global health policy in 2020 has centered around NPI's (non-pharmaceutical interventions) like distancing, masks, school closures

these have been sold as a way to stop infection as though this were science.

this was never true and that fact was known and knowable.

let's look.

above is the plot of social restriction and NPI vs total death per million. there is 0 R2. this means that the variables play no role in explaining one another.

we can see this same relationship between NPI and all cause deaths.

this is devastating to the case for NPI.
clearly, correlation is not proof of causality, but a total lack of correlation IS proof that there was no material causality.

barring massive and implausible coincidence, it's essentially impossible to cause something and not correlate to it, especially 51 times.
this would seem to pose some very serious questions for those claiming that lockdowns work, those basing policy upon them, and those claiming this is the side of science.

there is no science here nor any data. this is the febrile imaginings of discredited modelers.
this has been clear and obvious from all over the world since the beginning and had been proven so clearly by may that it's hard to imagine anyone who is actually conversant with the data still believing in these responses.

everyone got the same R curve

https://t.co/5iPbLaBGZd
lockdowns were a panic response.

they came LONG after disease growth curves had rolled over and had no effect overall.

it's clear when you plot google mobility data vs disease curves.

(this is from may)
r2 was ~0. this was all proven by may and strongly argued by april.

this data is literally overwhelming. there is just no evidence that lockdowns work.
spain and netherlands had radically different responses

https://t.co/drxx2RqJtA
but got R curves that were all but indistinguishable.

this issue crops up everywhere.

mitigation has zero effect.
similarly, there is no evidence that opening again had any effect either.
and this was all known. every set of longstanding pandemic guidelines contra-indicated lockdowns.

https://t.co/sFdUYqPoZy
it's 50 year old pseudoscience and the clarity with which NPI was dismissed by everyone until this year when we suddenly abandoned 100 years of science and started making stuff up and moralizing about it as though it were canon is stunning.
the same is true of masks.

just last year the WHO surveyed this and found that community masking does not work.

nothing has changed.

https://t.co/viMzUEfWTH
the "studies" trotted out this year are so awful as to beggar belief. they are either nonsensical lab bench presumption devoid of clinical or social outcome, or they are contrived cherry picks lacking controls.

the CDC used this one. it's risible.

https://t.co/IBVypITIr8
CDC and gottlieb later pushed this study which is outright fraud.

https://t.co/qY66ZavM3N
and you can see piles of data from the swiss policy research institute here:

https://t.co/Vyqmmo0wIx
there is no sound evidence that community masking has any effect. the evidence they work as "source control" is entirely speculative and made up.

the fact that they increase, not decrease post op infection in surgical theaters is pretty damning.

https://t.co/Ivb7FxPtYj
and now that it's becoming clear that asymptotic spread is vanishingly rare, we can really put the final nail in the NPI coffin.

this is the vector these interventions mean to head off.

but it was never a serious source of infection.

https://t.co/aMRCAF7g9E
the simple fact is this: nothing we have done has made any meaningful difference

covid is seasonal and regional. when your season comes, it comes

NPI is not why california and peru and eastern europe did not get hit in the spring

it was just regional

https://t.co/NZYN1v9vsa
then your season comes and everyone moves together.

we've been mistaking baby oil for suncreeen in places where it was still night time.

then, noon came and it was revealed for what it really was.

https://t.co/Aq5WEWzR5L
this means that all this moralizing about "you just want grandma to die" and the censorship of evidence counter to this "big lie" that lockdowns work has been at best a disastrous mistake and at worst, a cynical ploy to wreak havoc and cover past errors.
politicians are now doubling and trebling down on lockdowns and masks because to do otherwise is to admit that they bought us $10 trillion of sugar water as medicine and wrecked our lives and livelihoods for no sound reason.

they will never do that.
this is why they have shifted the debate to morality and censorship: to mask the fact that the science and the data calls them liars.

repeat "i'm on the side of science" enough and scare people endlessly and you can generate social belief.

but it's pure propaganda.
these mitigations do not work to stop covid or to reduce overall deaths.

this is the most expensive peace time policy debacle in human history and they all want to do it again.

say no. stand up.

this is not medicine, it's poison.

this does not save lives, it wrecks them.
it's easy to sell false hope to scared people. there are whole industries that prey on the desperation of parents with sick kids.

but sometimes, there is just not much you can do however much you want control and want to "do something".

this is one of those times.
and we need to accept that.

many times, the best way to "do something" is to do nothing.

"something" in this case has been a absolute disaster.

we panicked into unprecedented global self-harm.

it's time to stop. this is just making it worse

stay brave. stay free. stay safe.
apparently, the link i used for the asymptomatic spread study is down (crashed from so much traffic).

this is the article it cites.

https://t.co/dfPSqmTr20
also:

this is the methodology for policy stringency.

we can obviously debate weighting and values, but i checked it against the google mobility data i have used and it lined up quite well. the output looks reasonable to me.

https://t.co/OnAwKjhBVU

More from el gato malo

google censorship of great barrington declaration: update.

this morning, there was no link to it in a direct google search.

now, there is.

could this be because certain internet felines noticed this and @chiproytx and @tedcruz helped call them out on this?

we may never know.


but i'd like to think so.

the google page is still a mess. it's still mostly fringe publication hit pieces and conspiracy theories.

when "mother jones" is your top media result for a science search, well, that says it all, doesn't it?

yikes.

i mean, why would we trust THESE people instead of a reporter at one of the most partisan rags on earth? oh, wait..

they are not being censored for being wrong. they're being censored for being right and being credible

they're censored because the other side cannot rebut them


and that is simply not a thing we can or should tolerate, especially not in a search engine.

so remember this. look for it in the future. demand primary sources.

use other search engines.

bing seems to be seeking to inform, not to inflame and mislead.


if you missed it, the original thread was here:

(and yes, lots of people duplicated my finding this morning)

i'd be curious to see what they are all seeing
did you consider checking the facts before buying into such hysterical claims?

this is LA department of health services hospital census. it's essentially identical to the levels from last year.

the media have had a severe tendency to overstate these issues. https://t.co/ktTPIbKcdQ


as you can see, visits to emergency departments have been quite stable for 4 months.


and ICU bed availability has been flat for the whole month of december.

keep in mind that 90-100% ICU capacity is normal this time of year and that all ICU's must be able to flex to 120% (by federal law) and most can hit 150%.


and if you will not take my word for it, just ask the CEO's of the hospitals in texas everyone was so breathless about this summer.

they were not worried. and they were


hospital census in LA seems to be about 3000 patients below where it was in july.

this seems to imply a drop in staffed beds which, contrary to the narrative is not from "exhaustion" but rather from people being laid off or staying home because kids are not in school.
for those looking for a compendium of mask studies this set from swiss policy research looks useful and has some good links and discussion.

also attaching 2 past debunkings of widely disseminated US studies that health officials have attempted to

first, the kansas study spread by CDC and so many "twitterdocs" and politicians.

it's a master class in cherry picking and misusing data through truncation.

the data proving it was false was widely available at the time it was


also the mass general study, a classic of the "sun-dance" variant: use no control group and then presume that any action undertaken was the result of some thing you did.

ignore the fact that the whole rest of (unmasked) massachusetts got the same


the fact that CDC has been spreading studies like these and using them alongside flimsy lab bench experiments with no clinical outcomes or even real world measurement speaks poorly of both CDC & the evidence for masks

the good studies do not support use



and lab bench droplet projection studies are meaningless.

it's one tiny aspect of a large system and may actually be counterproductive if masks are nebulizing droplets and making virus more aerosol in spread and more deeply

More from Society

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x