 can be a threat to children, even if the overall risk for severe illness remains low. Children’s risk of getting infected, for example, appears similar to that of adults, children are much better at spreading the virus than early studies suggested, and they may experience symptoms that last for weeks or more if infected.
The risk of Covid-19 to children is higher than the risk of the vaccine. So why don’t parents feel more urgency around vaccination?
My research suggests it’s because public health messaging during much of the pandemic reassured parents that children, especially “healthy” children, were at low risk of contracting, transmitting and suffering serious consequences from Covid-19. An April 2020 report from the C.D.C. stated that “relatively few children with Covid-19 are hospitalized, and fewer children than adults experience fever, cough, or shortness of breath.” Mainstream media outlets amplified those early public health messages, with headlines that reinforced the idea that children, especially healthy white children, were safer.
Those public health and media messages assuaged mothers’ worries, leading them to view Covid-19 vaccines as unnecessary, even if they previously accepted all other recommended vaccines for their children.
In some cases, mothers I interviewed said they are not planning to vaccinate their children against Covid-19, even though they got the vaccine for themselves. One mother, who is white and has a master’s degree, said she and her husband both got a Covid-19 vaccine around July, but are not planning to vaccinate their three children under 12 — at least not right away.
“Part of me is almost not ready for it to be approved, because, at least at this point, you know, I don’t have the choice in my hands,” the mother said. “I’m not sure I believe the benefits of the vaccine for children outweigh the risks and unknowns,” she said, adding, “If it was something like smallpox, I would feel a much greater level of concern than I do in this situation.”
Confirmation bias — the tendency to stick with what we already believe despite new information to the contrary — may also lead some parents to overlook new messages about children and Covid-19 risks. Many mothers I’ve interviewed say they’ve stopped paying close attention to Covid news because they’re so overwhelmed by the conflicting information. “I’m listening to my husband and my mother a lot, but otherwise I’ve kind of put my head in the sand a little bit,” one said. That makes it harder for public health experts to share new information about the importance of vaccines or the risks of Covid-19 for children and have credibility.
Parents may also feel unmotivated by a lack of tangible incentives. If concern over Covid-19 risk to children is low, then suggestions that the vaccines may not change their child’s daily life right away may add to the lack of urgency. Why bother to vaccinate if vaccinated kids are still required to wear masks at school, for example, or if the school district has already eliminated mask requirements for unvaccinated students?
Prepandemic research suggests that once parents view vaccination as unnecessary for their children, they can also become more susceptible to misinformation about vaccine risks. Parents may be weighing the risks they hear about Covid-19 vaccines — even if inaccurate — more heavily than the vaccines’ potential benefits for that reason.
A pregnant mother of three I spoke to, who is Black and has some college education, said she would wait to get the vaccine both for herself and for her children. “They have told us, the C.D.C., that it’s safe,” she said, “but a lot of people are having bad reactions to it, which is leading people to believe that it’s not as safe as they claim. So I’m just really still iffy about it.”
“I wear my mask and the kids wear their masks,” she added, “and I feel a little bit safer doing those methods than the vaccine.”
American parents may also be particularly susceptible to misinformation about vaccines because of the pressure placed on parents, and especially mothers, to keep their children safe. Given America’s lack of public investment in families, parents know that if they don’t look out for their children, there’s a good chance no one else will. That pressure can leave mothers on alert for potential risks to their children’s health. In the absence of messages about the risks of Covid-19 for children, false and exaggerated claims about the vaccine risks can trigger that alert system, serving as fuel for fears and outlets for the pressure mothers face to keep their children safe.
The problem with that kind of individualistic thinking is that vaccines are most effective when everyone gets the shot. Public health experts have estimated that to reach herd immunity, more than 70 percent of the global population will need immunity to Covid-19. Vaccinating children may be important for ending the pandemic or at least making it safer for families to return to familiar routines.
Public health communicators face a difficult challenge. On the one hand, scaring parents unnecessarily is unproductive. On the other, the absence of fear around children and Covid-19 is discouraging parents from having their children do their part for the greater good.
If the short-term goal is to vaccinate as many children as quickly as possible, then media and public health experts have a key role to play in shaking parents’ sense of calm around children and Covid-19. Any information about vaccine risks, for example, should be presented in the context of information about the risks that Covid poses to children and also the risk that unvaccinated children pose to people around them, including vaccinated adults.
My hope is that when parents consider the “incentives” of vaccinating their children against Covid-19, they’ll look beyond the individual benefits and focus on how their children can help protect others. That’s why schools have long required vaccinations for children. And that’s why most parents have, historically, complied.
If we want to end the pandemic and avoid similar moral calms and moral panics in the long term, Americans need to rethink our insistence on individual responsibility as the key to public health.
More on vaccine hesitancy

[absolute galore]

The IMG upload interface is hit or miss for me. Trying a different url:

[absolute galore]

Michael Reid wrote: We are truly in an information war that is killing people and we are losing. Society is divided into two groups:

I’ve been writing a weekly column for my local paper since April of last year. I only missed one week–because the general manager refused to publish the column. He somehow felt it expressed negativity toward the vaccines. This was late September, when the FDA advisory committee came out against boosters for the entire population. All I did was report this fact, and the fact that some doctors and scientists were calling for a more comprehensive approach toward dealing with the virus. All sources were actually mainstream. The theme of the piece was the various “wars” we’ve declared. My conclusion was meant to warn against this separation into two groups.

I pasted the whole thing here about a month ago. Here are a few excerpts, seeing as how my regular readers never got to see it:

Americans like to declare war on things we want to eliminate. There was the War on Poverty announced by Lyndon B. Johnson back in 1964 as part of the envisioned Great Society. In 1971 Richard Nixon declared a War on Drugs. We’re also waging wars on Fat, Terror, Cash, and Information. Then there is the all-encompassing existential War on Reality being fought on the battlegrounds of the various media, both mainstream and social. The most recent war to be announced is the War on Covid. This latest war is also a global war.
Unfortunately, most of these wars don’t seem to be going all that well.

….

The War on Fat was declared over by Time magazine in 2014, but that hasn’t been due to its successful conclusion. In 1980, with an obesity rate at about 15% and heart attacks rising, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued its first dietary guidelines, which heavily emphasized carbs and avoided cholesterol and fat of all sorts. Today the obesity rate is hovering around 40%. In that same time period, type II diabetes in the population went from about 5.5million to just over 25 million cases. A big reason was the food industry jumping in to help with processed “low fat”foods and lots of high fructose corn syrup.
From the 2014 Time article:

“We were embarking on a ‘vast nutritional experiment,’ as the skeptical president of the National Academy of Sciences, Philip Handler, put it in 1980. But with nearly a million Americans a year dropping dead from heart disease by the mid-’80s, we had to try something.
Nearly four decades later, the results are in: the experiment was a failure. We cut the fat, but by almost every measure, Americans are sicker than ever.”

…

These are stressful times. It would behoove us to listen to each other carefully. Whatever our particular beliefs, we all want to stay healthy and flourish. As Ruskin noted, “Wealth is Life.” We might dial back the war mentality, especially when it comes to relations with our neighbors. “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand” Matthew 12.25

[absolute galore]

Tucker Carlson on the economy. Interesting analogy, good overview:
https://youtu.be/TMAbEmRD9JI

[absolute galore]

Today, an accurate version of her headline might be: “Your Unvaccinated Kid Is Much Safer Than a Vaccinated Grandma.”

The article above means this in the sense the kids have less chance of getting seriously ill. But it also means, contrary to their logic for getting kids vaccinated–“vaccinating children can help protect everybody else, by reducing transmission“–it is actually vaccinated Grandma that carries the bigger viral load. But they haven’t acknowledged that one quite yet. Give them another 7 months..

My head aches trying to keep up with the stupidity, denial, and malicious propaganda. Ouch.

[absolute galore]

An excerpt in yesterday’s The Morning, a New York Times newsletter. The subject line was Covid and Age. After admitting that even vaccinated people in their 30s pose more risk than unvaccinated kids, it poses the question:

Vaccinate the kids?

The more encouraging half of the story is on the other end of the age spectrum.

For children without a serious medical condition, the danger of severe Covid is so low as to be difficult to quantify. For children with such a condition, the danger is higher but still lower than many people believe. The risk of long Covid among children — a source of fear among many parents — also appears to be very low.

All of which raises a thorny question: Should young children be vaccinated? I know some readers will recoil at the mention of that question, but I think it’s a mistake to treat it as unmentionable. There is not the scientific consensus about vaccinating children that there is about adults. It remains unclear how many countries will recommend the vaccine for young children. In the U.S., many vaccinated parents have decided not to vaccinate their eligible children yet.

The arguments against doing so are that there are some rare side effects and that Covid seems no more worrisome for children than some other respiratory diseases. The arguments in favor are that any troubling side effects seem very rare; that there is uncertainty about the long-term effects of Covid; and that vaccinating children can help protect everybody else, by reducing transmission.

If I had young children, I would vaccinate them without hesitation. I have heard the same from multiple scientists, including those who understand why many parents are reluctant. (Here’s a Times Q. and A. on the subject.)

It feels like a close call that leans toward vaccination for an individual child — and an easy decision for the sake of a child’s grandparents and everybody else’s grandparents. “Unvaccinated people at any age are much more likely to cause transmission relative to vaccinated people,” Dr. Aaron Richterman of the University of Pennsylvania told me.

So there you go. Despite The Science, I will give my opinion that I am definitely going against it, because it fits The Narrative we are selling. Back when there was still a touch of sanity left in the media, this would have been risible even for the NYT. Not any more. Now NYT readers nod their hypnotized heads in agreement.

Here’s more of the piece, with the data they choose to not use when making the decision to vaccinate their own kids:

Emily Oster, an economist at Brown University who frequently writes about parenting, published an article in The Atlantic in March that made a lot of people angry. The headline was, “Your Unvaccinated Kid Is Like a Vaccinated Grandma.” The article argued that Covid-19 tended to be so mild in children that vaccinated parents could feel comfortable going out in the world with their unvaccinated children.

Critics called the article insensitive and misleading, saying it understated the risks that children could both get sick and spread the virus. Oster responded on her website with a note standing by her main argument but apologizing particularly for the headline’s lack of nuance. Her critics seemed somewhat vindicated.

Seven months later, with a lot more Covid data available, the debate over the article looks quite different.

Oster is the one who has largely been vindicated. If anything, subsequent data indicates she did not go far enough in describing the age skew of Covid. Today, an accurate version of her headline might be: “Your Unvaccinated Kid Is Much Safer Than a Vaccinated Grandma.”

I recognize that may sound hard to believe, so let’s look at some data. Here are hospitalization rates by both age and vaccination status in King County, Wash., which includes Seattle and releases some of the country’s most detailed Covid data:
Source: Washington Department of Health

As you can see, the risks for unvaccinated children look similar to the risks for vaccinated people in their 50s.

Nationwide statistics from England show an even larger age skew. Children under 12 (a group that’s combined with teenagers in this next chart) appear to be at less risk than vaccinated people in their 40s if not 30s.

[absolute galore]

I was doing some research, trying to find mainstream media evidence that can help me convince my ex to hold off on getting our son vaccinated (he is eligible next month and she plans to take him on his birthday). I came across this article in Newsweek. Either I am reading it wrong, or there is a mistake in the copy, or…these people are just plain nuts. To wit:
COVID-19 has long been known to overwhelmingly affect older people and those with pre-existing conditions more than children.

Public Health England states in the report that the rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is also “substantially greater” in unvaccinated individuals compared to those fully vaccinated.

The data reveals that nearly 1,700 people aged over 70 died within 28 days of a positive COVID-test, 284 of whom were not vaccinated.

The governing body said it is expected that a large proportion of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations and deaths would occur in those who have been vaccinated, given that more than 80 percent of the entire adult population has received both shots in the U.K.

Public Health England added that while the vaccines are hugely beneficial in preventing COVID-19 deaths, none are 100 percent effective.

The data reveals that nearly 1,700 people aged over 70 died within 28 days of a positive COVID-test, 284 of whom were not vaccinated.

But this is to be expected, because the vaccines work great, but more people have been vaccinated than not, so that’s why more vaccinated than unvaccinated are dying. Got it. Sign me up.

If this is simply a proofing goof, they’ve had since Sept. 10 to fix it. Certainly seems off. But the whole article is a mishmash of nonsense, so who knows.

https://www.newsweek.com/vaccine-children-covid-england-deaths-1627885

[absolute galore]

Here is the full correction posted at the bottom of the NYT article:

Correction: Oct. 7, 2021

An earlier version of this article incorrectly described actions taken by regulators in Sweden and Denmark. They have halted use of the Moderna vaccine in children; they have not begun offering single doses. The article also misstated the number of Covid hospitalizations in U.S. children. It is more than 63,000 from August 2020 to October 2021, not 900,000 since the beginning of the pandemic. In addition, the article misstated the timing of an F.D.A. meeting on authorization of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for children. It is later this month, not next week.

Apoorva Mandavilli is a reporter focusing on science and global health. She is the 2019 winner of the Victor Cohn Prize for Excellence in Medical Science Reporting.
A New Vaccine Strategy for Children: Just One Dose, for Now

[absolute galore]

Today’s NYT headlines. No second thoughts for them after the atrocious “error” their 2019 winner of the Victor Cohn Prize for Excellence in Medical Science Reporting made, confusing the numbers 900,000 and 63,000.

‘A Safe Space’: Black Pastors Promote Vaccinations from the Pulpit
More than 80 percent of adults in New York City have received at least one dose of a Covid vaccine, but there are significant racial disparities.
If half of what is reported here on TAE about the vaccines is true, those pastors are setting themselves up to lose a significant part of their congregations in the near future.

First, Vaccines for Covid. Next Up: The Flu.
Vaccine makers are betting that the mRNA technology powering two successful Covid vaccines will help curb the deadly toll of influenza.

What is the goal here? To extend the average life expectancy of someone entering a nursing home from the average length of stay before death of 13.7 months to 14 months?

This data is about 10 years old. Also reports that the median was five months. Fifty-three percent of nursing home residents in the study died within six months. Men died after a median stay of three months, while women died after a median stay of eight months.

Great if that’s the goal. But don’t be looking at the rest of us to take your jab. Except, they can’t make much money saving the lives of people in nursing homes without charging $10k a shot, which would expose them as the greedy bastards they are.

[absolute galore]

The Wanker video is kinda awesome. Although the claim that the “people will win” sadly sounds hollow, especially in England with so many there all vaxxed up. Fingers crossed.

[absolute galore]

@clueless: “I believe it is of the utmost importance for those of us who question the mainstream narrative to acknowledge the parts of the mainstream narrative that make sense.”

UpstateNYer: Will do – just as soon as believers of the mainstream narrative “acknowledge the parts that make sense” to those of us questioning … wait for it!! … injecting a synthetic biologic into our bodies that instructs our cells to produce a toxic protein.

But that’s a problem when you are in the minority–ask any minority. You need to be very careful, avoid hyperbole, avoid the farthest-out theories. Is that fair? Who said life was fair. Yeah, it’s frustrating as hell, but the stakes are high enough that we need to be as smart as possible. Even when there is some evidence out there of “mass formation” that is impervious to logic.

The psychiatrist (?) from IIRC The Netherlands discussing this on a video posted here a while back advises nevertheless to keep plugging with the indisputable facts, keeping them primed for when they can finally break through,as Kunstler predicts in his Friday essay. Unless you are prepared to go down in a hail of bullets, it becomes necessary to remain calm as we try to talk the majority down off the ledge. A guy like Denninger, no matter how much of what he says may prove to be correct, is just ranting and raving and writing screeds to the choir when he calls people idiots, etc, just as people on the other “side” do:

Dr. D/Tiabbi: “Who is this article for?” he asks. Like, do they think talking gun rights on HuffPo is persuading…who? A: No one. It’s pogovorki, an article of religious faith, a liturgy, a heretical shibboleth distinguishing “us” and “them.” “We, we’re US, right? Amirite? I mean, WE, we’re not THEM? Are we? Brother can I get a amen up in here?”

[absolute galore]

Germ wrote (facetiously):
Do NOT take Ivermectin.
NOT NOT NOT !!!

The BBC story, like almost all stories pillorying antivaxxers and/or ivermectin, ended with a maudlin anecdote. Because what better way to emphasize THE SCIENCE, right?:

One GP in the country described a relative, a registered nurse, who didn’t book a coronavirus vaccine she was eligible for and then caught the virus.

“When she started getting worse, instead of getting proper assessment and treatment, she treated herself with ivermectin,” she said.

“Instead of consulting a doctor, she continued with the ivermectin and got home oxygen. By the time I heard how low her oxygen saturation levels were (66%), I begged her daughter to take her to casualty.

“At first they were reluctant, but I convinced them to go. She passed away a few hours later.”

You have to wonder, what is the point of falsifying these studies? Although it certainly appears some of them are, and some suffer from poor parameters. What happened to the big studies that the NIH (? or some other big org) said they were (finally) doing?

I do now have some doubt that it is quite the wonder drug it was first touted as, wiping out the virus in virtually all phases, all patients, so all these attacks take a toll. Certainly not enough to flush my supply down the toilet and get vaxxed. It’s nice to have the reassurance, but even if Ivm were not available, I would resist anyway and take my chances with vitamin D3 and maybe some over the counter antihistamines (any experience with those, Dr. Day?)

[absolute galore]

Over on Ecosophia’s weekly Covid discussion, Upstateny wrote: Deep down, whether acknowledged out loud or not, people who have been vaccinated are worried. Most of them inherently know something is off.

I reported a few days back that I was scheduled by my company to attend a trade show in November that required a vaccine pass–no exceptions, including no negative covid tests, no proof of prior infection–vaccine pass or you can’t attend. I pointed this out to the owner of the company and told him I had no plans to get vaccinated at this time.

After I sent this info to him via email, he spoke with me at the end of the work day. To his credit, he wanted to know why I was not gettng the vaccine. I did not get into the heavy stuff, but I did not really have to–I think he was more interested in using me as a sounding board, and wondering why someone who seemed reasonable, who took care of himself, biked to work, etc, would forego the vax. At one point, after giving all his reasons for getting vaccinated, and why he believed in them, he said “I like to be right, I don’t like to be wrong.”

The other day, buying my winter supply of Vitamin D3 (I stopped during the summer, hope that was not a mistake, but I get lots of outdoor time) I asked a fellow customer a question about brands (I’ve never been a vitamin taker until last year.) After kind of answering, she suddenly asked me if I had “gotten my booster” yet. I said no, I had not. She said she hadn’t either. She then complained about her mask and pulled it down (I wasn’t wearing one). She said she was tired of the whole vaccine issue, and intimated that she maybe got why people were not getting vaxxed, but really they probably should. I did not take the opportunity to engage with that, but I got the impression she might be starting to feel a bit conflicted about her choice. Still, if she knew I was unvaxxed, I have no doubt she would have pulled her mask back up and backed away, calling for the store manager;^)

I notice in one of today’s posts above that the figure of vaxxed Americans was given as 56%. I had previously heard reports that it was now well over 70% I wonder if the percentage has been readjusted to include 12-18 year olds. I suspect that is the case, and the great majority of adults are vaxxed, which will make things more and more difficult for those who choose otherwise.

[absolute galore]

Germ wrote:

“Virus surge hits New England despite high vaccination rates”

And yet the article says it is mostly the unvaxxed–without giving any numbers or percentages. I do not know what the quantity “largely”means. Virtually all? Most? More than 50 percent?

They must know the answer to: how many vaxxed this week vs unvaxxed this week entered a hospital for Covid. How many died this week, vaxxed vs. unvaxxed. If the vaccines are working, the number of vaccinated in the results should be negligible, far less than the vaccinated percentage of the population. If it is about equal to the vax rate, that would indicate the vaccines have no effect. If more, that the vaccines enhance the illness.

Nice too the way they get in the “kid’s healthj” apropos of nothing whatsoever.

“I think it’s clearly frustrating for all of us,” said Michael Pieciak, the commissioner of the Vermont Department of Financial Regulation who monitors COVID-19 statistics for the state. “We want kids to be safe in school, we want parents not to have to worry about their child’s education and health.”

Even though parts of New England are seeing record case counts, hospitalizations and deaths that rival pre-vaccine peaks, largely among the unvaccinated, the region hasn’t seen the impact the delta variant wave has wrought on other parts of the country.

What is the realtime data for this week?

[absolute galore]

I do not share the optimism of some here that the “narrative” is turning around. More and more people are succumbing to the threats of loss of livelihood. And how can you blame people with families to support, or with careers or jobs they love?

I just found out yesterday the owner of my company has scheduled me to work a booth at a trade shown in NYC this November. However, the venue went vaccine passport only earlier in September–they will not accept negative test or proof of recovery from Covid. I will find out today what will come of this. Most of the other trade shows have been pushed off into 2022, and this is a minor one, but of the two colleagues that could cover and help out the one guy doing it, I am the only one available–the others are off for personal reasons. I am not looking forward to the discussion with the owner today.

How it has come to this is mind-boggling and scary. I also am concerned that if I lose my job over this, my ex will immediately bring it to the attention of the child custody courts. In this poisonous atmosphere, I fear they could demand I be vaccinated or lose my custody rights.

Equating what is essentially a peacetime global vaccine mandate for experimental vaccines that do not fully work against a disease with a very low mortality rate with a wartime mandate for soldiers during the Revolutionary War is ….insane. Pure agitprop. Possibly targeted at red state hesitancy? Who knows at this point. But I’m now in the hot seat.

I am printing the full vaccine portion of the NYT morning newsletter:

The Morning: Vaccine mandates in the U.S. are largely succeeding.

By David Leonhardt

Good morning. Immunization mandates aren’t new. One helped win the American Revolution.
A vaccination site in New York City this week.Justin Lane/EPA, via Shutterstock
The right to health

The United States owes its existence as a nation partly to an immunization mandate.

In 1777, smallpox was a big enough problem for the bedraggled American army that George Washington thought it could jeopardize the Revolution. An outbreak had already led to one American defeat, at the Battle of Quebec. To prevent more, Washington ordered immunizations — done quietly, so the British would not hear how many Americans were sick — for all troops who had not yet had the virus.

It worked. The number of smallpox cases plummeted, and Washington’s army survived a war of attrition against the world’s most powerful country. The immunization mandate, as Ron Chernow wrote in his 2010 Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of Washington, “was as important as any military measure Washington adopted during the war.”

In the decades that followed, immunization treatments became safer (the Revolutionary War method killed 2 percent or 3 percent of recipients), and mandates became more common, in the military and beyond. They also tended to generate hostility from a small minority of Americans.

A Cambridge, Mass., pastor took his opposition to a smallpox vaccine all the way to the Supreme Court in 1905, before losing. Fifty years later, while most Americans were celebrating the start of a mass vaccination campaign against polio, there were still some dissenters. A United Press wire-service article that ran in newspapers across the country on April 13, 1955, reported:

Hundreds of doctors and registered nurses stood ready to begin the stupendous task of inoculating the millions of children throughout the country.

Some hitches developed, however. In Maryland’s Montgomery County, 4,000 parents flatly refused to let their youngsters receive the vaccine. Two counties in Indiana objected that the plan smacked of socialized medicine.
Many vaccinations, few firings

We are now living through this cycle again. The deadline for many workplace mandates arrived this week, often requiring people to have received a Covid-19 vaccine or face being fired. In California, the deadline for health care workers is today.

As was the case with Washington’s army, the mandates are largely succeeding:

California’s policy has led thousands of previously unvaccinated medical workers to receive shots in recent weeks. At Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, about 800 additional workers have been vaccinated since the policy was announced last month, bringing the hospital’s vaccination rate to 97 percent, according to my colleague Shawn Hubler.

When New York State announced a mandate for hospital and nursing-home staff members in August, about 75 percent of them had received a shot. By Monday, the share had risen to 92 percent. The increase amounts to roughly 100,000 newly vaccinated people.
At Trinity Health, a hospital chain in 22 states, the increase has been similar — to 94 percent from 75 percent, The Times’s Reed Abelson reports. At Genesis HealthCare, which operates long-term-care facilities in 23 states, Covid cases fell by nearly 50 percent after nearly all staff members had finished receiving shots this summer.

Often, the number of people who ultimately refuse the vaccine is smaller than the number who first say they will. Some are persuaded by the information their employer gives them — about the vaccines’ effectiveness and safety, compared with the deadliness of Covid — and others decide they are not really willing to lose their jobs.

A North Carolina hospital system, Novant Health, last week suspended 375 workers, or about 1 percent of its work force, for being unvaccinated. By the end of the week, more than half of them — about 200 — received a shot and were reinstated.

Of course, 175 firings are not nothing. (A Washington Post headline trumpeted the story as “one of the largest-ever mass terminations due to a vaccine mandate.”) United Airlines said this week that it would terminate even more employees — about 600, or less than 1 percent of its U.S. work force.

These firings can create hardship for the workers and short-term disruptions for their employers. But those disruptions tend to be fleeting, because the percentage of workers is tiny. “I’m not seeing any widespread disruptive effect,” Saad Omer of the Yale Institute for Global Health told The Times.

And the benefits — reducing the spread of a deadly virus and lowering the chances it will mutate dangerously in the future — are large.
Health officials in Newark checked smallpox vaccination status in 1931.Bettmann, via Getty Images
Injury to others

The rationale for workplace mandates revolves around those large benefits: Even in a country that prioritizes individual freedom as much as the U.S. does, citizens do not have the right to harm their colleagues or their colleagues’ families, friends and communities. One person’s right to a healthy life is greater than another person’s right to a specific job.

As Carol Silver-Elliott, the chief executive of Jewish Home Family, a senior-care facility in New Jersey, told ABC News about her company’s mandate, “We felt it was a small price to pay to keep our elders safe, and it is something we feel very, very strongly about.”

After I spent some time reading about the history of vaccine mandates, I was struck by how little the debate has changed over the centuries. In 1905, when the Supreme Court ruled against the Massachusetts pastor who did not want to take a smallpox vaccine, Justice John Marshall Harlan explained that the Constitution did not allow Americans always to behave however they chose. “Real liberty for all could not exist,” Harlan wrote in his majority opinion, if people could act “regardless of the injury that may be done to others.”

(For more on mandates’ history, I recommend a Wall Street Journal essay by David Oshinsky of NYU Langone Health.)

Virus developments:

AT&T reached a labor agreement to require vaccines for tens of thousands of employees.
YouTube says it will ban all vaccine misinformation from its platform.
China is planning a strict bubble around the Winter Olympics in February.

[absolute galore]

Breaking:
Youtube Bans All Antivaccine Info

https://www.reuters.com/technology/youtube-blocks-all-anti-vaccine-content-washington-post-2021-09-29/

[absolute galore]

America’s Frontline Doctors, a right-wing group founded last year to promote pro-Trump doctors during the coronavirus pandemic, is working in tandem with a small network of health care companies to sow distrust in the Covid-19 vaccine, dupe tens of thousands of people into seeking ineffective treatments for the disease, and then sell consultations and millions of dollars’ worth of those medications. The data indicate patients spent at least $15 million — and potentially much more — on consultations and medications combined.

Oh gosh! $15 million?!! Potentially more?!!! Holy cow, that’s….less than Pfizer et al spent on lobbying. Pfizer alone expected to take in $33.5 billion–before FDA full approval, boosters, and 80 million donation doses to poor countries. A few net profit stats here.

No doubt there will be scammers and grifters feeding on fear. But the government itself created the shortage and the “underground” market, such as it might be. And to lump orgs like Front Line into this group of scammers is, as Raul noted, vile.

[absolute galore]

I guess they should ask “Joe Biden” to seize control of the horse paste supply and dole it out, a la the drugs he is withholding from some of the southern states.

[absolute galore]

First we put Grandma and Grandpa in mortal danger. Now we are responsible for the health of U.S. livestock.

From the “50 ways to bash Ivermectin and the horse it rode in on” department, I give you today’s NYT:

How Covid Misinformation Created a Run on Animal Medicine
Veterinarians, ranchers and farmers say the surging demand for ivermectin, a deworming drug, has left them struggling for supplies to treat animals.

Thank god for the press corps of the United States of America or we would all be flying in the dark.

[absolute galore]

Raul wrote: If and when many vaccinated people catch Covid, as appears to be the case, it would seem very logical. Who can tell the difference?

Well, that would be death by covid, no?

And, If nobody can tell, how do we know either way ?) Now I’m even more confused.

[absolute galore]

The theory, or argument, or whatever, that vaccine-caused deaths are being labeled as Covid deaths does not seem logical to me. And I just do not buy this premise that there are almost no covid deaths, only vaccine deaths. To paraphrase John Michael Greer, the opposite of one bad narrative is often equally as bad.

I believe the vaccines have some adverse affects. I believe there could be more adverse affects of some kind or another down the road–we will find out. I believe relying on a mass vaccine rollout in the middle of a pandemic as the only solution was a very bad idea.

But most of all, given the risk factors, and the fact that the high risk populations (barring a few apparently freak abberations) are well known, there is zero scientific reason to take the vaccination if you don’t want to–and the public measures being taken are by far the most frightening aspect of this entire debacle. Followed by the push to vaccinate children, a population that definitely does not need a vaccination from this virus in its present form.

There is no need to claim the vaccinations kill 5x more people than the disease without stone cold, irrefutable evidence. Without that, it plays into the hands of the mainstream narrative. Sorry, but that’s just the way it is.

[absolute galore]

I signed up a while back to do a 5k run with my 11-year-old. It’s a fundraiser for his school. The run is being held outdoors on a local college campus this Sunday. On Wednesday at 9pm I got this email from the organizers:

Hi! Please be advised that we have made an update to the XXXXX 5K race. Please see below:
UPDATE 9/22/2021: As per XXXX College, to enter onto campus for the race, all adults guests must show one of the following:

Proof of COVID vaccination OR
Negative COVID test; OR
Proof that you have had COVID in the last 90 days
Race day and pre-bib pick up information will follow later this week. We look forward to seeing you on Sunday

This race includes a kid’s 1/4 mile “fun run.” Many older, unvaxxed kids will also be participating in the 5k, including my son. Ah, yes. The Holy Gospel of “The Novel Science.” (TM)

Also, it appears that if you had Covid 91 days ago, that does not count.

If it were just me, I would give the organizers my opinion. But my son is looking forward to this, so I immediately tried to schedule a test with one of the chain drug stores. All the rapid test appointments were filled through the weekend. I then went to regular lab tests. Earliest I could get was today at noon. So now I have to hope I get a lab result back on Saturday. Might be able to get a home rapid test, but not sure if that will be good enough. (By the way, very invasive info requested. Rite Aid was the worst, partnering with some company that will share info. Even the one I did, they now have my vax status and my insurance co. notified.)

When I alerted my ex of the situation, she wrote back:
Unvaccinated people will not be allowed to participate in many things in the new world order.

Then last night she sent me this helpful article in Bloomberg:

Here’s What the Next Six Months of the Pandemic Will Bring

A few highlights:

Almost everyone will be either infected or vaccinated before the pandemic ends, experts agree. Maybe both. An unlucky few will contract the virus more than once.

“We’re going to see hills and valleys, at least for the next several years as we get more vaccine out. That’s going to help. But the challenge is going to be: How big will the hills and valleys be, in terms of their distance?” Osterholm said. “We don’t know. But I can just tell you, this is a coronavirus forest fire that will not stop until it finds all the human wood that it can burn.”

Immunization is helping to moderate incidences of severe cases and deaths, but surging infections mean the virus is reaching the young and others who remain unvaccinated, leading to rising rates of serious disease in those groups.

History shows the commonly held belief that viruses automatically get milder over time — to avoid completely wiping out their host population — is wrong, according to Simonsen.

Early in the Covid outbreak, there was good reason to hope that vaccines would provide long-term protection, much like childhood shots that stop diseases such as polio.

Coronaviruses have a “proof-reading” mechanism that fixes the in-born errors caused when the virus replicates, reducing the likelihood of variants emerging when the virus is transmitted from one person to another.

The number of global cases has been so vast, however, that mutations are occurring anyway.

Other even grimmer possibilities for the coming months include the emergence of a novel influenza virus or another coronavirus making the leap from animals into humans.

“As long as there are animal reservoirs of coronavirus there is still the possibility that another zoonotic coronavirus could emerge in the future,” Subbarao said. “There is that in the background, the risk of still dealing with this one when another one emerges.”

What seems clear is that the pandemic will not be over in six months. Experts generally agree that the current outbreak will be tamed once most people — perhaps 90% to 95% of the global population — have a degree of immunity thanks to immunization or previous infection.

The key element should be vaccination, they say.

“Without vaccination, one is like a sitting duck, because the virus will spread widely and find most everybody this autumn and winter,” said Simonsen.

[absolute galore]

From the MSN link posted above by Germ:
In early August, Liverpool Hospital was the site of another outbreak after a partially vaccinated student nurse tested positive for the virus

At the time, the infection quickly spread to patients and other nurses working in the geriatric and vascular wards.

More than 10 deaths have been linked to that cluster.

That kind of science reporting would seem to be misleading at best. How were they linked? What was the cause of death for each patient? What was the age and health status of those who died? What did the autopsies reveal? Certainly all this data would be meticulously recorded after such a devastating outbreak in a single hospital. It would help to include this to keep the discussion on a rational plane, no?

Yet all we get is “10 deaths linked.”

[absolute galore]

zerosum wrote: absolute galore, yesterday, #87696, made a list of failed wars that are still happening

One of today’s NYT headlines: The World Is at War With Covid. Covid Is Winning.

Another one: Analysis: Biden Declared the War Over. But Wars Go On.

Too bad my little city paper cancelled my column for this week–we would have been right there with the zeitgeist.

Note the way the NYT framed this news:

Breaking
F.D.A. Authorizes Pfizer Booster Shots for Older and At-Risk Americans

The authorization applies to Pfizer vaccine recipients who are over 65 or at high risk, including those who are often exposed to the virus in their jobs.
The move sets up what is likely to be a staggered campaign to deliver the shots to the most vulnerable Americans.

[absolute galore]

Meant to say, my quick summation is very simplistic–the video discussion goes into detail.

[absolute galore]

But that’s just it–it’s not stupid people. If you watch the video V. Arnold is referencing that Germ posted yesterday, it is in fact many of the most intelligent, highly educated that fall under the spell of mass formation (aka hypnosis, mass psychosis). Once they attach their free floating anxiety to the virus, which, through vaccination offers a sense of control, they completely lose their ability to use logic. That is a very simplistic take. The video is well worth watching, though slightly challenging to get through as both participants have verbal tics that can slow things down. But the theory posited makes a great deal of sense and explains the ability of so many to accept the complete contradictions associated with the official narrative, such as the unvaxxed being a danger to the vaxxed.

[absolute galore]

Doc Robinson wrote: Kirsch’s presentation was probably part of the Open Public Hearing, where interested members of the public can participate (after signing up in advance). That makes much more sense. For some reason I got the impression he was invited to speak, or was part of the committee.

boilingfrog wrote: One of the interesting issues out here in the midwest is the “Right to Repair” movement.

That was the subject of my column last week: Fight for the right to repair. John Deere is a particularly egregious offender. They require farmers to sign complicated Extended Use License Agreements. These contracts limit their true ownership and encroach on their rights to repair, alter, improve, or generally modify the machinery in any way. John Deere insists the issue is a problem of intellectual property protection and software security. But farmers will tell you they just want to clear codes and repair the tractors without being forced to go through expensive contractors that charge upwards of $150 an hour.
When John Deere upgrades the technology, it often stops supporting the previous versions, making it difficult to repair older equipment. The practice of upgrading software and then forbidding owners from repairing their tractors means farmers have to buy new equipment or new software. These costs can reach up to $600,000.
There was an agreement in place with the Equipment Dealers Association for John Deere to make software guides, diagnostic equipment, and repair tools available beginning in January of 2021, but the company has not followed through on its promises.

Tech companies like Apple are also targets. While over half the states have some kind of legislation proposed, on the federal level is The Fair Repair Act, filed by by congressman Joseph Morelle (D-NY) this past June. It would require manufacturers to provide device owners and independent repair stores access to the tools, parts, and information they need to fix electronics, etc.

My thought is stop sticking computers on everything–especially stuff like tractors.

[absolute galore]

zerosum wrote: @absolute galore: Your editor does not like to hear about wars that the USA has lost

You’re no doubt correct. But writing about WWII is not my area of interest. (I will admit the column was not terribly cheery, but it was about the only way I thought I could get in some coverage about our approach to Covid. I was wrong. Even tip-toeing around didn’t work.

[absolute galore]

To clarify this sentence above: Like the FDA advisory committee, the authors are suggesting a more targeted approach.

This was meant in terms of targeting demographics for the vaccines. As stated in the subhead, a broader approach, consisting of early prevention, etc. is recommended for the population at large. I was dancing around everything trying to keep it acceptable that I unintentionally left that open to some confusion.

I wonder if inviting Steve Kirsch might give the FDA grounds to reject the advisory committee advice by claiming contamination from a fringe conspiracy person? Maybe someone,knowing that the committee was heavily leaningin the direction of rejecting boosters for all, decided to allow in a poison pill?

[absolute galore]

Here is my column for this week’s paper that got rejected. I put the vaccine program in with a number of other society-wide solutions by the government that did not have favorable outcomes. I particularly like this quote, from the War on Fat: “We were embarking on a ‘vast nutritional experiment,’ as the skeptical president of the National Academy of Sciences, Philip Handler, put it in 1980.

War. What is it good for?
Americans like to declare war on things we want to eliminate. There was the War on Poverty announced by Lyndon B. Johnson back in 1964 as part of the envisioned Great Society. In 1971 Richard Nixon declared a War on Drugs. We’re also waging wars on Fat, Terror, Cash, and Information. Then there is the all-encompassing existential War on Reality being fought on the battlegrounds of the various media, both mainstream and social. The most recent war to be announced is the War on Covid. This latest war is also a global war.

Unfortunately, most of these wars don’t seem to be going all that well.

Actual war has its own designations. There are cold wars, hot wars, limited war, total war, and endless war. The war in Afghanistan, a subset of the War On Terror, ended with loss of life and treasure and unknown consequences for the future. Donald Stoker, a former professor at the U.S. Naval War College who wrote a book, Why America Loses Wars, argues that Western leaders are “intellectually at sea:”

“Consistently, its leaders don’t know how to set clear political goals, don’t understand how to conceptualize the wars they launch in pursuit of often fuzzy political objectives, and don’t value victory — or tell the people what this means. Waging war in this manner is either an expression of ignorance or an example of dishonesty — intentional or not — on the part of political leaders for short term political purposes that have long term effects on U.S. public opinion and the men and women who are being sent to fight wars their leaders don’t call wars and have no interest in winning. To purposefully fight a war one must — at a minimum — know why one is fighting, what they hope to achieve, understand the enemy, know what victory looks like, and chart a sensible path for getting there.”

Over the horizon
While we’ve ended the endless, limited war in Afghanistan, we are still going to keep an eye on things with the latest political-military strategy, over the horizon warfare.
From an episode of the NPR radio program “All Things Considered,” broadcast in May of this year:

” ‘We will maintain an over-the-horizon capacity,” Biden said in his recent address to a joint session of Congress.’
‘We will continue to support (the Afghans) with over-the-horizon logistics,” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said at a recent news conference.

‘We have to sort out doing it over the horizon,’ added the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Army Gen. Mark Milley.
Right now, ‘over the horizon’ is more a fuzzy concept than a polished military plan. But when U.S. forces leave Afghanistan in September, if not sooner, we’re likely to find out fast exactly what it means.”

Something-is-always-better-than-nothing logic
Back to war as metaphor, the War on Poverty has had mixed results at best. The current debate over affordable housing in [our town] could be said to be an indirect descendant of some of the weapons employed in that war. Except now the potential recipients are middle class citizens who are finding their housing costs to be a burden. Just the phrases “affordable housing” and “workforce housing” are evidence of fundamental issues with our economy, where workers can’t keep up with housing costs. The percentage of Americans living paycheck to paycheck today is estimated as somewhere in the neighborhood of 50%.

The War on Fat was declared over by Time magazine in 2014, but that hasn’t been due to its successful conclusion. In 1980, with an obesity rate at about 15% and heart attacks rising, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued its first dietary guidelines, which heavily emphasized carbs and avoided cholesterol and fat of all sorts. Today the obesity rate is hovering around 40%. In that same time period, type II diabetes in the population went from about 5.5million to just over 25 million cases. A big reason was the food industry jumping in to help with processed “low fat”foods and lots of high fructose corn syrup.

From the 2014 Time article:
“We were embarking on a ‘vast nutritional experiment,’ as the skeptical president of the National Academy of Sciences, Philip Handler, put it in 1980. But with nearly a million Americans a year dropping dead from heart disease by the mid-’80s, we had to try something.
Nearly four decades later, the results are in: the experiment was a failure. We cut the fat, but by almost every measure, Americans are sicker than ever.”

The statistics have gotten worse in the seven years since. But we had to try something.

War on Drugs in its 50th year
The endless War on Drugs took a big setback in 2020, with more than 90,000 overdose deaths, an increase of 20,000 from the previous year. Many of these deaths were caused by synthetic opioids like fentanyl. Most of us have read stories about young people in our area dying from an overdose.

Much of last year’s increase has been attributed to the isolation and depression caused by the restrictions put in place during the battle against Covid. In the language of warfare, this would be called collateral damage. In addition to the human suffering, there is an economic cost. According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2017, opioid use disorder and fatal opioid overdose combined cost society over $1 trillion.

There are additional collateral deaths as well as huge economic consequences associated with our War on Covid. The figure of $16 trillion has been bandied about widely for the past year, based on calculations by two Harvard economists and published originally in the Journal of the American Medical Association. This figure was calculated based on the assumption the pandemic would be over by fall of 2021.

Broader array of weapons to be deployed?
Meanwhile, after 20 months in the trenches, battle strategies may be shifting. As the Associated Press reported on September 17, an advisory committee to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) came out against booster shots for everyone. This comes a little over two weeks after two top FDA officials resigned over the Biden administration’s premature indications of a booster rollout for all:

“The nonbinding recommendation — from an influential committee of outside experts who advise the Food and Drug Administration — is not the last word. The FDA will consider the group’s advice and make its own decision, probably within days. And the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is set to weigh in next week.
In a surprising turn, the advisory panel rejected, 16-2, boosters for almost everyone. Members cited a lack of safety data on extra doses and also raised doubts about the value of mass boosters, rather than ones targeted to specific groups. Then, in an 18-0 vote, it endorsed extra shots for people 65 and older and those at risk of serious disease.”

An analysis of data from 2008 to 2015 found that the FDA ruled in agreement with the advisory committee almost 80% of the time. The percentage was even higher in instances where there was little disagreement within the advisory committee. We’ll have to see if the FDA is willing to go against the wishes of the administration on this one.

International shift
Other countries are also readjusting the arsenal of weapons and tactics being employed against the disease. The peer-reviewed International Journal of Infectious Disease recently published a paper recommending a shift in worldwide response to Covid 19. Like the FDA advisory committee, the authors are suggesting a more targeted approach:
“Control measures have exclusively focused on ‘the virus’, while failing to account for other biological and social factors that determine severe forms of the disease.. …it has exposed and exacerbated existing problems in health systems and the underlying health of the population.

COVID-19 is …a complex zoonotic disease, and it needs to be managed as such, following long-proven principles of medicine and public health. A complex disease cannot be solved through a simple, magic-bullet cure or vaccine. The heterogeneity of population profiles susceptible to developing a severe form of COVID-19 suggests the need to adopt varying, targeted measures that are able to address risk profiles in an appropriate way. … Strategies required include upstream prevention, early treatment, and consolidation of the health system.”

Finding common ground
All of these problems we’ve declared war on plague [our town] to a greater or lesser extent. As the world has grown ever more complex, local life, from food production to health care to manufacturing to governance, has become ever more dependent on sources and entities beyond our control—over the horizon, out of sight.
Certainly during the hundred plus years of [our town’s] existence, this increasing dependence has brought us much good and prosperity. But at some point, that increasing good is accompanied more and more by the not so good. The Victorian era art critic and philosopher John Ruskin used the term “illth” to describe the opposite of wealth–what economists today might refer to as negative externalities.

Obviously we are in no position to solve all of the various ills that beset us; once you leave the Garden of Eden, the illth doth start to accumulate the more you harvest those apples, along with all the other abundance.
But we can ask ourselves, based on observation, what do we see coming over the horizon? Is there evidence we are turning the tide? Or do things seem to be moving inexorably in a downward direction?

There are ways to build resilience, to help ourselves, rather than relying exclusively on the current technosphere to save us. We’ve touched on a few of those possibilities. We’ll look at more as the fall approaches.
These are stressful times. It would behoove us to listen to each other carefully. Whatever our particular beliefs, we all want to stay healthy and flourish. As Ruskin noted, “Wealth is Life.” We might dial back the war mentality, especially when it comes to relations with our neighbors. “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand” Matthew 12.25

Photo caption: A World War I poster by James Montgomery Flagg, published in 1917.
Image courtesy Library of Congress

[absolute galore]

Polder Dweller wrote: I have to say that I don’t personally know anyone (yet) who has actually had a severe reaction to the jabs. …In addition, I haven’t even heard of people talking about others who had problems. …I wonder how this compares with everyone else’s experience here?

I have reported the same experience here several times. Other than a colleague across the country whose very healthy 30-something daughter experienced some kind of paralysis event not long after being vaccinated, I know of nobody in my circles, nor anybody in their circles, who has suffered a debilitating reaction. I don’t doubt that they occur, but I am skeptical of the sheer volume being discussed in some of these posts. It’s difficult to simply say most covid deaths now are actually vaccine deaths–not without some conclusive evidence.

Just as minorities in the workplace have historically had to be super careful and extra achieving, I feel the position of people against these covid 19 vaccines are under so much scrutiny to begin with that any overstatements are immediately weaponized. That said, it is a patchwork of all kinds that is fighting the mainstream narrative on this, and that is the larger point. We need to be able to discuss this situation out in the open.

Leaving aside for a moment the issue of the outright harm created by vaccines, the known facts that everyone agrees on do not support in any way a mandate. They need to be used on the more extreme risk end, for people who are most suseptible to bad outcomes AND who want to take it. This is a small fraction of the population. The rest of us take this on with all the other weapons in the arsenal that have been helpful against this virus.

Yesterday I got censored. The manager of the local paper where I write a weekly column rejected my submission. This despite my quoting extensively from mainstream sources like AP and NPR. Rather than present it straight up as a Covid 19 piece, I attempted to diffuse it a bit by including it as part of a theme.

3 hours after I submitted, he wrote: Need to know what you mean by zoonotic — in reference to COVID-19. Never heard that before. Also–try to stay away from opinions on things like covid vaccines. Our papers have continually urged all to get vaccines. Check with me before you write on topics like that.

I wrote back: Nothing in there that takes any kind of position on vaccines at all. I did not offer any opinion, just reported the news from AP regarding the FDA developments, as well as the paper in the International Journal. (I then explained zoonotic.)

He wrote back: Actually–I am pulling the column. We need to know ahead of time when you plan to write about controversial topics.

My columns are long, but I will try to post it here in case anyone would like to see what can get you censored in a local rag.

[absolute galore]

Anecdote:

Just came back from a walk with a good friend and his dog. He was very angry about a popular night spot that closed here in town. They were known for good live local music and good inexpensive eats, all in a former diner on Main Street. Although their website says they have chosen to shut down due to the escalation of covid cases, my friend says the real reason is because someone who applied for a job did not get hired because she was unvaxxed and did not plan to get vaxxed. She sued. (They were in the position of hiring staff because a bunch of them walked out when the place made vaccination mandatory.)

He is tolerant of my views, but this was too much–imagine a person suing because they;ve been discriminated against! I know most of the town feels the same way–this selfish a88hole is causing this business we enjoy to close down. I can only imagine the outcry if they decided they were not going to hire nonbinary wait staff.

I would like to find her and interview her for my column, as a way to broach this topic. I would stick to quoting her, and only the most “vetted”of supporting info–cdc, fda, drug company stuff. But I suspect they would not publish it. We’ll see. Meanwhile, if anyone has links to data that is above being demonized–in other words, no Frontline, Malone, McCoullaugh, etc.–would appreciate it. The Israeli booster chart was created by a guy with a substack called cattitude, and is not the kind of thing that will work. I also suspect it does not yet tell us much about what the boosters may or may not do, since the boosters take 2 weeks to be considered effective, and the chart starts out at zero and is at about 30% after 3 weeks, and does show a dip. Too much noise, too many assumptions, not enough time elapsed for that chart to be worthwhile, IMO.

The thing that just makes no sense is, the vaccines NEVER claimed to offer any level of immunity. Right there that makes herd immunity a non-possibility in this universe. And even if the vaccines were stopping transmission, the mutation rate of Covid, according to the science, is such that there wojld be a new resistant variant before herd immunity could be achieved.

And as if all that were not enough, there is the risk benefit for people in their teens, twenties, thirties, forties. Unless they have serious comorbidity, they have a better chance of being struck by lighting than dying from covid, while the dangers of vaccination are still unknown.

I keep repeating this as if it will maybe wake me from this nightmare. But we are now a shrinking,mostly silent minority. Sometimes I wake up and look to the MSM with the unreasonable glimmer of hope that something will have changed, that things will shift. I know some here believe this is happening. I sure don’t see much evidence around me.

[absolute galore]

I thought I saw an earlier link here showing evidence that the boosters in Israel were not working to an alarming degree. Now this completely positive paper comes out claiming 95% efficacy. Once again, completely contradicting info. Which is it? (No way to search for that first link, if it exists.)

[absolute galore]

Holy Cow. I don’t have a tv and do not watch tv news. But since this pandemic started, I’ve seen a bunch of snippets on the internet. I would say that exchange between Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo is unbelievable, but sadly, these days, it’s not. Still, the sheer lack of anything approaching nuance or any sort of intellectual curiosity or really any sign of brain waves not flattened by propaganda is frightening enough in your average person. But these are our “information providers.”

Somebody should do a fake video, same exact dialog exchange, but have it being spoken between, say, Edward R. Murrow and Walter Conkrite. It would even look preposterous if it were between Captain Kangaroo and Soupy Sales, or Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck, all of whom have more dignity and smarts than this Lemon-Cuomo horror show duo. Lord help us. Filed under Exhibit A for proof of the decline of civilization.

[Author]

Posts