No big surprise here, we thought. What we did find surprising lay in the final paragraphs of the article, the first sentence of which we had to reread to grasp its true meaning:
“…This does not mean that measures to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 are ineffective, just that more restrictive nonpharmaceutical interventions may not provide more benefits than less restrictive voluntary measures, according to these researchers.“While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive [nonpharmaceutical interventions],” the study concluded. “Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less restrictive interventions.”“
Note that first sentence is not in quotes, thus constituting an opinion masquerading as fact offered by a mere reporter regarding the conclusions of the researchers, who at no time even vaguely suggested measures to mitigate the spread of the Wuhan virus were ineffective.
The reporter then doubles down by noting…
“Other studies have found that lockdowns dowork.” [emphasis ours]
Sorry, but this statement erroneously infers the Stanford researchers concluded lockdowns don’t work. That’s not what they concluded. They simply found strong indications the same effect could have been achieved through less stringent measures.
“For instance, researchers from Rice University found in a study last month that “states that are more open are susceptible to higher COVID-19 death rates.”“The increasingly strong relationship between high levels of openness and high [daily deaths per million] suggests that lockdowns have been effective in both reducing [daily deaths per million] in highly infected states and in preventing new spikes in deaths.”“
So what the “other” study from Rice tells us is, in “highly infected states“, lockdowns were effective, though we’re relatively certain the thousands of elderly killed by Sonny Cuomo might beg to differ. Moreover, the results of the Rice study beg the question why states like Florida and Texas which didn’t initiate Cuomo-like lockdowns didn’t experience higher infection and death rates than their blue counterparts? After all, both have large populations and dense urban centers, though certainly none as dense as New York City. Then there’s South Dakota, which imposed almost no restrictions on its citizens yet suffered little if any ill effects.
The article ends with this:
“Another study by researchers at Columbia University found that “school closures and voluntary or mandated stay-at-home measures” reduced the spread of COVID-19 in New York City last spring by 70%.“
Then again, if we completely shut down the country and everyone just hunkered down in their homes until the cows came home and pigs took wing, the spread of the Wuhan virus might have been reduced by 99%…though both the homicide and suicide rates might have ticked up a titch.
Here’s the juice: The issue isn’t, and never has been, whether draconian government-mandated lockdowns, measures which were never necessary in any prior pandemic, reduced the spread; it’s whether the resulting reduction justified the massive economic impact and human cost.
Which means one of three things is true: in America, the majority of whose population has been stuck at home for the better part of a year with little else to do but eat and watch television, either (A) deaths from heart disease, the perennial number one killer in the country, decreased for the first time since the figures have been recorded; (B) we’ve experienced a statistical anomaly…or, to be more accurate, next-to-impossible improbability…akin to that presented by Biden winning the presidency; or, (C) the figures have been, and are being, fudged. They say when in doubt, choose (C), though in this case, we’ve no doubt whatsoever!
This is not to say people aren’t dying of the effects of the Wuhan virus; rather we maintain the actual impact of COVID-19 has been dramatically overstated so as to justify the gross usurpations of power we’ve witnessed in the past year.
Azar’s resignation is effective Wednesday…January 20th…the same day Biden, assuming he hasn’t drank any coffee brewed by Kamalaa, will be sworn in as President. Talk about a man with the courage of his convictions!
“…Prosecuting rioters is hard by nature, since the chaos mobs unleash makes it difficult to establish facts and assign blame. Many wrongdoers will ultimately escape criminal charges: Washington, D.C., prosecutors have brought fewer than 300 criminal cases related to unrest in the capital over the summer. The scale of the evidence from the Capitol riot and the mammoth federal investigatory effort underline those challenges and the unique threat riots pose for the rule of law…”
“The Constitution says “[w]hen the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside” — but Trump will not be “the President” during the upcoming trial. If Roberts refuses to preside at upcoming Senate trial as beyond his constitutional authority — as he should — that will render the “impeachment” trial not an “impeachment” trial at all.
Donald Trump no longer will be president as of noon on January 20, 2021, when Joe Biden is sworn in. At some point after that, possibly just hours, the Senate under control of Democrats will initiate an impeachment trial of the then-former president.
But there is one question about a trial I had not thought about, and wasraised in a columnby Prof. Jonathan Turley.
First, Turley starts by pointing to the weakness of the case against Trump, then goes on to reject the notion that a former president can be tried by the Senate:
Article I, Section 4, of the Constitution states that the sole purpose of an impeachment trial is whether “the president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office.” While the Senate can later add a disqualification from holding federal office again, that is only after removal is decided — because it is a question of the penalty, not the purpose of the proceeding.
The Constitution refers to a present-tense status of “the president.” That status is key to other provisions bestowing official powers and privileges, which do not linger after leaving office. No one would argue that Trump could continue to exercise those powers once President-elect Biden is sworn in. Yet a Senate trial would insist that, while Trump has no continuing powers, he remains subject to continued penalties tied to the office. Moreover, the stated purpose of the impeachment trial is whether a president “shall be removed.” Thus, the only person constitutionally subject to an impeachment trial would be the sitting president, Joe Biden…”
Those interested in more of Jonathan Turley’s thoughts on the latest anti-Donald vendetta can access his latest commentary here.
Mr. Waller’s biography at The Federalist states he’s a senior analyst for strategy at the Center for Security Policy, a former professor and instructor at the Institute of World Politics (a graduate school in Washington, D.C.) and the Naval Postgraduate School respectively, a current instructor/lecturer at the John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School at Fort Bragg and his areas of of concentration are propaganda, political warfare, psychological warfare, and subversion.
Still, though Mr. Waller obviously knows of what he speaks, and certainly wouldn’t seem prone to exaggeration, having hard, photographic evidence of some sort…
…would certainly help.
Since we’re on the subject of Progressive plots to subvert the Constitution, courtesy of The Washington Free Beacon via White House Dossier, we learn a…
Yeah,…’cuz that way only the police will have bullet proof vests.
But wait,…aren’t the police the bad guys? Here’s a thought: In furtherance of Progressives’ policy of forcing those who never owned slaves to provide reparations to them that never were, only WHITE New Yorkers should be forced to surrender their bullet proof vests. Better yet, instead of relinquishing them to the government, they should be compelled to give them to Blacks so as afford New Yorkers of Color more protection against racist cops…who in New York are the only ones with guns.
Moving on, The Washington Free Beacon offers this…
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.