Monday, December 7

Spanking Blogger's Thoughts on COVID-19

This COVID-19 thing has been bothering me. I'm sure all of you are just dying to get a slutty spanking blogger's perspective on it, so here we go. [And PS, if you prefer I just stick to the sexy stuff, I just did a post yesterday you may like: Trad Wife Spanked and Sexed]

As a caveat to all of the below, I know nothing of the below with any certainty at all, and feel we cannot trust conflicting experts and governments. Each of us must take their best guesses as to whom to trust more, based on whatever research and reading each of us can do. So all of this is just my opinion. I would be interested in where you think I may be off base. And Please Be Kind!

Where did it come from?

I believe the virus was bio-engineered, as scientists have still not stated with any certainty the animal from which it crossed over, and numerous scientists who have examined the protein structures say it has the hallmarks of being bio-engineered. It is also very close (they say 80% similar, whatever that means) to SARS, which means they likely started with that virus and modified it.

I believe it was being used as part of virus research, either for good purposes or for bio-warfare research, and it was released accidentally from the Wuhan lab. I do not know where it was first created. It could have been in Canada or the US or China, and then transported to Wuhan. The reason I think it was accidentally released from the Wuhan lab is that lab had a number of pre-existing red flags on its safety measures, and it is near where the first outbreaks occurred, and can even be traced back to workers from that lab as patient zero.

After it was accidentally released, China attempted to cover it up initially (maybe not the central government initially, maybe local officials), and once it became more widespread, used their influence in the WHO to downplay its seriousness in order to save face, and to blame others in order to avoid the blame themselves and avoid economic sanctions as a result.

Was it a grand conspiracy?

I do not believe it was a grand conspiracy.

Once it was spreading, I believe bad actors first tried to cover it up, and then took advantage of the spread to further their agendas, because that's what human beings do. Certainly China to ensure it was not left behind economically, and the US Democrat party to further their election chances, US Republican party to chant "muh freedoms!", and also left-leaning governments around the world seizing the opportunity to reshape social programs in its wake, something they have not been able to do democratically. I do not believe that it was bio-engineered and released for this purpose, just that people said to themselves "this bad thing is happening regardless, may as well make something good from it". As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

What was China up to?

Good question. I remember the initial reports out of Wuhan. People dropping in the streets and convulsing madly. Apartment doors being welded shut to contain the contaminated. People in hazmat suits walking down the streets spraying something in the air. None of this is consistent with our experience with COVID-19 since then. In retrospect it looks like "fear theater". Certainly no news reports get out of China that the central Chinese government does not want to get out. Tienanmen square was a notable exception and they won't let that happen again, hence kicking journalists and US CDC out to control the narrative.

I think the virus got out and it started spreading around the world before the central government knew about it. Wuhan has a direct connection to northern Italy as many of the garment workers in northern Italy are Chinese from Wuhan, and they returned home for the Moon festival in late September.

Once it was spreading, the Chinese central government thought this was an opportunity to cripple the rest of the world's economies by encouraging more fear of the virus than was justified. Hence the theater. Also consistent with the quite Chinese controlled WHO downplaying it giving it a chance to spread more widely and take hold.

As they say, "follow the money". The Chinese economy seemed much less impacted than other countries, but it might have backfired on them long run as western countries become less reliant on Chinese supply chains. Time will tell. If Biden gets in and starts encouraging investment in China again, they will have come out net on top.

Initial Days

The initial days were quite scary, with reports of very high transmission rates and very high fatality rates, plus news of people dropping like flies in the streets of Wuhan and fatally overcrowded hospitals in Italy. I was all-in for taking whatever measures might be needed to slow the spread in order to keep ICUs within capacity. In fact, I even received a punishment spanking for flouting some of the rules, and fully admit I deserved it (Julie Spanked for being Irresponsible - and Daddy knows...)

Over time it became clear that it did not spread as quickly as originally believed, and that the case fatality rate was low, comparable to seasonal flu, except for the elderly and certain people with co-morbidities, for which it was exceptionally deadly (like 5% death rate - dreadful).

But in the fog of war, this was not yet known, and nursing homes became a major source of deaths, and certain policies, forcing nursing homes to take infected elderly without proper precautions in place, made it much worse than it needed to be. Italy, New York, and New Jersey are amongst the worst offenders here, but it hit in nursing homes everywhere.

Democrats taking Advantage

I believe that once the worst had passed, Democrats cynically took advantage of the situation by fear-mongering. They saw this as a golden opportunity to pin a "poor response" on Trump in order to improve their Presidential election chances which was otherwise looking very grim before COVID hit. They then hit on the idea of using it as an excuse to impose mass mail-in voting, which they knew favoured Democrats by a huge margin.

In the election we saw that COVID response became the number one Democrat talking point, amplified by the media which blatantly supported them. Joe Biden was even so disingenuous to say that Trump was directly responsible for 250,000 deaths in the US, an absurd proposition.

Trump's Response

I know this will make some people's heads explode, but on balance, I cannot find terrible fault with Trump's response as many Democrats have.

He was very early on calling for travel bans, before anybody else. He accelerated manufacturing on ventilators and PPE in a way never seen before, and built emergency ICU facilities in numerous places which were never much needed. He also royally kicked the butts of everybody to come up with therapeutics and vaccines in record time. He quickly established a Coronavirus task force with experts on it and led by Vice President Pence, and they coordinated regularly and well with State governments where healthcare policy resides. Many even Democrat Governors were praising the Federal response at the time, including California Governor Newsom, and New York Governor Cuomo. Trump held press conferences daily and very much lead from the front. He also was instrumental in passing major stimulus relief packages.

Where he is criticized is not being enough of a cheerleader for mask-wearing. At no point was he against them, but he resisted wearing them himself, setting a bad example. To his defence, the initial word from the "experts" were that masks were of no help and should be reserved for medical workers.

While Trump did advocate for the initial lockdowns, later on he (correctly in my opinion) asserted that the cure cannot be worse than the disease, and did not after that encourage states to continue their lockdowns, although he did say that in selected "hotspots" it may be appropriate.

I think many are guilty of fixating on deaths attributed to COVID, and not taking into account the deaths due to suicide, drug overdoses, missed medical diagnosis, and domestic abuse; as well as the mental health issues we are causing for many, including drug and alcohol dependence, and especially the children; and the economic hardships of closed small businesses while allowing giant corporations to profit absurdly.

It is important to note that State Governors have all the power in this situation, and that the decisions were ultimately theirs. As well, the American people are particularly stubborn regarding infringement of their liberties, and were more inherently resistant than other citizenry would be to forced mandates.

US currently rates as 11th worst in the world in per-capita deaths attributed to COVID, and is currently 24th in the world in per-capita deaths over the past week as I write this. (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/).

On balance, it is very difficult to compare one country to another, as there are many, many factors that differ amongst them (e.g. obesity and diabetes rates, population age, nursing home response, ...), and I can only imagine Federal leadership has a rather small impact. Would Joe have done better? I doubt it. He would not have shut down travel as early, and I doubt he had the wherewithal to kick butt the way Trump did to get a vaccine out within the year, as Trump promised to wide skepticism and delivered against the odds. I believe what Joe is suggesting at this stage, mandatory masks and lockdowns, is completely wrong headed as I will get into.

Is there a Second Wave?

I do not believe the rhetoric that there is a "second wave". Yes, people continue to die, and that is very sad, but is it anything that can any longer be called an epidemic?

To be clear, more geographically isolated places that were not hit at first may be experienced their "first wave" now, but there is no reason to believe that once a relatively well-isolated population has spiked and descended, that there is a second wave coming.

All the statistics are of course rising, but I believe this is explainable based on the over-sensitivity of the PCR tests used to detect COVID.

Official estimates have the false-positive rate of the PCR tests at just under around 1%, but that is in more ideal situations. Some have estimated the effective false positive rates, taking into account the inexpertise of those administering the tests and the physical conditions under which the samples are taken and tested, to be closer to 5%. This is because as governments implement more and more and more testing, even of healthy people, they are coming up against shortages of qualified technicians and surroundings. Contamination is the biggest source of false positives, and it is rife in this environment. And it only works one way, it only leads to false positives, not false negatives.

On top of this, the test can be positive a month or more after the virus has been defeated in the body (or when it was successfully fought off by the immune) when it is at too small viral loads to impact the person or be transmissible, and that is not included in the rates above. Plus many people with COVID will test multiple times, and that is not accounted for in the statistics as well.

It is not recommended that the PCR test be applied to healthy people to draw any conclusions. It is designed to test people who are showing all the other symptoms, to increase the conclusiveness of a COVID diagnosis. This is standard medical practice not being applied. A "case" has never historically ever been applied in medical science to somebody who is asymptomatic, yet is is being called that in the statistics.

These false positives not only impact the number of cases, but also impact the hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and death statistics as well (people are always going to hospital, going to ICU, and dying, and they are all being tested multiple times along the way, and if the false positive rate is significant, it will skew the statistics).

The PCR test amplifies RNA virus fragments that are unique to COVID-19, and binds fluorescent markers to them. The number of cycles of amplification before there is enough fragments to be detectable is the cycle threshold. The test protocol in many jurisdiction says you need to run at least 25 to detect it at all, and you are deemed positive if it hits at or before 40. Many experts believe that these thresholds are considerably too high. If detected only after about 30, most of the samples will not contain live virus, only the fragments. This has been tested by attempting to infect cells in a Petri dish. After 30, it is rare.

Is this part of a grand conspiracy? No. It is done in the interests of public health to reduce false negatives to a vanishingly small amount. Better safe than sorry. Better to quarantine someone even if they don't have the virus than to let someone who does have the virus roam free. This is the reasonable thinking behind the high cycle thresholds. But is does make it unsuitable for statistics.

In this phantom "second wave" we see higher and higher rates because the number of tests are high and growing, and the competence of those administering the tests is declining. We are seeing higher deaths because we always see higher deaths this time of the year from flus and pneumonia, and in fact many other diseases, likely due to confinement indoors, low vitamin D, and other facts that lead to lowered immune response. In fact, at this time of year ICUs are always being challenged from the aforementioned. Tellingly, the rates of deaths from flu and pneumonia have plummeted. I believe repeatedly testing these people with a test with a high false positive rate gets them misclassified as COVID deaths. There is nothing unique going on now, other than COVID statistics and continued media hype.

Are we reaching herd immunity?

Herd immunity is not a silly thing, it is literally the only way we ever beat a virus, sometimes with the help of a vaccine. There is reason to believe that many have T-cell immunity to COVID from things like the seasonal cold and the MERS and SARS viruses. This is why there are so many asymptomatic cases reported. People with pre-existing immunity are not getting sick from it, but they are tested as positive due to overly sensitive PCR tests.

This cross-immunity is why such an otherwise infectious disease is not running rampant. In many places there are sufficient numbers of immune people to dampen the spread.

Is immunity only temporary?

There is no reason to believe it is. Immunity from SARS, which is a very similar virus, has lasted 17 years now (it has been tested). It is likely lifelong based on everything virologists know about T-cell immunity.

Does COVID have extra nasty side effects?

All viruses leave a small proportion of the population with extra nasty side effects. We have heightened sensitivity to this one as every such case is breathlessly reported by the media and spread around by social media.

What is the correct response?

Knowing what we know now, the correct response is as follows.

  1. Protect those at highest risk.
    The virus is deadly to high-risk populations. Let them self-confine and limit interactions with others as much as practical. If they go out, they should always wear a mask and face shield. The people they regularly interact with should be masked as well.
  2. Boost the immune system, especially amongst the high risk.
    Encourage things that boost the immune system, especially for high-risk groups: sunshine and outdoors exercise. Healthy diet. Vitamin D, K2, Magnesium, C, Zinc, Quercetin, HCQ if available.
  3. Make high-quality therapeutics and vaccines available to high risk groups
    Everything from HCQ treatment to steroids to antibodies. Just like Trump!
  4. Quarantine the sick.
    As with all diseases, slow the spread by quarantining the sick. If somebody has symptoms, stay home and stay away from others, and have any caregivers wear a mask.
  5. Let everybody else mingle.
    The virus is not deadly for low risk groups, which includes people under 50 without certain co-morbidities. Under 20 the risk is very tiny, even less risk than seasonal flu. Low risk groups should go about their regular business. Good for mental health. Good to keep the economy thriving. Not dangerous. Be careful around the elderly and self-quarantine with extra vigilance if sick.

Should you take the vaccine?

I must confess I am nervous about the vaccine. It is the first of its kind (mRNA vaccine) and testing has for sure been rushed through.

From the CDC site:

New Approach to Vaccines
mRNA vaccines are a new type of vaccine to protect against infectious diseases. To trigger an immune response, many vaccines put a weakened or inactivated germ into our bodies. Not mRNA vaccines. Instead, they teach our cells how to make a protein—or even just a piece of a protein—that triggers an immune response inside our bodies. That immune response, which produces antibodies, is what protects us from getting infected if the real virus enters our bodies. [...] There are currently no licensed mRNA vaccines in the United States. However, researchers have been studying and working with them for decades.

Ok, that's strictly speaking scary. They're re-programming our cells to look like the virus and trigger an immune response. Some worry that it may make it more difficult to become pregnant because of the nature of the spike protein that the cells are being made to manufacture, and by their own admission this has not been tested for that.

I believe if we followed the approach above, we get through this without needing a vaccination, but I think the risk-reward is worth it to protect the high-risk groups, but not the low-risk ones (like me!).

But People are Dying!

Yes they are, and from COVID-19 for sure, and of all ages. And I feel a lot of empathy for people who have lost loved ones. It is a nasty virus.

But we need to be better skilled at risk management and comparing comparable things. For example, is this worse than having loved ones pass from missed heart disease or cancer treatments, or young people dying of suicide or drug abuse. We need to put this in perspective, and act responsibly, not like chickens with our heads cut off as we have been doing.

Special Thanks To

Dr. Michael Yeadon. His very expert, calm, fact-based discussion informed many of my views on the above (after researching it myself also).

185 comments:

  1. Just started reading this and BOOMM!!! julie hits us with another conspiracy theory about the virus being manufactured in a lab lol. Now regardless of that,

    I dont terribly disagree with what is said here:

    - Did trump do everything he could have done and did he do a good job of it - No he did not. Slow to respond and constantly kept pushing dumbassery like putting bleach and UV light into the body etc. Tried to discredit experts like Dr. Fauci. But then again not sure if anyone else could have done any better - after all other countries have also suffered in similar ways despite doing the right things. He did set up operation warp speed though that gave us the vaccine in the first place, so there is that.

    - Did the democrats take advantage - OF COURSE they did. lol. The republicans would have too. *shrug* its politics.

    -Agree on the correct response part. Except low risk people should mingle with restrictions. The majority of positive cases I think are int eh 20 to 50 age group today, so reduced capacity, mask wearing etc are common sense imo. But important to keep in mind though, that although most people may kick the infection and move on, you never know who the disease fucks over. Like that Canadian actor who died terribly. He was only 40 with no comorbidities. So can’t take chances.

    -Is the vaccine safe? - Well am a bit wary of that too. Its too soon feels like. Thankfully even if I wanted it I won’t get it as I am at the bottom of the priority list. So I think by the time I get it Id have a lot of data to go off of. I generally think it should be safe though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not what I would call a 'conspiracy' to say it was made in a lab. Virologists are doing that all the time for research purposes. It was made for research, but not for any nefarious purpose, I think, and was accidentally released due to lax controls on that lab.

      The "bleach" thing is a hoax. UV light in the body is a real thing. He was likely right about HCQ, and if not it was the best risk management decision to advocate for it.

      Disagree on the "with restrictions". Back to normal for low risk groups, for them it's no more dangerous than the flu. Of course there are isolated incidents of people of any age dying from it, as for any disease. No need to be paralyzed in fear this time.

      Delete
  2. Rogering here. I see so few people that the risk of getting covid is extremely slim. As regards Trump, your right to point out that quite a few of his actions were positive and helpful, but the Ego consumed him and he his public utterances of disdain and grandiose commentary on it did him in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. His fans enjoy his style. As the most successful President in recent years I'm excited to see what he will do next!

      Delete
  3. For those submitting unpleasant and insulting comments, please know that I giggle in glee as I hit the delete button. Thank you for the entertainment!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HI Julie I haven't been insulting in my comments but I still get no reply

      Delete
    2. Hi bob, I have to manually approve the comments which takes a little bit of time, especially in the dead of night over here. I approved the nicer version of your comment, below!

      Delete
  4. Okay here goes. IN 2014 the national institute of health donated to the wuhan lab 3.7 million dollars to study the coronavirus in bats. Now on to 2020 the president has brought this country up to being the largest producer of oil and natural gas as well as bringing our economy back to the best we have had in 20 years. Next he started holding China accountable for the fixing of their currency and cheating the U S. He then imposed tariffs for the benefit of aluminum and steel being sent to this country from China and other countries at less than what we could produce it at.(Cheap Steel and Aluminum)
    President Trump was a shoe in for reelection. Enter the Chinese virus and the whole economy starts to fall apart. Not a bad deal for china, as the election is coming and China is economically in trouble. This is no coincidence as China would't let anyone from Wuhan fly anywhere into the other provinces of china but they let the people fly everywhere else.(not a coincidence) They damn well knew what they were doing.
    Do I think this was planned. You Betcha. Jump in the Dumbocrats as they find an opportunity to win an election anyway possible. Why else would they hire 300 lawyers and send them to different states to help change election laws on mail in voting. Really convenient.
    This case in pennsylvania should and probably will be decided in the Supreme Court of the U S. We Will know tomorrow if that will happen. If they rule that states can't change voting laws without going through the state legislatures which is what they did in these swing states. This also means that they would have to change the States Constitution. It's amazing that these swing states had shut downs at almost the same time in the morning of the 4th and at the point Hiden Biden started gaining ground in several of the large cities in the swing states such as Detroit, pittsburg,las vegas, etc.
    Do I normally believe in conspiracies (No) Do I believe this all was just a coincidence (Hell No). Do I believe that China planned this (you betcha), Do I believe that the Dumbocrats didn't know what they were doing by trying to change the election by hiring 300 lawyers. As Jimmy Carter said years ago- Mail in voting is a great way for fraud to be injected into an election.
    I do believe that China was up to no good and they accomplished what they set out to do. Were the Dumbocrats conspiring with them, I really can't say as the Democrat Party has gone so far left to socialism, Marxism and Communism its hard to say. I don't trust them any farther than I can Throw them. I was a John Kennedy Democrat but no more. Conspiracy to overthrow a President and an election I believe has HAPPENED.
    Julie for a Canadian that doesn't even live here I'm amazed at your intelligence and knowledge of the political system in the United States. The wife would love to move out of this country if Biden / Sorry President Kamala Harris takes office but there aren't any places better. Even Canada has its problems. Maybe you should run for Prime Minister of Canada as you at least have a common sense brain on how a country should be run. God Bless you and if all the spankos are dumbacrats maybe we should change KINKS. Take care, Firefighter Steve

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Steve, I think we agree on a lot. Where we differ is I think it was incompetence by the Chinese's that allowed the virus out, then they covered it up, then they took advantage. More consistent with human nature.

      Delete
    2. I would agree except they prevented early on to stop flights into their inner provinces. They knew what they were doing. Its called chemical warfare. Firefighter Steve

      Delete
    3. True, but consistent with them covering it up and taking advantage after a mistake was made.

      Delete
  5. Goodness me. I sometimes think North Americans live on a different planet. Viruses aren’t political. In my country this was always a community health emergency so we locked down hard early and wore the masks and largely cooperated with testing and tracing not just for ourselves but for the elderly and sick who are valued. There’s no politics around supporting each other and we have no cases anymore. The news of so many deaths and illness in the US is tragic. I hope you find the ability to work together as a community. All the best.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know where you are from, as you don't say, but a small isolated country has very different conditions than a large country with crowded borders. There are 22 countries currently doing worse than the US but I do not blame their leadership. It sounds like you are. And you are not being responsive to my blog, which was mainly around a better, risk-based approach.

      Delete
  6. By your own admission yours is a spanking blog. For such an off topic post which I and I hope many others mostly disagree with and would take too long to write, there should be some form of retribution.

    MY PRESCRIPTION is a Spanking from David using your most feared/hated implements that last at least an hour. An one hour break, followed by the same from your father, another break and then a final session with your sister Sue in charge,. The final reminder is that a photograph of your lovely bum after each session is taken and published on the blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you disagree with? Do you agree with anything I wrote?

      Delete
    2. I disagree with a lot of what you wrote.

      Living on a small Greek Island where there have been NO cases. The whole country of Greece was under strict lockdown to the extent that during the period to end June there were a maximum of 100 positive tests per day. The second wave started at the end of September and the country has been in lockdown from 7 November and cases have dropped from over 3000 down to just over a thousand. Lockdown is expected to end in January.

      In both lockdowns the politicians have followed the guidance of the specialist committee of experts and not made any outlandish claims.

      The issue of mask wearing is taken seriously, with on the spot fines of €300 (approx US$350) being issued by police. Further business that operate outside the rule can face fines of €10k and permanent closure.

      The way the US went about it is haphazard as individual states could decide on the relevant measures taken in their area, not a co-ordinated response at a national level.

      As there is no proper National Health system in the US, how many cases are not reported?, how many people have been refused treatment because they do not have insurance? etc etc.

      You still deserve the prescription spanking for being so political.

      Delete
    3. Greece is not doing so well now, unfortunately, currently 14th worst on the last 7 days of COVID deaths per million. The US is much better by that measure. So we'll see where it washes out.

      There are too many differences between countries like US, Canada, and Greece to compare them in a meaningful way. It is poor science to jump to a conclusion based on 1 factor when 50 are at play. Greece is more cutoff, it gets more sunshine, the diet is healthier, less obesity, and so on.

      A huge factor is how nursing homes were handled. And in this you are making my point. I believe that from the time it became apparent that the elderly were massively more impacted we should have taken much more stringent steps to protect them.

      You seem drawn to a centralized authoritarian approach because that seems to be your nature. But Greece is an economic disaster and the US powers the world's economy, so there is that...

      Delete
    4. Your statistics in the first paragraph of this reply do not reflect the true situation. After many months of a very low death rate, it has increased dramatically as the virus spread in October and November . Average age of those who have died is 79 AND (96.2% had underlying health problems, or were over 70.

      It has taken a month of a new lockdown to get the figures for positive tests down and this week the numbers are roughly 50% down on last week.

      I acknowledge that conclusions need to be based on more than one factor and yes the Greek Diet is healthier and there is less obesity. Our weather, particularly in the North and Attica where most of the Greek population lives, is not that dissimilar to parts of the northern states such as Michigan and Illinois.

      Your point about nursing homes is acknowledged, however it should be remembered that family is key to Greek Society. Nursing homes are primarily used for those people who do not have family close by to help look after them. The economic situation has had no impact on how the crisis has been handled.

      Your comment about the economic situation in Greece is unfair. Until the Bailouts between 2010 and 2017, little had been done to control the country's spending. This is partly due to poor government but also public sentiment going back to when the generals were in charge. There has also been a systemic issue relating to reluctance to make reforms. For instance until a few years ago it was not possible to buy a headache tablet from anywhere other than a pharmacy. The state still controls when shops can have their main Winter and Summer sales (this does not prevent short term discounting on selected items). The Government as part of the lockdown has been able to introduce many reforms that the unions had been opposing so that it is easier to deal with the state.

      The US may have powered the world's economy in the last 40 years, but the signs are there that its economic influence could be reducing due to some of the decisions of the current president.

      Any way you need to get back to the Spanking, especially yours!!!!!!

      Delete
    5. Those death demographics are the same all around the world, and deaths with positive test are being mixed in with deaths due to COVID, everywhere. (Notably Colorado has been separating these, and Florida is starting to do a similar thing by reporting # PCR test cycles before positive.)

      I think we are agreeing on nursing homes? In the US they are used more, and hence is another big factor why US is higher than Greece.

      My point about the economy is that they take a very communist-like, central authority, central planning approach, and hence the state is more willing to abridge personal freedoms, and the people are more trained to go along. Hence another factor which may lead to a difference. The downsides of this approach show up in economic success, and other intangibles, and Americans think it's a fair trade to have that in exchange for under-indexing Greece on COVID-19 performance, independently of the leadership.

      Delete
  7. HI Julie, I'm from the UK , if the president said we must wear mast to stop the spread of the disease I think he would have got in again. But no he went the other way its going to go away by April he made political that's why he lost the election .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I doubt that. It did not matter what he would have said or done, the Democrats would use anything, including lies (such as the Russia collusion hoax or the fine people hoax) against him.

      He was projecting hope whenever he said it would go away soon, while working hard to take concrete steps in case it did not. I listed them all in the blog which you are not being responsive to.

      Delete
  8. In the U.S., Julie, what's hitting us now is far worse than it was earlier. Part of that is that Trump did a terrible job responding. Just to start with, he could have ordered people coming into the country into at least three or five days of quarantine starting in March. Tens of thousands of people came from Wuhan in the spring despite his travel restrictions. He was late ordering restrictions on travel from Europe, where it's also clear the disease had spread. Quarantine for people coming into the U.S. would have vastly slowed the spread.

    He could have also ordered the adoption of the WHO test, which would have given us a test to use much earlier than we had. And he could have used the Defense Production Act to order more production of tests, making them more available earlier in the pandemic.

    Trump's team could have given a consistent and strong message for people to wear masks right from the start. And, we know from what Trump said himself he knew this was a deadly virus that was easily spread. So, he has no excuse for not taking it seriously and showing such weak leadership in fighting the disease.

    People in Sweden tried to follow the model you suggest, but they've backed off it because it was not successful.

    Certainly it would be good for people to work on their overall health and to strengthen their immune systems with supplements and exercise. But the effectiveness of things like HQC have no scientific backing.

    If you are going to comment on COVID, you need to do better research. If you did, you would recommend people treat this seriously and not mingle or gather. A very large number of people who don't have symptoms are capable of spreading the virus. And each person who gets it can spread it to people who then die from it.

    You have a lot of readers. That suggests you should err on the side of caution, not on the side of encouraging people to treat this cavalierly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In hindsight one can do better, of course, but in March the situation was fluid and unknown. Canada did much worse by your standard. The US developed tests much faster and at a much greater scale than any other country. In the start, the experts said not to wear a mask. When they changed position, Trump did as well. Sweden I think is hitting cold and flue season plus false positives on OCR tests IMO. HCQ has plenty of peer reviewed science demonstrating effectiveness when taken early and with zinc, and it is a good risk management choice as it is cheap and proven safe (used as a malaria prophylactic for decades). With respect, I did my research, I think you are getting your talking points from bad sources.

      Delete
  9. Hi Julie, Thanks for letting me have my say on your blog, you sound like a nice person ,but I cant understand. why you support trump . because he always aggressive towards people he don't like and nasty

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi bob, in my observation Trump is mostly mean to those people who attack him first. It's a very New Yorker attitude. I admire his fighter's attitude. It gets things done.

      Delete
    2. He doesn't get things done, the virus has killed hundreds of thousands and the relief bill has STILL not been passed.

      Delete
    3. Nancy is more at fault for that then Trump. Just today she finally supported something that was put on the table months ago and said in her press conference her flip-flop was basically politics. The virus has killed many people in many countries, US is not even the worst. That is not an argument.

      Delete
  10. But Yeadon hasn’t worked for Pfizer in nine years, according to the Associated Press and his LinkedIn profile. He was formerly the chief scientific officer of allergy and respiratory research, his profile says.

    And his claims are wrong, experts told PolitiFact. So are the social media posts that spread them. The posts were flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi stevie - I don't think PolitiFact is a good neutral source anymore. What do they claim Yeadon is incorrect about? After listening to his video, what do you find to be incorrect in your opinion?

      Delete
    2. Dude, if politifact says ANYTHING, of fact that shows trump in a bad light, of course it isnt a neutral source. LOL.

      What do you find correct about what yeadon says julie? Are you a doctor? Infectious disease expert? Or is he saying stuff you want to hear? tsk tsk julie.

      Delete
    3. He's an expert scientist. Don't you "trust the science"? I "want to hear" truth, wherever it comes from. I cant find any points of disagreement which is why I reposted him. I am not a doctor, but I have an excellent BS-detector, and Yeadon is a firm 0 on the BS scale. You disagree? Bring an argument.

      Delete
    4. If your BS detector was excellent you wouldnt be supportin trump in the first place julie.

      Delete
    5. We will agree to disagree on that.

      Delete
  11. Julie you often ask posters who disagree with you to explain the disagreement. The problem is, you live in a different reality. A Fox New reality that believes that Russia hacking the US election is a hoax and that Trump is a good president. There is just too much here to respond to. Nor would a response do any good. This gap is why politics in the US is in such a terrible state. There is just no way to cross the reality gap.

    I have been to Canada a number of times and I have Canadian friends. I went to school with a number of Canadians from BC. I regard Canadians as our cousins, just generally more sane. But you are obviously an exception. It must be strange to be such a reactionary in a country that has socialized medicine and liberal policies. A bit like being a Republican in California, I imagine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Different reality", "Reality gap", in my opinion is a copout from those who reject logic, reason, and argument. In my observation, people who say that mean a different "emotional reality" where we "feel" different ways. Marshal your facts, as I have done above, and get your argument in order. Don't be intellectually lazy!

      Delete
    2. Socialized medicine is nothing to write home about. I live in BC and our socialized medicine system apparently can only handle 200 people in ICU beds in a province of over 5 million people. We have also had six months to prepare for the second wave and have done nothing to increase hospital bed supply, but don't worry we just mandated masks everywhere except bizarrely schools because apparently masks work everywhere except schools.

      Our federal government was also telling us in march that wearing a mask was racist and would stigmatize racialized communities and if that isn't crazy enough our equivalent of Dr. Fauci actually said masks would cause the virus to spread and she is still in charge or our federal response to covid!

      The idea that Trump failed is a media fabrication and a result of his own stupid tweets.

      Delete
    3. The for-profit medical segment in the US is responsible for most medical innovation, and has the best on-demand care in the world. They've done some things right.

      Delete
    4. Innovation and quality of care means jackshit if you cant afford it in the first place. Hell with insurance an echo cardiogram cost me 5000 bucks in the US. After insurance I paid 2K out of pocket. For ONE Test.

      Delete
    5. Innovation is critical because it's what makes advanced care affordable in the long run. And yes, the insurance system in the US sucks, as does the single payer model in Canada.

      Delete
    6. The only downside I have experienced with the single payer healthcare in Canada is the extended wait times for specialists. Unless life threatening, in which case you get pushed to the top of the list. But beyond that I think its way better than the US system. I mean can you imagine going to the hospital for treatment for a heart attack? You'd get a 2nd one when you see the invoice!

      Delete
    7. In some cases the extended wait times lead to missed diagnosis, and then you have a life-threatening emergency that did not need to happen.

      Delete
    8. Missed diagnosis happens everywhere. Even when seen on time.

      Delete
    9. Is there MORE of that or LESS of that with higher wait times?

      Delete
    10. I do agree that things could worsen in the time you are waiting. However how soon someone sees you also depends on urgency - your family doctor can mention "urgent" on his/her referral and they will see you faster. You could also always get a referral to an outpatient clinic if you wanna see someone quick. So there are ways.

      However, specialist wait times aren't the only determinant of what makes for a good healthcare system. COST is. Being able to see a specialist tomorrow but having no money to pay for the treatment, or having to pay 3 or 4 times the cost for prescription drugs etc are even worse. Most people are not fighting for their lives when they go see a specialist. Affordability and accessibility are therefore the most important determinants of what makes for a good healthcare system.

      Delete
    11. The best way, we all know, is to have some personal connection with a Doctor. Sad but true.

      I agree, that costs need to come down. The US insurance market makes that hard. Trump was working on cross state insurance to improve competition, favoured nation clauses for drug purchases, and price transparency. I hope the new administration continues on that trajectory and does not cater to big Pharma and big Insurance.

      Delete
  12. People wishing to comment critically: Be aware that a good persuasion technique is to pace your counterpart by first saying what you agree with, and then saying the parts you disagree with after. It will result in a better discussion!

    ReplyDelete
  13. I believe the virus was in fact engineered in a Chinese bioweapons facility and that it was quite intentionally released to eliminate Trump's chances of getting a second term. An even scarier thought -- which I don't fully believe but am concerned about -- is that Covid-19 is a trial run for a much deadlier virus to be deployed in a couple of years to eliminate the United States's status as a superpower and to make China the world's only remaining superpower. The purpose of the trial is to test the West's response, the amount of time to develop a vaccine, etc. The CCP is utterly ruthless. If China loses 300 million people to their own virus but the US loses its status and has to become subservient to CHina, wouldn't the CCP count that as a huge win?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In my darker moments I believe the same, but seeing as there is not much I can do about it I'd prefer to think that even the CCP leadership has some redeeming qualities, though I know that might be naive!

      Delete
    2. Not sure what your real background is or how you have put together this well written narrative. You are more spot on than you may be aware. There is a much larger global plan by the CCP.

      Delete
    3. Thanks. I am afraid you may be right, but hopeful either you are wrong or that the western world will somehow get on top of it.

      Delete
    4. We evaluate truth by consulting probabilities. Yes, it was theoretically possible that two jets crashed into two World Trade Center towers on the same day at nearly the same time because of pilot error and not because of terrorism, but how probable would that be? Not probable at all -- like getting ten royal flushes in a row in a poker game. So now we have the Trump Administration, more hostile to China than any in over 50 years, causing China all kinds of problems. And we have the deadliest pandemic in around 100 years originating in China and spreading to the US at the worst possible time as far as the Trump Administration is concerned. Just a coincidence? WAKE UP AND SMELL THE ROSES! No, it's not just a coincidence. Julie, I really hope I am wrong about Coronavirus just being a trial run.
      w

      Delete
  14. The problem with the idea of only protecting the vulnerable is that about 40% of the U.S. population is in this category.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then yes, that 40% should absolutely take measures to protect themselves, and the rest of us should take reasonable measures (such as self-quarantining when ill) but not shut down businesses completely.

      Delete
  15. Julie. Your spanking stuff is good.

    But this stuff... not so much.

    You ask that people give arguments that might persuade a reader, but you don't follow the same rule.

    I would recommend sticking to spanking. This political stuff just makes you look bad. You come across as arrogant. Maybe that's good for sales of your books? I can't figure it out.

    Of course, it's your blog, and you should do what you want. But you will drive away readers like me. Maybe that's fine for you: maybe you can attract some other kind of reader, who you like better.

    Good luck,
    J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi J - I am not in this for the money (the books make very little as well - I went over that in a recent blog post). Nor am I in it to build a big audience. I write about what interests me at the moment. You are free to come and go and to read whatever posts you want to, and not read other posts.

      I prefaced this blog post with the fact that this is my opinion based on my research, but I can't be sure of anything. I don't think that qualifies as "arrogant" by any reasonable definition.

      In your note you come across as close-minded, not wanting to hear any opinions other than those you agree with already.

      Delete
    2. My thoughts exactly. While I would like to tell you which points I agree with and which I don’t and why, frankly, you’re stating so many opinions as facts there’s not enough hours in my day to take your arguments apart piece by piece. I live close to Canada and have spent countless times there over the years. I admire the country, it’s people and heritage, but I would never pretend I could dissect its politics to the extent you do to the US. Frankly, I think you just need to be tied facedown to your bed and given a good strapping until you agree to stay out of our politics.

      -g

      Delete
    3. All you need to do is pick the one fact you disagree with the most and/or have the strongest opinion on, and address that one. The fact that you don't is... suspicious!

      Delete
  16. A little note. The capacity of people to squirm uncomfortably at a non mainstream opinion, but yet offer no points of agreement or counter arguments (you don't need to be exhaustive, just pick the top one), is truly astounding to me. Is this what we've come to? A complete inability to form one's own opinion based on research and argue it convincingly?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People dont offer a counter argument because from what I have seen in other posts, there is just no point in debating you. You just double down on what you already said or simply call the other person's sources as "biased", offering no counter - which is a violation of your own rule. So in short, its a waste of time. We are better off just making our points and moving on. Secondly, we dont live in an era of persuasion. We live in an era of mobilization. We are all persuaded out. We already know what the other sides arguments are. What you present in your posts is not "non mainstream". Its mainstream in right wing media.

      Delete
    2. If it's a good argument, I will respond. If it's "Orange Man Bad" or "Trust the experts" I admit to getting a bit testy!

      Delete
  17. I think you are brave in this day and age of cancel culture to voice your opinions. Especially on an alternative blog such as yours where no doubt many readers will be of the exact opposite political view.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks b. I am a fighter for free and open discourse.

      Delete
  18. Regarding your position on a "second wave". I'd recommend you look at the graphs in California of hospital admittance, ICU's capacity and deaths. It is obvious a huge surge occurred following Halloween and now even more due to Thanksgiving gatherings.
    Additionally, Bob Woodward's book details what Trump knew early on about the virus and how he decided to mislead the American people of its serious consequences. His downplaying of the seriousness of the pandemic cost lives! For this reason only, I voted for the first time in my life for a Democrat ( as did many tens of thousands other Republicans).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. California is currently the 35th worst state in terms of deaths but is trending badly, I agree. Protect the vulnerable, by all means. Let it burn through the low-risk part of the population without destroying the economy.

      I was unimpressed by the Woodward thing. Listening to Trump directly, I always got a sense he was taking it very seriously, even in the timeframe Woodward describes, while holding out hope for the future. I thought he struck the right balance.

      You seem to belong to a small minority, in that people who usually identify as Republican broke 94% for Trump according to the NYT 2020 exit polls, an improvement over the 88% he received in 2016 and higher than any other Republican in modern history including Reagan.

      Delete
  19. Ms. Strict Julie:

    We are trying to be careful, but live our lives at the same time. I really don't want to infect other people should I get the disease. Irene has been tested 4 times, I have been tested three. All negative.

    I will confess to being a California snowflake who has been brainwashed by the liberal media. I don't know whether I can be saved at this point. If you would like to sentence me to a week of spanking re-education camp run by some of those sharp-tongued, no nonsense women at Fox News, however, I will attend and see if they can turn me around.

    Seriously, I do appreciate the serious nature of your political dialogue. Responsible and thoughtful discussion is sorely needed.

    Best,

    Rosco

    P.S. Irene will be spanking me within the hour.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Rosco. If you are in a high-risk group you should absolutely take precautions. If you are young, fit, healthy, and are eating well and taking your supplements you have nothing more to fear from COVID than the flu any other year.

      I appreciate your appreciation for civilized discussion and argument.

      Delete
    2. Dont listen to her rosco. Take your supplements, work out and all that yes. But wear a mask, socially distance and dont go to crowded spots. Stay safe. And COVID is NOT like the flu. Its far worse.

      Delete
    3. Case mortality rate for the swine flu in 2009 was estimated to be around 1%. I do not have that broken out by age. Case mortality rate for COVID for less than 50 year olds, including co-morbidities, is less than half that. We did not shut down the economy over swine flu, and we should not over COVID. We should manage it responsibly without doing that.

      Delete
    4. I’m in between, 65, slightly overweight but I exercise regularly and am generally pretty strong, as is Irene.

      We’re not going to parties, restaurants or bars for sure, but we are visiting with family - ages 1 to 90. The 90 year old chooses to see people, knowing the risks.

      It’s not simple, but billions of people are facing and making tough choices.

      Rosco

      Delete
    5. Take Vitamin D, C, Zinc, and Quercetin. Especially lots of Vitamin D!

      Delete
    6. Not lots of Vitamin D. Vitamins B and C are water soluble. Excess of those will be excreted. Fat soluble vitamins like D and K, have to be taken correctly. Otherwise it could result in hypervitaminosis and hypercalcemia. I wouldn't recommend more than 1000IU per day.

      Delete
    7. I understand D is considerably higher than that. More like 7000IU. What say you re. https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/vitamin-d-recommendations-were-miscalculated-study-suggests-1.2287342

      Delete
    8. Take whatever is the RDA. As per current standards. We cant go off of a news report on what researches think. If it is accepted then yes. The other point to consider is what is this 7000 IU referring to? - Vitamin D2 or D3?

      Delete
    9. I think the RDA's are often behind the times. There are numerous cases where official recommendations (of various things) have proven to be off and dangerous. For instance the food guides with an excessive amount of processed carbohydrates. Are margarine is good for you. Or Thalidomide is perfectly safe for you. Or high quality red meat is bad for you, and so on. Do your own research. Come to your own conclusions. If you don't take the effort, go with the RDA.

      Delete
  20. The Democrats were more interested impeaching Trump than COVID-19.
    Hank

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would not go that far, but I would say they cynically took advantage of COVID for political gain,

      Delete
    2. They did take advantage but its not like trump didnt give them any reason to.

      Delete
    3. I think they do not give Trump enough credit for what he has achieved, such as getting a vaccine within a year.

      Delete
    4. I think Biden himself gave trump credit for the vaccine in a recent interview with CNN. But then again thats like the bare minimum. No world leader will turn down an attempt to make a vaccine. So I think the vaccine got developed despite trump not because of him.

      Delete
    5. Operation Warp Speed, which includes the logistically challenging distribution involving the military. Credit where credit is due. He was a cheerleader for getting it done within a year when everyone else thought it was not possible.

      Delete
    6. I think that credit goes to Pfizer and Moderna for getting it done so fast. But yes, credit where it is due - he did support those efforts. But anyone would have, so he is lucky in this case to get credit.

      Delete
    7. Ha ha! So grudgingly given!

      Delete
    8. Well ya know, even a broken clock is right twice a day!

      Delete
  21. Thank YOU! Love the site and your intelligence!

    ReplyDelete
  22. I am a doctor.. I have a masters and (PhD) in microbiology, and would argue that a BS scale is not relevant when discussing a person's scientific merit. Ask yourself this, why is Yeadon speaking about this and why is the rest of the scientific community not? We have free speech and our funding is usually not politically linked. Many of us do not have commercial involvement. We love nothing more than arguing about big problems and technical limitations... we know them intimately because they limit what we can find out. If there's only one (or very few) person(s) out there discussing it then it's usually not a real problem. If it were, I wouldn't be doing PCR...

    October 16, 2020 "The coronavirus pandemic is “effectively over” in the United Kingdom and “there is absolutely no need for vaccines.” - he's not the brightest expert.

    Furthermore, those who have completed studies on false detection rates show that false negatives occur at a higher rate than false positives for COVID PCR.
    Take a read: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2015897
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.05.20053355v3.full.pdf
    https://www.degruyter.com/view/journals/cclm/ahead-of-print/article-10.1515-cclm-2020-0978/article-10.1515-cclm-2020-0978.xml?tab_body=abstract


    On PolitiFact, there has been a such a right wing shift in media over the last decade that anything left of OANN and Fox seems to be left wing biased. They have fact checked Biden to be wrong on many occasions recently, just take a look for yourself. Read many sources, I read as much as I can from arguably left and right publications and I hope you do too. Murdoch pushes his agenda more strongly than most.

    In dismantling everything Obama did, Trump got rid of the infectious diseases agency and has sidelined THE expert in Fauci.

    China wants Trump - he's weak on Hong Kong for instance. It's happening under his watch (not Bush or Obama). Russia wants Trump (see previous hacking as confirmed by the FBI...). He's easy to manipulate and has been denounced by those on both sides as a liar and a fool. Watch the likes of Graham, McConnell, Cruz et al disavow him as soon as he's gone. They know what he is but they need his base.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the references, but you are making Yeadon's point. In an attempt to minimize false negatives, which are of concern as your references spell out, the PCR cycle threshold is elevated to 40, which results in excessive false positives. As well, the poor conditions under which these mass tests take place lead to further false positives due to contamination. An estimated 5% false positive rate, can more than account for the "second wave" in Canada and the UK. I don't understand what's going on in places like LA, though.

      I don't find Faucille to be much of an expert. He seems more like a bureaucrat and politician than a credible scientist.

      I think it's pretty clear China is all in for Biden. They explicitly say it aloud. See the Chinese economists speaking last week featured on Tucker Carlson on Dec 7.

      Delete
    2. Did you read them?

      Fauci is the 32nd most cited living scientist and he simultaneously holds public office. His research output has been seminal. You're asking people to debate facts but you dismiss someone with more experience than nearly everyone alive.

      You dismiss publications, experts and news sources throughout these posts that do not agree which your sources.

      In the UK they've been over 10,000/day since October.. 95% of 10,000 is 9,500. The May case numbers peaked at about 6,000/day. What would a presumed false positive rate been in the first wave? 5%? 0%?

      Delete
    3. I did, quickly. That was how I was able to rebut the point.

      I can believe Fauci has his name on a lot of papers. But I thought he was a hot mess in his flip-flopping, self-conflicting advice. He was the guy who told us masks don't work, for goodness sake! "There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.”

      I think in the first phase the false positive rate was much lower because they were testing sick people in hospital settings.

      Delete
    4. I dont think he was wrong there. I think people still say the same. Masks reduce risk, but aren't everything. Secondly at that time there was a shortage of PPE, so that statement was made. Thats not flip flopping.

      Delete
    5. Hmmmm... imagine if someone said what he said today? They'd be lambasted. Was he right then, right now, or lying all along?

      Delete
    6. He has been consistent in what he has been saying. Except for masks for which he said - "If you are not a healthcare worker you dont need one". But that was because of shortage of PPEs. I never bought it though. I have been wearing masks since January this year. Now that, that isnt a problem and COVID is far more widespread, mask wearing for all is being advocated.

      Delete
    7. Ah. So he has a proven track record of lying to us. Great.

      Delete
    8. No he said the same thing back then. Masks dont protect you 100%. And his recommendation was based on how widespread COVID was. That isn't lying. If only 100 people in Canada had covid it would be ridiculous to drum up mass panic and ask people to wear masks and socially distance. So recommendations have to reflect the situation on hand and that is what he did.

      Delete
    9. Read his statement again. He makes no reference to the surrounding conditions, he is making a statement regarding the effectiveness of masks and the advisability of walking around with a mask. Either he stands by that statement today, but won't say it aloud or give advice accordingly; or he was lying then in order to preserve the PPE supply for medical workers. Take your pick. Lying then or lying now.

      Delete
  23. Brief list of why Trump deserves to be kicked out of office:
    He repeatedly and knowingly downplayed COVID
    Trump incites hate and bigotry.
    He has called white supremacists “very fine people.”
    His policy that separated hundreds of immigrant children from their parents is inhumane.
    He appeals to the worst of human nature.
    Trump fired the pandemic response unit created by Obama after Ebola.
    He is an adulterer.
    He has been repeatedly accused of rape and has admitted (on camera) to sexual assault.
    He talks about how “hot” his daughter is
    Used to hang out with Jeffrey Epstein (as did the Clintons) and talked about how he liked them young.
    He and his family is profiting from businesses whilst working. Very swapy. Carter sold his peanut farm and Trump just kept on going like he was when elected.
    Tried to intimidate his former FBI director (Comey) into silence by threatening to release secret recordings of their conversations.
    Hasn't released his tax returns and says can't do so whilst under audit which is false. Why hasn't he? What has he to lose?
    Made fun of a reporter's disabilities
    'They're rapists ... some, I assume, are good people'
    He has been accused of domestic violence by two ex-wives
    "You have to treat 'em like shit" - on women. He is an appalling misogynist.


    That's only the beginning. He is an abhorrent human being who has managed the presidency and this crisis like he has many of is businesses - poorly and with no regard for those below him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What you are doing is called "laundry list persuasion" you assemble a bunch of false and dubious statements and try to argue they add up to something.

      Let me tackle one of the more obvious, "He has called white supremacists very fine people". His actual words immediately following, the part you were not shown by your media sources, he says "and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally." have a look at the PragerU video that explains the hoax: https://youtu.be/NM6k8uNAQBA

      Delete
    2. He refused to denounce white nationalists during the debate. He was given every opportunity to. He told the Proud Boys to "stand back and stand by". How can you deny the racism and white supremacy?

      Delete
    3. He's not going to parrot what somebody tells him to. Looks weak. He did toss iff a "sure". Much more convincing is the massive video montage of him repeatedly denouncing white supremacists on his own terms. See 38 Times President Trump has Condemned Racism and White Supremacy

      Delete
    4. P.s. you should apologize for promulgating the "fine people hoax". I notice you moved off that claim pretty quickly!

      Delete
  24. Julie as well as this bio engineering theory Yeadon also said in October that the pandemic was “effectively over” and there was “no need for vaccines to extinguish the pandemic”. He’s a biochemist who worked for Pfizer 9 years ago (not an immunologist or an epidemiologist) and a favourite on right wing media for pushing herd immunity but is hardly a credible source. His posts have been flagged by Facebook as part of their belated effort to combat false news and misinformation on its newsfeed.

    For a better source read the Lancet article The origin of SARS CoV2, Volume 20, Issue 9, 1 September which gives a convincing theory of bat/human transmission. David Robertson head of bioinformatics at the University of Glasgow centre for Virus Research says on the genetic analysis “Everything points to a bat sabrecovirus reservoir”.

    Social media is an unreliable source for news. Try medical journals for medical matters. Cheers Bill.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was not aware Yeadon said it was bio-engineered. My position is that we still don't know the origin, likely some mix of bat and pangolin Corona virus which then mutated many times, possibly under controlled circumstances (directed mutation) in a lab. I find it suspicious that when you google it there are 100s of articles saying "It definitely for sure did not originate in a lab!!", but then when you read them they say they do not actually know how it originated. I don't think it was genetically engineered, but might have been cultivated in a lab. I know I said "bio-engineered" in the blog but I think that was a poor choice of words, as it usually connotes genetic manipulation rather than selective mutation.

      Delete
  25. You’re quite the iconoclast aren’t you? This Yeadon fellow is an attention seeking public health disaster. His latest lie is that Covid vaccines cause female sterilisation. Simply untrue as he seeks to ramp up vaccination fear. Shame on you for spreading misinformation from this man.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This will be the first mRNA vaccine ever approved for use on humans, and it was rushed. If you're not skeptical, you should be. I think it makes sense to take the risk if you are in a high-risk for COVID death group. Risk is not justified for the lower-risk segments in my opinion. Shame on you for pushing bad risk management that might kill.

      Delete
    2. What risk is that? I am not asking about your opinion on it. What scientifically published risk are you afraid of with these vaccines?

      Delete
    3. That's not the way it works. It's never before been used on humans. It messes with cells' genetic materials. It had a shortened test period. Groups such as pregnant women and nursing mothers have not been trialed. We don't know what we don't know. It's a risk.

      Delete
    4. Of course it’s been used on humans. What about all the trials? Tens of thousands of people for each trial. Hundreds of thousands overall. Silly to say something is unsafe just because it’s new. All medical research is new at some point. That is progress. Quit drinking the Yeadon cool aid and spreading fear. Irresponsible to spout this nonsense. We should be jumping for joy for this vaccine.

      Delete
    5. Don't play semantics. Never approved for use. Never used on a wide scale. Trials have been rushed compared to all other vaccines. This is not just a new kind of an old vaccine, it is a radically new kind of vaccine, that infects our cells with genetically engineered RNA. If you were ever against GMO, you should be against this.

      Delete
    6. All vaccines affect our cells julie and programs our bodies to produce antibodies to that particular virus. All medications even proven ones have risks and side effects associated with them. So? Big deal. Its authorized by the FDA, Health Canada and the respective health orgnaizations. Its safe enough to be administered on a mass scale.

      Delete
    7. It sounds like you don't understand the difference between a regular vaccine and an mRNA vaccine, but hey, I don't want to burst your bubble.

      Delete
    8. I understand how it works. But why is a cell producing a certain type of protein scary to you? Infact because RNA vaccines dont have the pathogen the are probably safer? It looks like you are scared for no reason other than the fact that it contains an mRNA strand and it makes your cell produce a protein. Being cautiously optimistic and wanting to see data is one thing, but being afraid of something just because it makes your cell produce a certain vaccine is just being paranoic.

      Delete
    9. Happy to have you go first injecting foreign RNA into your cells.

      Delete
  26. Oookey. Long, but reasoned and apparently well-considered post Julie. I’ll start off by saying that I’m from Denmark, and frankly, I haven’t found it particularly interesting to keep that close an eye on neither the US political scene, nor the details in the various more or less substantiated rumors and theories about the Covid-19 virus. With that being out of the way, here goes…
    Where did it come from? From my perspective, it seems clear that it came out of the Wuhan region in China. Whether it was bio-engineered or not I have no idea about, and to be honest, I don’t really care either. Bio-weapon or not, the effects are the same in this case. If it was a bio-weapon, maybe someone will want to make a case of it against China, but if you want to complain about someone developing bio-weapons, you had damned well better not be doing it yourself, or something equivalent.
    Was it a grand conspiracy? IMO no. Not by a mile, longshot or any other measurement. The nature of this beast is just too unpredictable, and the effects on China itself FAR too large. If you are going to release a bio-weapon, you are not going to release it in your own population. Conspiracy theorists might argue that it is the perfect way to avoid raising suspicion about your motives, and yes, technically you’d be right. But in this case I just don’t see it. The risks are quite simply too high. If ever discovered, the blowback on China would be inconceivable in scale. The virus simply can’t be controlled, and that makes China itself just as much of a target as anyone else. You have the risk of this thing mutating into something worse. You have the economical consequences. Yes, China and large parts of the Orient seem to be more or less back to normal at this point, but let’s be honest here. China’s economy is also dependent upon the rest of the world, and if the economy suffers all over the world, China is affected negatively too. China is for most purposes the factory for an ungodly amount of the world’s various products. So if business in the rest of the world suffers, and demand goes down, China loses money. In the end there are simply no meaningful benefits to releasing something like this on purpose.
    What was China up to? IMO nothing. Business as usual. Something fucked up, and the Chinese didn’t want to lose face. Hence they first tried to cover up the incident whilst dealing with it to the best of their abilities. Unfortunately they failed at containing the thing, and it got loose and started traveling around the world, before anyone caught on to just how problematic this thing really was. But governments do not want to cause large scale disruptions to society, if it can be avoided, and no one want to be the ones to shut down an economy, only to later discover that you pissed away billions for no purpose. You mention the old adage “follow the money”, and yes, China is fairly much back to normal at this point. But…they’ve lost billions, and reduced economic activity in the world is costing them billions still. The interesting question would be “how did the Chinese get this thing under control so fast?” The answer to that IMO lies in two facts. 1) China has experience in dealing with this form of viral outbreak, and the populations have been through stuff like this before, and know from personal experience what it required to get a handle on something like this. 2) The Chinese population as a much higher tolerance towards their government making decisions that negatively restricts the population’s freedom, than most other countries in the western world. The Chinese also don’t have the same aversion to “Big Brother is Watching” as most western countries, and thus it makes it much easier to enact policies that enable disease tracking etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Kyrel - thank you for the great multi-part response. I must say I agree with everything in part 1!

      Delete
  27. Cotinuation:
    Democrats taking advantage and Trump’s response. The US actually had a fully formed playbook ready to deal with this form of outbreak. It was created by the Obama administration after an outbreak in China I believe. Trump disbanded the group that was in charge of this, and threw out the playbook. Granted, he did this before Covid-19 hit for real (as I recall), but it could have been dug out again and implemented. The administration didn’t do that. They also didn’t come out with a clear, consistent, and unequivocal message on how people should be behaving, and what local governments should be doing. Yes, there is/was the argument that the cure shouldn’t be worse than the disease, but at this point I find it fairly clear that the US way of handling this outbreak, has NOT been the way to go about it. Number of deaths are in six digits and rising, and infection numbers are some of the highest in the world. The US has handled the Covid-19 outbreak just about the worst of any in the western world. Trump has IMO failed at providing clear and unequivocal leadership during this pandemic, and that is IMO a deadly sin in a situation like this, and in a country where people in general value their personal freedom as high as the average American does. Spreading false information and allowing false rumors about the disease to spread and perpetuate is also a bad idea. I can follow why Trump might have wanted to downplay the seriousness of the epidemic and the disease, but the US citizens are reaping the results of that desire.
    On a related side note, I read an article in a Danish newspaper yesterday about the deadliness of the Covid-19 vs. the Flu. Some Danish scientists have spent some months looking into the matter, and have come out with a result that documents that Covid-19 is at least 3-4 times more deadly than your average flu, and that is based on the statistical evidence available. The study has been pier reviewed and checked by one of the independent medical journals, and has been approved and published. Unfortunately I can’t provide a link, as it was a physical paper, and I threw it out yesterday, and of course I can’t recall the name of the medical journal either. But the really interesting comment the article had towards the end, was a specification that since we are not screening for flu in the same way we have screened for Covid-19 this year, had you had a similar number of people tested for flu, the conclusion would likely have been that Covid-19 is closer to 7-10 times more deadly than flu, rather than the 3-4 times that the verifiable numbers available suggest. So Trump’s claims that Covid-19 is no worse than your average flu, is now demonstratively wrong.
    Is there a second wave? Look at the number of cases, and compare the % of people tested who test positive. If you get two spikes, when you convert the numbers onto graphs, then you have your second spike. I don’t know the US numbers, but I can tell you that here in Denmark, we are well into spike no. two now. Infection rates are currently setting new records here and today large parts of the country are shutting down schools, sports, bars, restaurants and entertainment venues again, at least until Jan. 3rd. You see similar things happening in other countries too. Maybe the trend isn’t that obvious in the US, but in that case it’s likely because the country never really got Covid under control, after the outbreak began, as most other countries did, only to have it flare up again after things started opening up again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the "playbook" you reference was very flimsy indeed. Trump administration reorganized things to eliminate duplication, and that has been painted by the media in the way you say. There seemed to be no shortage of govt experts from the start.

      I gave the stats on where the US stands re deaths per million pop. It is by no means the worst. And comparing countries and attributing outcomes to just one or two factors, when 50 are at play, is not very scientific.

      The comparison with the flu. COVID is much, much worse than the flu. However if you look at younger (<50) without comirbidities, it is comparable and better than the worst (eg H1N1) which we got through without these drastic economy killing measures that also take a huge toll in deaths.

      If your cases are <5% of tests given, you may be seeing a big impact from false positives. Likewise if your deaths are <5% of normal deaths from illnesses this time of year, you may be seeing a big impact from false positive PCR tests.

      Delete
  28. Are we reaching herd immunity? The effects of heard immunity is estimated to start kicking in when around 70% of the population has been infected and have developed an immunity to the disease. With a population of around 150mil., 70% is roughly 105mil. people. The number of infected are not anywhere near that yet, as far as I understand.
    Is immunity only temporary? Logic would suggest no, but you do have confirmed cases of the same person being infected more than once, and some studies into the matter are unclear. So there’s no 100% guarantee at this point, as I see it.
    Does Covid have extra nasty side effects? One article I read referred to a study that had found long-term side effects of Covid infection in upwards of 90% of the infected. I can’t say if that’s true or not, but there are certainly a LOT of documented cases of people experiencing side effects months after their infection with Covid-19. Some report chronic fatigue, some report loss of their sense of taste, some report other effects. None of them sound pleasant.
    What is the correct response? Personally I’d say that in the US, I’d recommend EVERYONE, except essential workers, to go out and stockpile enough food etc. for a 2-3 week complete quarantine, so as to try and break the god damned infection chains, and take some pressure off of the health services. Then take another month or so, where people for the most part go back to work, but try to stay away from large number of people, and then let’s take stock of the situation. Yes, a shutdown is problematic, and unless the government is willing to come up with some economic aid for the people and businesses being shut down, then you are going to see a lot of people and businesses going bankrupt. That will be particularly true in the US at this point, because a lot of businesses were already shut down in some places, so whatever cash they might have stockpiled at that point, is likely to be gone at this point.
    Other than that I agree that it will always be a good idea to eat healthily, so as to boost one’s immune system. But that’s always a good idea.
    Should you take the vaccine? IMO YES! Yes, the vaccines we see today have been developed at an insane speed, when you compare it to how long it normally takes to develop such a vaccine. But the reason that has been possible is because where normally a lot of steps are taken in sequence over time, this time most of these steps have been taken at the same time, which significantly reduce the development time. We can argue about the technology etc. all we want, but at the end of the day this is going to come down to a question of whether you trust the relevant agencies etc. enough to believe that they will not greenlight an unsafe vaccine to be released into the general population. I have that trust for my part, you seem to be concerned.

    Sorry about the split-up of my comment, but there's a limit to the length of the reply that can be posted (I found out, after I finished my comment...)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeadon argues that 50% of the population was already cross-immune from similar cold Corona viruses plus SARS and MERS as that's how the science works.

      I think there is a lot of media and social media amplification around continued immunity and long term effects. I am waiting for verified statistical data on that, but it would be highly unusual for a Corona virus to behave that way in a significant number of cases.

      We differ on the approach. I say take radical steps to protect the vulnerable and let others get on with it.

      We differ on the vaccine. Immune people do not need it. It is an entirely new type of vaccine that genetically modified our cells. More testing is required. I advocate it for high risk groups.

      Thanks for the great comment! My faith in humanity is restored.

      Delete
  29. Just wow, you understand people like you are the reason we can't have nice things right? You are the definition of a wild eyed right winger, willing to believe anything the right wing media spots at you. Try reading your news for while, from the AP and Reuters, not Qmarket or wherever you're getting this nonsense. 368,000 excess deaths in America this year and over 3k a day extra people are dying, and THIS is what you "THINK". GET HELP.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your reading comprehension is poor. COVID-19 is very bad. It mainly impacts those with co-morbidities, including especially the elderly where it is deadly. Our reaction is leading to excess deaths in the forms of suicides, drug overdoses, missed diagnoses, across the board; and to economic devastation for many where the pain will go on for years. I advocate for a better response, where we protect the high-risk groups even more than we are doing now, and where we let the low risk groups go about their business. This is a more rational approach that leads to less harm overall. That you brainlessly rail against it without arguments makes you the one who needs to GET HELP.

      Delete
  30. I  agree that this tragic pandemic was seized by the Democrat party to further their election chances (and it appears to have worked) and definitely agree also that left leaning governments are jumping on the opportunity to to further their agendas. 
    Here in the US there are liberal power-mad officials at both state and local levels ( and maybe soon on the federal level as well) pronouncing mandates as to how the citizenry needs to conduct their lives, to include how they may assemble, spend time with family, etc.  It's especially irritating that it's under the guise of "for our own good".
    Yes, we need to be concerned and responsible in these times but I can't help but believe that liberal "leaders" see this as an opportunity to test to what extent government control will be accepted. 
     Speaking out and standing tall for "muh rights" applies to all citizens, not only Republicans.  It's one of the founding principles of this country and I'm happy to see people pushing back- private citizens and especially business owners. And even law enforcement in some counties, etc. who refuse to enforce these ridiculous edicts. 
    On the personal level,  my life especially during this holiday season, has not and will not change.  Yes, I wear a mask when going into stores mostly because of my concern for their business liscenses.  Having a background in health sciences, I gather, study and evaluate the data on my own. I agree with social distancing but many of the masks I see  are laughable as to their efficacy.
      But I reserve the right to decide what is best for me and my family.   My age puts me at a higher risk for severity of disease if contracted but I Will decide how I choose to live.
    For example, over this holiday season I have and will continue to enjoy spending time, in person, with my daughters, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, etc. and will hold, hug and cherish them as I always have. 
    vic

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I congratulate your attitude, vic. Correct and courageous versus the mob.

      Delete
  31. Joe2 here,

    I concur with all that you have said. But I would put in my two cents:

    1) Many have made much about Pres Trump “telling people to drink Clorox.” When I first heard of this, it was reported in a very derisive manner (and still is). So I went and listened to what he actually said. What he said was very reasonable: we need to look at putting UV light into the lungs and/or find a way to put a disinfectant directly into the blood system. It made sense to me, especially when you think of modern medical marvels, e.g. human limb transplants. So I went to the internet and in five minutes I found that: A) Cedars-Sinai Medical Center was already trying to develop a way to put a UV light source directly into the lungs. Apparently, there is a very thin band of UV light that does not cause tissue damage, so the only problem is to get a way to transport it into the lungs. Cedars-Sinai had an informative video on YouTube on their efforts, but a few days after Pres Trump’s comments it was censored as “fake news.” B) For over a century there has been a therapy for placing Hydrogen Peroxide directly into the blood system. If is effective, but very dangerous. C) Before antibiotics, there was a treatment where they would pull the blood out of the body and run it by UV light and then put the blood back into the body. This also had a positive effect, but it was never fully developed. Think of it as UV dialysis.
    2) You clearly explained why the quick COVD test has such a high false positive rate. I was told of a very effective home test for COVID that relies on fluids already present in your house. Since two of the major symptoms of COVID is a loss of taste and smell all you need to do is smell something and then taste it. It made sense, so I took a glass of red wine, smelled it and then sipped it. It smelled like red wine and it tasted like red wine; therefore, I did not have COVID. The only downside is that it is not completely foolproof, so you have to run multiple tests. I think I tested myself about 50-70 times the first evening. Since I am exposed to potential vectors every day, I feel compelled to self-test every evening. My wife has noticed that there are side effects though. She told me that after an evening of self-testing, my stride is uneven and my words sometimes slur. While the side effects may be offsetting, my health is more important. It is science you know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely re the "bleach hoax". That, the "fine people hoax", and the "Russia hoax" are the tells for people easily susceptible to being manipulated. They scare me!

      I love your testing regime. I am taking it up myself!

      Delete
    2. Loss of taste/smell happens even with sinus infections you dinguses. Not everyone loses smell and taste either. God, its like watching two village idiots plan a rocket launch. LOL.

      Delete
    3. Did you know that a full 1/3 of humans have no sense of humour?

      Delete
    4. Ah I see what I did there, I just skimmed the post didn't read it. LOL. But then again with all your conspiracy theory pushing I have to sometimes wonder lol.

      Delete
  32. Have you got David a new chastity cage yet Ma’am? One he can “grow” in more comfortably?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ive worn a chastity cage once or twice. I feel it focuses too much on the dick and you dont enjoy the mindfuck.

      Delete
    2. Get the chastity cage in place for a few days, concealed by panties, have David dressed fully as a girl and our Goddess Miss Julie in her strap on and jeans...then see where the focus switches to. Wouldn’t you agree Miss Julie?

      Delete
  33. Good work Julie. Keep giving the libs hell! I think Trump wasn’t strong enough against the Republican Party. He should’ve created his own militia under his control. They would have dealt with the looters and sure would come in handy now to stop the steal. 4 more years!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree on most of that! Trump, throughout his Presidency, used only legal and constitutional measures, and avoided dirty tricks. He patiently waited for states to invite him in, and whenever they did the looters were dealt with quickly and legally. That's among the things that will have him go down in history as a great President regardless of the outcome of the steal. I do agree he should have excised the RINOs from power, but that's with 20/20 hindsight as they are quite the snakes in the grass.

      Delete
    2. Like you say election results can’t be trusted. Everything’s rigged. That means Trump needed his own private militia. Plenty will join. The republicans are traitors. Stop the steal. 4 more years!

      Delete
  34. Next topic of discussion :

    Death row inmate Brandon Bernard who was convicted over his part of the killings of a religious couple has been put to death.

    Bernard, aged 40, is the ninth federal inmate put to death since July, after Donald Trump ended a 17-year hiatus in federal executions.

    The executions have broken a 130-year precedent of pausing them until the next president is sworn into office.

    Did he do the right thing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't really trust the government prosecutors in general (this particular case may be cut and dry). There have been too many false prosecutions. Kamala was famous for it. At least without the death sentence you can eventually right a wrong. But morally, I have no issue with executing people for certain heinous crimes. Happy to pull the switch (or whatever) myself. I'd still have a very good night's sleep.

      Delete
  35. Looks like the retrumplicans and trump himself lost the boss fight today at the scotus julie. LOL.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They can't win, the Demonrats. If they strike Trump down, he shall become more powerful than they can possibly imagine.

      Delete
    2. And the more powerful trump attempts to become, the more powerful the liberals will - culturally and politically. Its a constant push pull, but conservatism will always lose in the long run. Just the order of things.

      Delete
    3. Correction. The electorate removed him from office. I know you’re right wing and into the cult but facts are facts miss smarty pants sore loser. 10 with the belt for every fib and you’re gonna be sore tee hee.

      Delete
    4. "conservatism will always lose in the long run" - you mean policies based on rational thoughts rather than emotions? I'm afraid we agree. See "Fall of civilisation".

      The point is it's unlikely the electorate did remove him from office. More like entrenched govt/corporate interests did, as they have always done (they fucked up big in 2016 - Trump caught them off guard and they didn't take him seriously enough - they sure made sure THAT wouldn't happen again)

      Delete
    5. The Supreme Court ruled against Texas and the Trump team 9-0 yesterday. Six of the justices were appointed by Republican presidents and three by Trump. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/11/supreme-court-rejects-texas-led-effort-to-overturn-bidens-victory-444638.

      But, wake up folks! This NOT evidence that our President's litigation is flimsy or that he is attempting to stage an unconstitutional coup. NO, not at all! The fact that three of his own appointees summarily dismissed this case and the previous one filed regarding the Pennsylvania election merely demonstrates the pervasiveness of the Deep State campaign by the Satanic child molesters! It reaches even the Supreme Court and the president's judicial selection process! Rise up! Assert your constitushional rights to win even when you lose! This must not stand!

      Delete
    6. What is rational to you, is racist, divisive and overall ineffective to others. Infact it turns out the majority of the voters in this election. Also, yes, conservatism as we know it today will eventually lose as subsequent generations come to power. What do you think the reigning political ideology will be when millennials are 60 years old and when generation alpha is 30?

      Also, something always has to be destroyed for something else to be built. We need to destroy conservatism and right wing populism (that you support) in order to build a fairer society. Long way to go, but count on it happening.

      Delete
    7. Its true that trump outdid everybody by tapping into the right wing populist ideals a lot of the working class embraced and still do. Which is why he got 12 million more votes this time around.

      But that IS the con. And that IS the problem. That a guy who knows nothing about being working class, who has gold fixtures in his house, who is worth $3B, who has not known a day of struggle in his life, is moonlighting as a man of the people.

      He is simply saying what people want to hear, but doesn't care, understand or empathize.

      Its George Orwell's Animal Farm all over again. And trump is the pig.

      Delete
    8. Dan - they did not take the case for lack of standing, NOT because they examined ANY of the evidence, a predictably cowardly move, as it was a judgment call to take it or not. You Dems now have a 100% track record of not trying the evidence, insisting "there is no evidence" without trying it is a special kind of head-in-sand-ism.

      What is rational to me is rational to other rational people. You are talking about feelings, not rationality. Else you would have some argument for how "Trump is racist" rather than just hoaxes such as the "Fine People Hoax".

      The "fairer society" you like rejects free speech, puts feelings over facts, and is heavily authoritarian. Animal Farm and George Orwell come to mind.

      Trump is admired by the regular people because he is not controlled by the government/industrial/military complex. He is not owned and controlled by them. He is free to speak the truth without worrying about stifling political correctness.

      And Orwell was criticizing communism, the original identity politics movement, you ninny. Read history.

      Delete
    9. The case lacks standing because of lack of evidence. Waving around signed pieces of paper and not producing any credible witnesses to take the stand, is exactly why there is no evidence.

      Also, liberals are not talking about feelings, we are talking about facts. Its right wingers who talk feelings. They FEEL some type of way about immigrants, non whites etc and they either push conspiracy theories or cherry pick facts or a combination of both to argue their position with no regard to context or the fact that most of what they support is detrimental to themselves.

      Your right to free speech shouldn't come at the cost of someone else's right to live with dignity, respect and security. So if you feel your free speech is attacked, because someone else is demanding to live decently, then you have only yourself to examine.

      trump is also very much controlled by the rich and the powerful. Case in point the tax cuts. Over 83% of the tax cuts went to the 1%.

      Animal Farm was indeed criticizing communism. Which is a populist movement. So is trump's. There isn't much difference between populist movements (right or left). They are both anti-establishment, anti-elite and always led by ELITES who moonlight as men of the people. Take your own advice and read history, and more importantly some political science dummy.

      Delete
    10. You clearly are not educated about the case. Improve your news sources.

      You claim you are all about facts, without presenting any.

      Free speech that you don't like should be countered with more free speech, not censorship. If you only allow speech you like, that's not free speech.

      Have you a reference for your 83%? And yes, one would expect taxpayers to benefit the most from tax cuts.

      I laugh at your lack of self-awareness, and feel pity at the same time, and amazement at how successfully you have been manipulated.

      Delete
    11. Julie, your "you Dems" comment is literally nonsensical. Nine member Supreme Court. Six Republican appointees. Three Trump appointess. 9-0 rulings. Twice. It's been the same at the lower appellate and district court levels -- the judges tossing out Trump lawsuits and making the strongest statements about how frivolous these cases are mostly Republican appointees, many appointed by Trump himself. https://www.voanews.com/2020-usa-votes/trump-appointed-judges-balk-presidents-efforts-overturn-election. Even one of the few Obama appointees who has authored an opinion excoriating the Trump team's theories is a conservative Republican and a member of the Federalist Society: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-11-24/dont-jump-to-conclusions-about-an-obama-judge-who-ruled-againsty-trump.

      And, wtf with the "ninny" comment? You whine incessantly about commenters who say nasty things or don't engage in substance, then over and over again you fall back on name calling. You literally have no idea what you are talking about when you say things like "You Dems have a 100% track record of not trying the evidence . . ." then you call those respond to you ninnies. Except, of course, the ones who say nothing substantive at all but tell you how great and courageous you are.

      Delete
    12. We talked about this in your other post on voter fraud. There is absolutely no verifiable evidence. So being dismissive is neither going to win you an argument nor going to win retrumplicans a case at the scotus.

      Also facts regarding what exactly? If you are talking social issues, that is out of scope for this discussion. You pick a topic of interest, make a post and we will talk about it there. If you are talking voter fraud, I dont have to present proof that the elections were fair. You have to present evidence that the elections were fraudulent as the burden of proof is on the person alleging foul play. Which you haven't done so far, except for saying that there are signed and sworn affidavits. Those pieces of paper essentially have a sentence "Under penalty of perjury, I state that whatever I have declared here is true to the best of my ability". That means nothing if you cant get that person to take the stand. Again debated endlessly and voter fraud claims debunked over and over, to the point that even republican judges have turned it down. Surely, not EVERY court is "biased" even if you were to accuse them of bias?

      And I absolutely agree - free speech should be countered with more free speech. Which is EXACTLY what we are doing here. What you are arguing for is "I am not allowed to say whatever I want AND GET AWAY WITH IT". That isn't how free speech on all sides work. You say something you want, I will use my free speech to drag you down. Its fair. That isn't authoritarianism if what I express gains widespread support and people call you out.

      And of course you can keep laughing and feel pity or whatever, all the while pushing conspiracy theories julie. People will call YOU a clown. Not me who is calling you out for your bullshit.

      Delete
    13. You weren't the ninny Dan, stop being so sensitive. I called the ninny a ninny.

      Let me go over this with you one more time. If a judge dismisses a case before hearing any evidence, he must presume the evidence is true. Therefore the evidence has not been tested in a court of law. The cases brought in the PA and Texas suits were quite solid (read them) and if true, damning. The Supreme Court would not hear the cases for what they say is lack of standing.

      In some other cases the judge says that even if the evidence is true, he cannot see applying the remedy sought for based on the arguments presented, which is fair enough. I believe congress must decide this, not courts.

      You do yourself a disservice dismissing every single fact, video, argument, affidavit brought as showing 100% no election fraud! I do not assume they are all legit, but I don't dismiss them all out of hand as you do.

      In many cases the argument is correct lawful procedures designed to ensure fair elections were materially and significantly not followed. In other cases there are very strong statistical discrepancies that again are not suitable as court evidence justifying a legal ruling.

      And in many cases, the argument is that laws passed by state legislatures designed to ensure free and fair elections were changed unilaterally by politicians or courts not constitutionally empowered to do so.

      But you go ahead and ignore all that and stick by your guns that it was 100% free and fair. The free s'est and fairest evah!

      Delete
    14. New anonymous, see above re voter fraud.

      And huh about free speech? I'm the one giving your views a platform. I no understand your point.

      Delete
    15. You are not exactly providing anybody's views a platform. You are giving yours a platform and others are engaging, without whom your platform has no meaning. Your platform is also not free speech absolutist like you claim yourself to be. You moderate comments and only allow ones that you think make you look good etc.,

      Regardless am talking about accusations of curbing free speech to promote social liberalism, that is generally prominent on right wing media.

      As for voter fraud, again, what you call "evidence" is not evidence. It isn't even classified as evidence unless and until individual people take the stand and are allowed to be cross examined. A lot of what you say about procedural faults, statistical discrepancies, unconstitutional rulings by courts never actually happened. They are just outright lies by trump and his legal team.

      Delete
    16. How do you know I moderate comments? Was one of yours not allowed through? I only moderate the really loony disgusting ones that don't add to the conversion. Was that you? Objectively, most of the comments are from critics. Your argument holds no water.

      You're being very pedantic about the word "evidence". I use it in the common sense that it is a seemingly credible fact that if true would make a case, but not yet tested in court.

      Your absolutism about "never happened" and "outright lies" demonstrate you as not an honest broker. Curiosity and an open mind is good.

      Delete
    17. I know you moderate comments because of your comment above - "For those submitting unpleasant and insulting comments, please know that I giggle in glee as I hit the delete button. Thank you for the entertainment!". Free speech is not always pleasant. If you are a free speech absolutist, then all types of comments, loony, disgusting or not, should be allowed. You dont necessarily have to respond to any of them, that is your prerogative. Failing that, you are just an advocate for free speech with reasonable limitations. Which I am in complete agreement with.

      In a court of law it is imperative to be pedantic. There is no room for anything less. I know how you are using it, but how you use it isn't how a court considers what is brought before the bench. Just because you think it is "seemingly credible", doesn't mean it is good enough to be considered for examination in a court. There is a system and a process.

      Pushing conspiracy theories don't exactly represent a curious or an open mind.

      Delete
    18. I distinguish style of comment from ideas and content. On my platform I let any ideas through, including especially those I disagree with. And I am tolerant of a few insults mixed in with a point. But if all you can offer is "you're a dumb fucking redneck cunt" (actual comment, in its entirety), I won't publish that. Don't confuse censorship of ideas with that.

      Delete
    19. Julie, I love the way you just kind of make up your opponents' arguments for them. It makes it so much easier than addressing what they actually say. First, I promise you, I don't need you to explain to me how US legal procedure works or constitutional doctrines like standing. Second, I have never once said that this or any other election was perfect. No large scale election ever has been or ever will be. Elections are conducted with imperfect voters, imperfect poll workers, imperfect voting machines, etc. Errors can happen at each and every stage of that process. But, errors and imperfections are not fraud, and they aren't material unless they were significant enough to actually change the result. And, that is exactly why when playing to the cameras Trump's lawyers talk about fraud, but when in court where they are subject to possible sanctions, they talk about "irregularities" and do not claim that any such irregularity, if proven, would change the result. While you keep babbling about fraud, in court the lawyers admit that is not what these cases are about and, when pressed, own up that they are either attacking the entire process of mail-in balloting but doing so at the wrong time since they should have challenged them *before* seeing if they liked the result, or they ar pointing not to fraud but to mere "irregularities" that would not remotely add up to a changed result. And, as you point out, their proposed remedy is not to make sure that lawful Trump votes are counted but, rather, to throw out *legitimate* votes on the basis of speculation that some unknown number of votes *might* be illegitimate.

      The one big exception to the lawyers being far more careful about what they say inside court where they have an obligation not to lie is Sydney Powell. She will be lucky if she has a license once this is all over. Just this morning it was reported that a "military intelligence" expert who provided one of those declarations you keep crowing about was not an intelligence expert at all but, rather, some IT guy who wasn't an expert on anything and whose military background was as a mechanic. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/sidney-powell-spider-spyder-witness/2020/12/11/0cd567e6-3b2a-11eb-98c4-25dc9f4987e8_story.html.

      Delete
    20. julie, free speech is free speech. "dumb fucking redneck cunt" is abuse sure, and ofc doesnt add anything to the discussion. But under a free speech absolutist doctrine, it should be allowed. I dont agree with free speech absolutism - I think to be actually free you dont just have to be free TO do stuff, but also need freedom FROM stuff. Like the abuse above. And you aren't wrong for censoring that. Which is why you in reality are a free speech with reasonable limitations advocate - which is very Canadian of you lol.

      Delete
    21. Well good, that's a more nuanced position. From the evidence I have seen I think there was sufficient targeted fraud to overthrow, concentrated in key Democrat cities. And if you include systemic suppression of lawful checks and balances (observers given meaningful access, signature checks) it's way more than enough, but very hard to prove the impact of suppressing those checks and balances, which is where you need to look at the statistics. I personally think that if the law was not followed in the voting process, those votes need to be thrown out, else no consequences. Like the way evidence is thrown out if not obtained legally (even if indisputably true).

      I think you make the mistake of cherry-picking bad examples and then drawing a broad conclusion without examine all the allegations. For example, if 100 things are brought, and 95 of them are totally bogus, it says nothing of the other 5.

      Delete
    22. I distinguish personal insults to me on my platform from speech that is perceived to insult a group, or insults to me on a different platform. I don't think the government should even censor personal insults because of slippery slope. I think I can still qualify as a free speech absolutist even though I moderate out the "cunt" comments (except in the right context - like call me a slutty cunt for my sexual behaviour and I'm all in 😊)

      Delete
    23. The latest example of your misunderstanding regarding the procedural posture of some of these cases happened today. Judge Brett Ludwig tossed out Trump's attack on the Wisconsin election process, stating:

      “This is an extraordinary case. A sitting president who did not prevail in his bid for reelection has asked for federal court help in setting aside the popular vote based on disputed issues of election administration, issues he plainly could have raised before the vote occurred. This Court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits.”

      "On the merits" means the ruling was NOT simply on a procedural defect, as you allege has been the basis for all these cases. As the court noted: "This court allowed the plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits. In his reply brief, plaintiff 'asks that the Rule of Law be followed.' It has been." He further noted regarding the "evidence" offered by Trump: “When they are cleared of their rhetoric, they consist of little more than ordinary disputes over statutory construction." Further, “Plaintiff’s Electors Clause claims fail as a matter of law and fact," adding “for the first time in the nation’s history, a candidate that has lost an election for president based on the popular vote is trying to use federal law to challenge the results of a statewide popular election."

      Judge Ludwig was appointed by President Trump.

      Delete
    24. That is the problem with free speech absolutism. It is free speech as long as you are allowed to say what you want. But the same rule doesn't apply to others. Thats why free speech absolutism is really a nothing more than a talking point.

      Delete
    25. I admire your persistence, Dan! I especially like how you take such glee every time a Trump-appointed judge fails to take up a Trump case. I think that would be a good reflection on Trump's process for choosing judges?

      Once again, evidence was not presented in court and cross-examined. There is no talking your way around that. You would think you would want to see one of these cases actually taken up so all that "shoddy evidence" is "destroyed" in a court of law, yet you and yours seem oddly reluctant. Hmmmmmmmm.

      Delete
    26. Unfortunately, "free speech absolutism" is the new name for what used to be just known as "free speech". It needs to be distinguished nowadays because of people who are "all for" free speech, except if it hurts the feelings of some intersectional group or other (other than Trump supporters, and white males, of course, open season on them).

      That you fail to comprehend the difference between censoring ideas, and not publishing a pure personal insult with no other point, is sad.

      Delete
    27. What you accuse left wingers of doing, is exactly what right wingers do. In the guise of "expressing an idea" they engage in personal attacks, malicious hate speech etc and when called out for it, (called out mind you, not censored), they will accuse of you curtailing free speech. Essentially when a left winger exercises their freedom of speech, the right winger's free speech is curtailed apparently. So again - "I am not allowed to say what I want and get away with it".

      The fact that you dont see the hypocrisy in this is what is actually sad.

      Delete
    28. "Once again, evidence was not presented in court and cross-examined." - correct. That is what I have been saying. Evidence was NOT presented. Therefore nothing to cross examine. Therefore case dismissed.

      Delete
    29. 17:07 anonymous - please call out where I have substantially curtailed someone's free speech on this platform. I mean, if I was so inclined, you would think I would start with you, as you are such a powerful opposing mind, no? :-)

      17:09 anonymous - My head is hurting from trying to follow your mental gymnastics. For you others out there, this is what "cognitive dissonance" looks like. The supplicants wished to produce evidence in court, but the judge would not hear the case, therefore no evidence was presented in court, therefore it makes it harder to asses the truth or falsity of it. Read the Texas case filing to the supreme court. Choc-a-bloc with evidence.

      Delete
    30. Both anonymouses are the same person lol.

      Anyway, I am not talking about you personally. There are two parts to this - this blog is not a free speech absolutist platform, especially since it is "your house, your rules". So by nature, it is not free speech absolutist, and I dont disagree with that. I'd do the same thing. I am however talking about this general idea that exists on right wing media that left wingers are somehow anti-free speech and authoritarian, which is what you are expressing when you are talking about left wingers/liberals. That is not true. Infact it is right wingers that tend to be authoritarian by virtue of their beliefs and what they advocate for.

      Regarding voter fraud, when you ask the court to take up your case, you have to show what evidence you have to present should the judge allow you to proceed with the case. The trump/texas legal teams werent able to present any existence of such evidence. You dont tell the judge, lets go to trial, and we will present evidence then. It doesnt work that way.

      Delete
    31. Oh and I forgot to mention, regarding the texas case - they needed to demonstrate standing. They werent able to. Now before the scotus hears a case, they are going to ensure that the case you are seeking to be heard demonstrates substantial merit. If they coudlnt demonstrate that of course the court is going to deny it. Didnt the legal team thing about that when they filed the case? Of course they did and they went ahead with it anyway, which leads me to think it was just performative for the benefit of the president.

      Delete
    32. Hint: sign the bottom of your comment with a moniker of some sort.

      I think the substantive ideal of free speech is something all of us can and should embrace on our platforms. The idea of the left being against free speech is because they have a habit of protesting and trying to shut down and deplatform. People such as Milo, Gavin, Alex Jones, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson. YouTube right now is censoring any videos about election fraud in a move cheered by the left. All the media and social media censoring allegations against Joe and Hunter Biden, but not so with proven disinformation about Trump(fine people hoax, russiagate).

      On texas there was a decent argument for standing, but most scholars agreed it was not strong enough. It was a step that needed to be taken, though. You are now confusing merit with standing. They only ruled on standing.

      Delete
    33. I will sign my moniker from now on with "Rubber Doll". I am a huge fan of latex.

      "The idea of the left being against free speech is because they have a habit of protesting and trying to shut down and de-platform" - It is similar to what you are doing here when you dont allow comments. Your house, your rules. Twitter's house, twitter'r rules. That is not a left v right argument. Also I have seen tons of videos about voter fraud on twitter, facebook and other social media. They tag it as "Election fraud is disputed", which is true. It IS disputed. But they dont outright delete it unless it is advocating for violence etc, in which case I think it is justified. The only time they suspend your account, and when it is debatable whether or not they should have taken such action, is when you abuse someone etc - and I agree there are a few cases where even the slightest infraction can lead to a suspension. But then again, twitter's house, twitter's rules.

      Regarding texas, if they didnt sufficiently demonstrate standing according to article 3, then the case lacks enough merit to be heard.

      - Rubber Doll.

      Delete
    34. BTW I forgot to mention - protesting against someone else's views is just freedom of speech. You say something, I have a right to call it out.

      And of the people that you mentioned, they were booted fo the following reasons

      Milo - problematic views on pedophilia and child sexual abuse
      Gavin - I am assuming McInnes? - promoting violence against political opponents, white nationalism, neo-nazism.
      Alex Jones - Promoting violence against victims of school shootings, conspiracy theory pushing

      Ben Shapiro and Petersen are still on twitter. They are able express their views and still stay on platform. So unless there is a valid reason (like the 3 before), they wont boot you. I fail to see where the problem is here.

      Delete
    35. You have not been following events in YouTube. They are now outright removing any content that raises any doubt at all as to whether there was fraud in the 2020 election.

      And my little blog is not the "town square" as Twitter pretends it is, and gets section 230 protection against liability as a result.

      You are woefully misinformed about Milo, Gavin, and Jones. You are swallowing the narrative of the left hook line and sinker for those cases. Milo was abused by a gay man as a boy and was commenting on it. Gavin never ever advocated violent action, only defence, and is not a white nationalist or a neo-nazi. Jones has never advocated violence against school shooting victims or parents. For a time he questioned the official narrative, and now says he was wrong. Those were excuses to de-platform, and are a slippery slope for wider ranging censorship.

      Ben and Jordan were routinely demonstrated against at invited talks at Universities and effectively deplatformed by violent, rowdy mobs of leftists. Do your research.

      Delete
    36. Like I said, its their house, their rules. They may want only verifiable information on their platforms. Given youtube's cultural impact, they may feel (and rightly so) that they have more responsibility about the kinds of information that is made available through their platforms. Whatever their reasons, its their house, their rules.

      And I am not misinformed about those three. I actually watched the full podcast where Milo said what he said. He said he enjoyed it and infact said it wasn't a big deal. Which is outrageous to say the least. So I havent taken my information from any media source in this case - it was straight from the horse's mouth so to speak.

      And Gavin doesn't advocate violence? Sure, see for yourself - https://twitter.com/RexChapman/status/1311413755633381381.

      Jones - I was initially okay with him, even though I believed a lot of what he was pushing was misinformation. But I think he took it too far. And he says he was wrong because he got booted from everywhere. The man is trying to revive his livelihood, so again too little, too late.

      Again like I said, protests are freedom of speech. People can call them out. And there really has been no violence against those two, unless you call yelling slogans violence.

      - Rubber Doll

      Delete
    37. Different anonymous, not Rubber Doll, just someone entertained by Julie's inability to see her own inconsistencies.

      Julie, December 12 12:52: "The "fairer society" you like rejects free speech, puts feelings over facts"

      Julie, December 12 21:33: "Ben and Jordan were routinely demonstrated against at invited talks at Universities and effectively deplatformed by violent, rowdy mobs of leftists."

      So make up your mind, Julie. Are we good with (unlimited) free speech or are we not?

      Hint: answering "yes" means that university students can demonstrate against invited talks they dislike to their hearts' content, without concern for Ben Shapiro's feelings, and universities can exercise their right to free speech by inviting -- or dis-inviting -- whomever they choose. Answering "no" makes it legitimate to worry about EVERYONE's feelings, whether that's Ben Shapiro feeling threatened by "violence" or a teenage surviver of a school shooting. On this personal slope, I personally think the latter is a more vulnerable party -- but hey, feel free to disagree; once you get into the fuzzy-feeling territory that you so firmly entered in your last paragraph, anything goes!

      P.S. UC Berkeley did host Ben Shapiro for a talk in 2017, spending $600K on security against potential protests. If that many more people want to exercise their free speech against this one person's words, perhaps we should let the free-speech free market clear. As a conservative, Julie, I really hope that you agree that this $600K was an egregious mis-spending of tax dollars.

      Delete
    38. RD - you're actually defending YouTube's censorship??? You're a lost cause. YouTube is another company enjoying section 230 protection on condition they adhere to the principals of free speech. They are clearly in violation.

      I find it incredible that you listened to Milo's story of sexual abuse and still think he needs to be deplatformed completely. How insensitive and cruel.

      And that tweet is a bunch of out of context tweets from a comedian who will not be intimidated by Antifa violence. His explicit platform is against starting violence (but not against finishing it).

      It's not free speech if you riot to prevent someone else's speech. Free speech is not shouting idiotic slogans while somebody else is speaking and an entire audience is wanting to listen. That you can't distinguish that makes you unqualified to comment. Sorry, I don't make the rules.

      Who cost Berkeley $600K? Ben or the Antifa rioters? Was Ben and the people who wished to hear him the violent ones? Think about that.

      Delete
    39. I am not defending YouTube in anyway. I am defending their right to moderate content on their platform. Just like you can do on here. It is their house, their rules. I do think content has to be moderated to an extent though, but I do agree they can be a little too restrictive. But they have to keep more than a billion people happy, which isnt easy.

      As for Milo, I searched everywhere for the Drunken Peasant podcast where he said what he said, but those videos are now behind these paywalls. But here is an excerpt from the video where he said what he said:

      "We get hung up on this child abuse stuff… This is one of the reasons why I hate the left, the one size fits all policing of culture, this arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent.

      I’m grateful for Father Michael [a Catholic priest Milo claims to have had sex with as a teenager]. I wouldn’t give nearly such good head if it wasn’t for him.

      Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody who is 13 years old and sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty, who do not have functioning sex organs yet, who have not gone through puberty.

      In the gay world, some of the most important enriching, and incredibly life-affirming, important, shaping relationships are between younger boys and older men. They can be hugely positive experiences very often for those young boys."

      When he said that, the pod cast hosts were like "Uhhhhhhh....". LOL. Milo just leveraged the right wing outrage culture to his benefit, again went too far with it. He deserved to get booted.

      About Gavin, I knew you would say it was out of context. I was going to say this before but here we go - Whatever context it is said in, it is advocating violence. The guy is a racist thug.

      It is free speech to say what you want. Including yell slogans. You dont get to define what is free speech and what isn't. There may have been some isolated incidents of rioting and violence, but in most cases people like petersen and shapiro have been protested against and yelled at. Which is entirely the right of the people.

      This is exactly why I also called out free speech absolutism before. It doesn't exist. It is always - "I should be able to say what I want and get away with it". It shows a remarkable lack of character and shows cowardice. That you want to say what you want without being held accountable for it. This is why right wingers always lose these social battles.

      Delete
    40. Wow, Julie, you are on a roll today -- maybe try rereading your past statements to avoid direct contradictions?

      Julie, December 12 at 16:18: "I don't think the government should even censor personal insults because of slippery slope."

      Julie, December 12 at 22:30: "Free speech is not shouting idiotic slogans while somebody else is speaking and an entire audience is wanting to listen."

      Another reader tried to explain to you what it means to be a free speech absolutist (and how your own statements contract your claim of being one) with much more eloquence and patience than me. He didn't seem to get across, so I'll just stick to juxtaposing your contradictory statements, to which you will then respond with more contradictory statements... and, who knows, maybe eventually one of them will be clear enough for you to see. Until then: that you can't distinguish actual free speech absolutism from selective Julie-approved free speech views makes you unqualified to have a productive conversation on free speech. :-)

      As to the $600K: let's imagine that you move to a nice little conservative town. AOC (or pick whichever leftist most annoys you) comes to give a talk that 95% of the population do not care to hear and find downright stupid or offensive, but the other 5% are excited to listen to. The 95% start shouting slogans, and your city council decides -- in an uncharacteristically big-government way, one may say -- to spend $600K of tax dollars on keeping the slogan-shouters out of the way. Would you approve? Or would you say "hey, free market, free speech; let's keep our government small and and not force unrelated individuals' money into this"?

      Delete
    41. Section 230 means they are NOT free to moderate content however they want. Or they can give up their section 230 protections and then do what they want. At any rate, platforms should voluntarily adopt free speech principles. Simple.

      You are taking Milo out of context. You do not include what he said afterwards in response to criticisms like yours. I think that makes you sort of a garbage human being.

      Gavin is a comedian, and a politically incorrect one at that. He is married to a native woman. He founded Vice. Calling him a racist is a cheap, untruthful shot. Lazy.

      So you are advocating people yelling to not allow others to speak? You have a deep, deep misunderstanding of free speech.

      I would spend whatever tax money necessary to protect free speech against the mob.

      Delete
  36. Have you watched the documentary “ Totally Under Control?”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. I'll check it out, but if I count more than 10 lies in the first 10 minutes cannot commit to the whole thing!

      Delete
    2. Stand me naked in the corner while you watch it and for every lie call me over and give me a cane stroke ? Deal?

      Delete
  37. God bless you Julie....I applaud your bravery in posting this....and I also applaud your patience in dealing with the crazies!!!!
    Love
    Kaaren

    ReplyDelete
  38. Getting bored with the crazies. Shutting down comments. See you next time!

    ReplyDelete