Category Archives: Healthcare

COVID-19: A Homogeneous Nation Like Japan Might Fare Better

America, Asia, Culture, Healthcare, IMMIGRATION, Multiculturalism, Nationalism

Thirteen minutes and 35 seconds into this interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci, Martha MacCallum asks about Japan.

The country, 127 million strong, has had only 771 deaths, and has, according to Ms. MacCallum, not implemented the social mitigation strategies seen in the US and Europe.

You and I know what’s afoot in Japan, other than that its people sport a culture of cleanliness, and have been adopting masking habits for quite some time. (More here and here about Japanese culture and etiquette.)

More crucially, Japan is an almost completely homogeneous nation, with little immigration, and hence a strong, common sense of purpose and shared fellow feeling. Citizens are more inclined to pull together in common purpose when there is a fellow feeling that binds them.

Dr. Fauci hinted at it. Counties have “different sizes and different borders, and different infusions from outside,” concedes the good doctor.

*Japanese have long since worn masks. ©paylessimages/123RF.COM

 

NEW COLUMN: Kung Flu Is A Killer, All Right, But So Are The Bureaucrats

Argument, Criminal Injustice, Critique, Government, Healthcare, Political Correctness, The State

NEW COLUMN is “Kung Flu Is A Killer, All Right, But So Are The Bureaucrats.” It is currently on WND.COM and the Unz Review.

Excerpt:

“When, Mr. President, will you deliver instant, standardized, country-wide testing to all the American people,” comes the daily, petulant demand from the malfunctioning media, reiterated by the expert class and an intelligentsia that is not always very intelligent.

The hype over testing will be the next contagion of illogic on matters related to coronavirus.

The testy twits are treating COVID testing as though it were an amulet against the dreaded disease. It isn’t. All testing does is give an individual a snapshot in time of his COVID status. As soon as he drives out of the testing facility, a COVID-free person could become infected.

Unless they engage in prevention, a single testing in time doesn’t in any way give individuals a clean bill of health.

Prevention protects people.

Testing is, however—at this stage of spread—helpful in giving medical researchers a grip on the symptomless-sick phenomenon, as well as an idea of how the disease is disseminated and distributed in the population.

Test and keep testing large enough representative samples, and you’ll get good prevalence data. You’ll probably discover statistically significant differences in COVID infection rates along the rural/metropolitan axis, and the Chinese/no-Chinese axis.

In fact, high-tech meccas are likely a good proxy for the correlation between COVID and the Chinese population. Hubs of high-tech like my state of Washington—the King and Snohomish counties, in particular—have high coronavirus infection rates.

Antibody status is another essential parameter obtained from testing. In addition to identifying the prevalence of disease in the population, a COVID serology assay will divulge who has developed antibodies to the virus, is now immune to it, and can get on with it.

But unless you vigorously protect your health status with barriers to SARS-CoV-2, testing is but a snapshot in time of your disease status.

In the fullness of time, mainstream will arrive at these simple deductions.

Before the testing fetish came the face-mask mythology. Face masks were the first contagion of illogic sprung on a gullible public.

Most “covidiots” insisted that, because the “experts” had said so, donning face masks during an epidemic to reduce droplet transmission was futile. Proven. Q.E.D. Nothing more to show.

But, as far back as March 5, in “Unmasking Statist, Socialist Propaganda About ‘Face Masks,’” this column unpacked the lies and illogic underlying the contention that masks (surgical and N95) were worthless to the public. As follows:

“While the coronavirus is indeed minuscule, smaller than 0.3 microns (likely between 0.1 and 0.2 microns), COVID-19 is delivered in a larger medium of bodily fluids or spray. Certainly, some barrier to the spittle in which the coronavirus is dispersed is better than none.”

“No surprise then, that world health authorities can’t seem to get their story straight on masks. At times, they concede ‘that N-95 face masks are protective.’ More frequently, they scratch the proverbial proboscis (ostensibly a sign of lying) and say ‘No, of course, they’re ineffective.’ In other words, ‘they work for me, the healthcare worker, but not for thee.’”

“For honesty’s sake,” I had exhorted, “the country’s health-care functionaries might appeal to consumers on the ground of dire shortages. But on the basis that no protection is better than some protection? Please! …”

On March 30, our great Tucker Carlson seconded my mask message of March 5, emphasizing the arguments above. Two days prior to Tucker, 23 days after Mercer—a lifetime in a pandemic—mainstream caught up. Wrote the New York Post: “Experts say face masks can help slow COVID-19, despite previous claims.”

A full month after this column’s advice to ignore government enjoinders against face masks and respirators, the government has reversed its position.

On April 3, government grandees finally instructed Americans to cover their faces with anything but surgical and N95 masks. In so doing, the government had stopped flouting logic and had come clean about why it had endangered American lives.

As pinpointed in my unmasking of March 5, the depraved calculus that went into advising Americans initially, and unintuitively, not to shield viral entry points—mouth, eyes and nose—was purely utilitarian. It stemmed from a fear that, by protecting their health, citizens would contribute to scarcity and undermine the health of healthcare workers.

Sold to the public as settled science, the initial mask fallacy-disguised-as-policy was social engineering for the sake of resource conservation. …

…  READ THE REST. NEW COLUMN is “Kung Flu Is A Killer, All Right, But So Are The Bureaucrats.” It is currently on WND.COM and the Unz Review.

* Image is of Hydroxychloroquine Via AP

 

Travel Ban: The One Thing Trump Could Have Done To Perfection, BUT Didn’t

China, Donald Trump, Globalism, Healthcare, IMMIGRATION

In “The Open-Border Fetish Is Turning Into A Symbol Of Death,” a March 14 COVID column, published first by American Greatness, I had already preempted Axios in assembling the sources that allowed me to deduce that the Trump travel ban was well, quite pitiful.

The first U.S. “Proclamation on Suspension of Entry, as Immigrants and Nonimmigrants, of Persons who Pose a Risk of Transmitting 2019 Novel Coronavirus” was signed into law on Jan. 30. It went into effect only on February 2.

Reports from our nation’s airports, however, told of chaotic attempts to reroute passengers to 11 designated U.S. airports, for the purpose of screening that was as “enhanced” as temperature checks and a reliance on the “honest” say-so of the arrivals.

At the time, no restrictions had been placed by the United States on arrivals from other COVID-19 hot zones. Passenger screening from source countries like Italy was slack, to put it mildly.

The government’s latest travel ban on Europe is welcome. Via the National Pulse:

“[S]ubject to conditions on the ground … travel from Europe to the United States will be suspended for 30 days. These restrictions will not apply to the United Kingdom.”

Alas, while it is true that the UK “is not part of the EU’s open-borders zone,” it has however—and as reports on terra firma suggest—been allowing any and all to enter from Europe practically unchecked.

Put it this way: An officer “briefly pointing a thermometer gun at your forehead or watching as you go by for signs of a cough or difficulty breathing” does little to stop the virus from spreading. In fact, as a correspondent for Science magazine avers, “It’s exceedingly rare for screeners to detect infected passengers.”

Belatedly, the United Kingdom was added to America’s iffy travel ban, but the meaningless screening protocol was the same.

From the fact that the Democrats would have done nothing to stop the flood of visitors carrying WuFlu from China—it doesn’t follow that the Trump administration did a good job. It didn’t. Better than nothing is not something the American people should be thankful for.

As to the numbers that flooded in under the much-hyped travel ban on China:  “There were 1,300 direct flights to 17 cities before President Trump’s travel restrictions. Since then, nearly 40,000 Americans and other ‘authorized’ travelers have made the trip, some this past week [April 4] and many with spotty screening.”

Confirmation (and better article accessibility) came, April 5, 2020, from Reuters   (although, minus the astounding numbers, I had reported this on March 14, well before the malfunctioning media, after following the facts back then):

… the administration took a month from the time it learned of the outbreak in late December to impose the initial travel restrictions amid furious infighting.

During that time, the National Security Council staff, the state department and other federal agencies argued about everything from how best to screen for sick travelers to the economic impact of any restrictions, according to two government officials familiar with the deliberations.

The NSC staff ultimately proposed aggressive travel restrictions to high-level administration officials – but it took at least a week more for the president to adopt them, one of the government officials said.

In meetings, Matthew Pottinger, deputy national security adviser and a China expert, met opposition from Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and National Economic Council director Larry Kudlow, said two former NSC officials and one of the government officials involved in the deliberations. The two top aides were concerned about economic fallout from barring travelers from China, the sources said.

Each day that the administration debated the travel measures, roughly 14,000 travelers arrived in the United States from China, according to figures cited by the Trump administration. Among them was a traveler who came from Wuhan to Seattle in mid-January, who turned out to be the first confirmed case in the United States.

Early, too, was I to expose, on March 13, the tragedy of the Index Patient. “From Wuhan to Washington State With ‘Love’” followed the nerdy writings of the RNA sequencers. RNA doesn’t lie:

Writes Trevor Bedford, a sequencing scientist at the Fred Hutch Research Center: “The first case in the USA was … from a traveler directly returning from Wuhan to Snohomish County on Jan. 15.” But there was another traveler whose virus was related to that of Patient Zero, and who had,

“exposed someone else to the virus in the period between Jan. 15 and Jan. 19, before they were isolated. If this second case was mild or asymptomatic, contact tracing efforts by public health would have had difficulty detecting it. After this point, community spread occurred and was undetected due to the CDC’s narrow case definition that required direct travel to China or direct contact with a known case to even be considered for testing. This lack of testing was a critical error and allowed an outbreak in Snohomish County and the surroundings to grow to a sizable problem before it was even detected.” [Emphasis added.]

Colleagues confirm that the “genetic diversity of the Washington State outbreak … suggests a scenario in which an individual infected [from] Washington State travelled to California, and, in particular, to the Grand Princess cruiser, instigating a chain of transmission there. The viral strain from a patient infected on the cruise ship off the coast of California is similar to the cluster circulating in Washington state.”

If only travel from China had been stopped earlier, the poor old people from the Life Care home might be alive, and the coronavirus would not be multiplying exponentially among us.

The New England Journal of Medicine had written extensively about the Index Patient here:

First Case of 2019 Novel Coronavirus in the United States.”

Mainstream Is Catching Up With Mercer On Masks, N95 & Surgical

Argument, Healthcare, Intelligence, Journalism, Media, Pseudoscience

I try to tell people This Column is always ahead of the curve, in war and peace, and that, sometimes, they ignore the analysis offered here at their peril. Alas, most covidiots I know insisted on relying on their “smarts,” refusing to delegate their thinking.

The covidiots insisted that, because the “experts” had said so, masks were futile. But on March 5, this column unpacked the lies and illogic underlying the contention that masks (surgical & N95) were worthless:

While the coronavirus is indeed minuscule, smaller than 0.3 microns (likely between 0.1 and 0.2 microns), COVID-19 is delivered in a larger medium of bodily fluids or spray. Certainly, some barrier to the spittle in which the coronavirus is dispersed is better than none.

No surprise then, that world health authorities can’t seem to get their story straight on masks. At times, they concede “that N-95 face masks are protective.” More frequently, they scratch the proverbial proboscis (ostensibly a sign of lying) and say “No, of course, they’re ineffective.” In other words, “they work for me, the healthcare worker, but not for thee.”

For honesty’s sake, the country’s health-care functionaries might appeal to consumers on the ground of dire shortages. But on the basis that no protection is better than some protection? Please! …

THERE’S MORE. READ on:  “Unmasking Statist, Socialist Propaganda About ‘Face Masks,’” March 5.

What do you know? Mainstream is, 23 days later, catching up. Writes the New York Post: “Experts say face masks can help slow COVID-19, despite previous claims.

As my mom likes to say, “Good morning, Elijah.”

The expert always knew this to be true, they just misled the Covidiots, who willingly partook in the charade. (Who will hold the liars accountable?)