A Tale Of Two Governors

On the one hand, in California there's Gavin Newsom:

Office of the Governor of California

@CAgovernor

·

Oct 3

Going out to eat with members of your household this weekend? Don't forget to keep your mask on in between bites. Do your part to keep those around you healthy.

On the other hand, there's Ron DeSantis in Florida:

Florida Gov: Champions of closing schools over COVID fears are ‘Flat-Earthers of Our Day’ 

Ron DeSantis called closing schools 'one of the biggest public health mistakes in modern American history'

Having trouble figuring out which is the sane one? This video of Laura Ingraham interviewing three of the world's leading epidemiologists may help:

The video runs about 12 minutes. It seems notable to me that for all Laura's criticism of Fauci she gets absolutely no pushback from these very eminent academicians. In fact, when--around the 9:00 mark and following--Laura weighs in on the school closing madness--

Dr. Gupta, I gotta tell ya, what's happening to the kids will go down as one of the most outrageous abuses of supposed science that we've ever seen, I'd say, in the last 50 years. Children are being kept from school? With a 99.979 survival rate for anyone under the age of 19? It's insanity! 

--she gets nothing but agreement. In fact, one of the doctors goes so far as to state that Trump's personal example is exactly what we should be doing as a nation. And yet if you listen to Progs it's conservatives who are somehow "anti-science."

Science Free Perceptions

This seems to be a common problem in modern America, and the most science free of all appear to be the ones who tout science like a totem for their politics. Below is the first portion of a much longer blog. I offer this mostly for the graphs.

They Blinded Us from Science

July 28, 2020

Our Fixed Income CIO Sonal Desai unveils the first insights from the new Franklin Templeton–Gallup research project on the behavioral response to the COVID-19 pandemic and implications for the recovery: we find a gross misperception of COVID-19 risk, driven by partisanship and misinformation, and a willingness to pay a significant “safety premium” that could affect future inflation.


The first round of our Franklin Templeton–Gallup Economics of Recovery Study has already yielded three powerful and surprising insights:

1. Americans still misperceive the risks of death from COVID-19 for different age cohorts—to a shocking extent;
2. The misperception is greater for those who identify as Democrats, and for those who rely more on social media for information; partisanship and misinformation, to misquote Thomas Dolby, are blinding us from science; and
3. We find a sizable “safety premium” that could become a significant driver of inflation as the recovery gets underway.

Misperceptions of risk

Six months into this pandemic, Americans still dramatically misunderstand the risk of dying from COVID-19:

1. On average, Americans believe that people aged 55 and older account for just over half of total COVID-19 deaths; the actual figure is 92%.
2. Americans believe that people aged 44 and younger account for about 30% of total deaths; the actual figure is 2.7%.
3. Americans overestimate the risk of death from COVID-19 for people aged 24 and younger by a factor of 50; and they think the risk for people aged 65 and older is half of what it actually is (40% vs 80%).

These results are nothing short of stunning. Mortality data have shown from the very beginning that the COVID-19 virus age-discriminates, with deaths overwhelmingly concentrated in people who are older and suffer comorbidities. This is perhaps the only uncontroversial piece of evidence we have about this virus. Nearly all US fatalities have been among people older than 55; and yet a large number of Americans are still convinced that the risk to those younger than 55 is almost the same as to those who are older.

This misperception translates directly into a degree of fear for one’s health that for most people vastly exceeds the actual risk: we find that the share of people who are very worried or somewhat worried of suffering serious health consequences should they contract COVID-19 is almost identical across all age brackets between 25 and 64 years old, and it’s not far below the share for people 65 and older.

The discrepancy with the actual mortality data is staggering: for people aged 18-24, the share of those worried about serious health consequences is 400 times higher than the share of total COVID deaths; for those age 25-34 it is 90 times higher. The chart below truly is worth a thousand words:


Our question asks about fear of serious health consequences, not fear of death, but the evidence to-date indicates that the two follow a very similar age distribution; indeed the CDC has clearly stated on its website that “Among adults, the risk of severe illness from COVID-19 increases with age, with older adults at the highest risk.” Recent concerns of possible adverse long-term consequences are by necessity speculative, since we obviously do not have long-term data yet.

UPDATED: Violence, Schools, Masks: Three Losing Issues For Dems?

As we approach the post-convention campaign season, three issues are taking shape that look to me like sure losers for Dems.

First is violence. There are two aspects to the violence, but they are intertwined and are closely connected to Dem politics. The first aspect is the overtly political violence of Antifa, trashing city centers, erecting overtly Communist "autonomous zones", etc. This violence has been embraced by both local and national Dem politicians. However, Antifa's role has, thanks to the media, been eclipsed to a significant extent. The media and the Dem party no doubt thought it was a smart move to link this political violence to an more articulable cause than Antifa--BLM. This is turning out, in my view, to be not such a smart move. The reason is that Blue cities across the country are now--quite predictably--seeing an explosion of crime and looting sprees that is now being connected in the public's eyes with Dem politicians. This has been combined with an anti-police movement that has also been embraced by both local and national Dems. Expect to see Pelosi and her "Storm Trooper" comments featuring in GOP ads, along with clips of violent rioting and looting.

This issue is a complete winner for the GOP. It has the potential to also cause both revulsion among a significant portion of ordinary Dem voters as well as to attract ordinary non-voters to turn out. Those ordinary non-voters who turned out in 2016, having eluded pollsters, voted 75% for Trump. There's every reason to expect similar results this time around. Violence may also be a significant issue for a demographic that is particularly violence averse--suburban women. Playing into this is the Dem plan to export low income high rise to the suburbs--in other words, to export crime to the suburbs.

Rasmussen has done a poll on violence as an issue, and it bodes ill for Dems. All this is happening far too close to the election to be quickly forgotten. The bottom line for voters is that Trump is identified as pro law and order, while Dems are pro violence and anti police.

Aussie Rules

Couldn't happen here? We're part of the Anglosphere and are still the freest country within that sphere, but the winds of totalitarianism are blowing ever stronger throughout the sphere. Teachers unions and Blue State governors and Blue City mayors are doing what they can to bring the country to a grinding halt, pending the outcome of the November election. The extent of their efforts includes denying necessary medicine to actually affected persons.

Today Lifesite has an article on the Covid response Down Under, in Australia's most liberal state, Victoria:

COVID rules in Melbourne, Australia let police enter homes without permission, smash car windows 

'We have a curfew from 8 pm to 5 am, rigorously enforced including by the use of police helicopters and search lights. Is the virus a vampire that just comes out at night? ...This is all about inducing mass fear, and humiliating the populace by demanding external compliance.'

It's about coercion.

Are the police defying these rules? Refusing to oppress, bully, and humiliate their fellow citizens? Um, no. Apparently "fellow citizens" is not how they view the other inhabitants of the areas in which they live and work. I guess you get the government you vote for--good and hard, when it's liberals.

Check this out. The original article has a video of the Victoria police commissioner lecturing--hectoring?--the subject population that they must submit. There's also a video of police forcibly subduing a young girl for failing to wear a mask on what looks like a pretty deserted street. Note, too, that what's at issue appears from a reading of the article to be "guidelines" promulgated by "the chief health officer". In other words, the subject populace doesn't get a say in this.

One has to believe that there will be a significant backlash at the polls. One believes it will happen here, too.

Here's an excerpt:

===============

Trump Prepares For The Campaign Season

It's been announced that President Trump has added Dr. Scott Atlas to the Covid Task Force. Follow that link for Atlas' impressive credentials. These details are telling:

In health policy work at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, Atlas has been a leading researcher in health care systems. Atlas's research interests are domestic and global health care policy, particularly the role of government and the free market in pricing, quality, access, and technology innovation. He has written extensively on the evidence about single payer health care compared with the health care system of the United States, and how to reform the United States’ health care system to improve access and quality particularly for lower-income groups using a competition-based system to reduce costs, rather than an expansion of government programs. Most recently, Atlas has been a prominent voice in discussing the scientific issues and policy impacts during the COVID-19 pandemic. He has authored more than 170 policy essays.

And this:

Atlas served as a senior advisor for health care to Republican presidential campaigns in 2008, 2012, and 2016.

It looks like Trump has settled on a heavyweight in the field, and one he can trust. Above all else, perhaps, Scott Atlas is no Anthony Fauci. Trump has, I'm quite sure, known for a long time that he needs to get the Fauci-monkey off his back, free himself from Fauci's dead weight. Atlas just may be the proxy who can accomplish that for Trump going forward on the Presidential campaign trail. Read more about that here:

Major New HCQ/COVID Studies Suppressed By TDS

I'll just provide two links and some brief excerpts, while urging everyone to read the articles and share them.

Monica Showalter at AmThinker this morning does an excellent job with her Bad medicine: Fauci's HCQ Waterloo. Regarding the science angle she largely summarizes an article by Dr. Stephen Hatfill at RCP. Then she draws out the implications regarding Fauci--and Trump:

It's probably going to be hard for President Trump to find a way to fire this guy, but the picture emerging is extremely disturbing. Fauci's suppression of hydroxychloroquine studies, his odd devotion to the new and profitable drug Remsdesivir (which we have noted many NIH officials hold monetary stakes in) and Fauci's earlier papers from years back touting the importance of hydroxychloroquine on other kinds of COVID viruses paint a damning picture of what is going on, a horrible confluence of financial interests and a desire to extend the pandemic to Get Trump at a huge cost of lives. It's time to start thinking about how to get him out of there, fire him, bring in someone serious about using the widely known global knowledge about HCQ who's willing to move on it. This much incompetence is doing tremendous damage to President Trump and American people, both lives and economy. Get him out of there, he now stands exposed as a complete incompetent and has got to go. If Harry Truman could fire the vaunted Douglas MacArthur, Trump can fire Fauci, too. 

I think Trump needs to pull the plug on this guy, but also on some advisers.

The Hatfill article is a summary of major new findings re HCQ which appear to conclusively demonstrate its effectiveness in bringing the Covid pandemic under control--when used properly. Hatfill paints a disturbing picture of the United States floundering in its response while Third World "hellholes" deal with Covid and move on with far less damage. This is a huge scandal:

Brit Perspective: Excessive Fear Of Covid

Most of you will be familiar to some degree or other with Peter Hitchens. Here's a 20 minute video interview with him (video of the interviewer, audio of Hitchens). Hitchens is a pretty smart guy who's almost always worth listening to, and he is here. The basic point Hitchens and the interviewer, Mike Graham, are making is simple: Fear was warranted in March because we didn't know much; it's excessive and factually unwarranted now (with the obvious exception of readily identifiable high risk groups). The mandatory measures are over the top at this point and ultimately self defeating. However, the two also go into the economic ramifications of this as well as, to some extent, the socio-cultural ramifications and economic ramifications.

You won't come away saying, Wow, I didn't know that, but it's an informed perspective that's worthwhile. The big question is this: Whatever the origins of the virus in a Chinese lab, given that this has now become in the West a political pandemic, somebody has to benefit for this to continue. Who is it? I think we know the answer to that.

Do Yourself A Favor--Read This Covid Article

Yesterday we mentioned Dr. Harvey Risch, a very eminent professor of epidemiology at Yale, in the context of an interview with Laura Ingraham: Good Covid News Is Suppressed. Risch has been maintaining not only that the supposed "case" against HCQ is scientifically unfounded but that, in reality, is motivated by politics. HCQ is, he says, the target of a "propaganda war" that has also targeted heroic physicians who try to do their best for their patients.

Later in the day an article to the same effect by Risch appeared--in all places--at Newsweek: The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It. I'm providing some highlights, but I urge everyone to read the whole article. In addition to my excerpts, Risch also discusses other issues, including the experience of Brazil and Switzerland as well as other recent studies:

Good Covid News Is Suppressed

Right. That's not news. Still, it's worth repeating, because news suppression has become the go to Dem tactic, with the willing help of what used to be the mainstream news organizations. Now you need to comb the internet to get the real news, and you can't count on Google for help.

So, some quick hits.

There's a new study out from researchers at Oxford: Herd Immunity Threshold Against COVID-19 May Be Lower Than Believed.

According to an Oxford University study (pdf), the herd immunity threshold (HIT) may be lower than previous estimates because many people may already be innately immune to COVID-19—without ever having caught the disease. 

... 

The researchers suggest that many people may have already built up some degree of resistance to the virus from exposure to seasonal coronaviruses, such as the common cold. 

... 

“Given the mounting evidence that exposure to seasonal coronaviruses offers protection against clinical symptoms, it would be reasonable to assume that exposure to SARS-CoV-2 itself would confer a significant degree of clinical immunity,” the researchers suggest. 

“Thus, a second peak may result in far fewer deaths, particularly among those with comorbidities in the younger age classes.”

All of which also suggests that people without comorbidities that are known to increase vulnerability or who are in frail health would probably be better off dispensing with masks, in order to get the benefit of a cold.

UPDATED: The Swedish Model V. The New York Model

Here's a long interesting article, comparing the "Swedish Model" with what happened in New York--carnage among the elderly:

Why Sweden Succeeded in “Flattening the Curve” and New York Failed

The reason New York failed to "flatten the curve" and Sweden succeeded probably has little to do with lockdowns.

The author isn't naive. He understands that Sweden's record isn't great compared to the other Scandinavian countries. That's largely because the Swedes--like most others--failed to realize early on where the real danger lay: in the nursing homes. In that sense you could say that their model ended up being successful in some respects more by chance than by planning. Nevertheless, there are important lessons to be learned. Lessons that we in America seem determined to ignore.

Here's the heart of the article:

If flattening the curve was the primary goal of policymakers, Sweden was largely a success. New York, on the other hand, was not, despite widespread closures and strict enforcement of social distancing policies. 

The reason New York failed and Sweden succeeded probably has relatively little to do with the fact that bars and restaurants were open in Sweden. Or that New York’s schools were closed while Sweden’s were open. As Weiss explains, the difference probably isn’t related to lockdowns at all. It probably has much more to do with the fact that New York failed to protect the most at-risk populations: the elderly and infirm. 

“Here’s the good news: You can shut down businesses or keep them open. Close schools or stay in session. Wear masks or not,” says Weiss, a graduate of Harvard Business School. “The virus will make its way through in either case, [but] if we protect the elderly then deaths will be spared.”

UPDATE: Here's what I mean. There was really no way to know, at the time the pandemic started, that the elderly and infirm would be at grossly disproportionate risk as compared to every other demographic category. After all, for all we knew, this could have turned out to be another 1918, in which the young and healthy were the most at risk. But we did find out. The problem is, that reality was basically hidden from the public for months. Sweden adjusted, we didn't and still haven't in important respects.

Bill Barr, China, And ... Twitter

Today AG Barr gave a major speech on the threat that China poses to our constitutional order and way of life. The timing is obviously connected to President's foreign policy initiatives in the South China Sea. It may also presage a major campaign theme, given what we know of the Biden family's collusion with Red China over decades and involving vast sums of money.

You can read Barr's entire speech here. For my purposes, I'll quote a relatively short excerpt but one which emphasizes what can fairly be called the collusion of corporate America--particularly in the Tech/Media sector--with Red Chinese goals that are inimical to our constitutional order:

Two Fascinating Covid Articles Linked

Media Should Do a Mea Culpa as French Analysis Offers a Stunning Observation About Hydroxychloroquine Use

The World Health Organization suspended trials immediately after the study published in Lancet. Switzerland, which had been using the treatment, prohibited the use of the drug in COVID-19 shortly after that on May 27th. The retraction was so stealth that the ban was not lifted in Switzerland until June 11th.

This window allowed French researchers to analyze what happened in the entire population of COVID-19 patients during the ban. They used the case fatality rate (CFR) as the measure observed. The graph is stunning.

Who's Faking The Covid Case Count In Florida?

Fox 35 in Orlando took a look at the reporting of Covid cases in Florida and saw something fishy:

Countless labs have reported a 100 percent positivity rate, which means every single person tested was positive. Other labs had very high positivity rates. FOX 35 found that testing sites like Centra Care reported that 83 people were tested and all tested positive. Then, NCF Diagnostics in Alachua reported 88 percent of tests were positive.

How could that be? FOX 35 News investigated these astronomical numbers, contacting every local location mentioned in the report.

Well, I'm pretty sure the number of labs wasn't "countless"--it had to have been some finite number of labs, since Fox contacted all of them. Nevertheless ...

Numbers like that are inherently unbelievable--quite literally--since typical rates nationwide are a small fraction of that. More specifically, if the overall positive rate in Florida was running at 11%, what could possibly be up with "countless" labs running at 100% positivity?

So Fox contacted these places. Only a few got back to them--what a surprise, eh?

The report showed that Orlando Health had a 98 percent positivity rate. However, when FOX 35 News contacted the hospital, they confirmed errors in the report. Orlando Health's positivity rate is only 9.4 percent, not 98 percent as in the report. 

The report also showed that the Orlando Veteran’s Medical Center had a positivity rate of 76 percent. A spokesperson for the VA told FOX 35 News on Tuesday that this does not reflect their numbers and that the positivity rate for the center is actually 6 percent. 

FOX 35 News has yet to hear from the other labs or the Florida Department of Health to explain how the error could have been made on an official report.

Clerical errors at one or two labs I guess I can understand, but at "countless" labs? My initial suspicion would be that someone at the Florida Department of Health jiggered with the numbers. It should be possible to narrow that down.

Herd Immunity? Not So Much

I've made my share of mistakes regarding the Covid19 pandemic--being slow to realize the demographic/age profile comes to mind. OTOH, I've always been a herd immunity skeptic, for two basic reasons:

1. The 10 minute/6 feet guideline (and, yes, the distance is disputed) that was put forward very early on was, to me, a strong suggestion that this viral disease was not as readily transmitted as many feared. The fact that it still remains largely concentrated geographically to relatively congested human environments seems to me to be a confirmation of that.

2. It is well known that while antibodies to other corona viruses--such as the common cold--are readily developed by human subjects, they tend to be short lived.

Now, studies are starting to come out that are tending to confirm that SARS-Cov-2 antibodies only last for 2-3 months. Via Zerohedge:

A new study from China showed that antibodies faded quickly in both asymptomatic and symptomatic COVID-19 patients during convalescence, raising questions about whether the illness leads to any lasting immunity to the virus afterward.

The study, which focused on 37 asymptomatic and 37 symptomatic patients, showed that more than 90% of both groups showed steep declines in levels of SARS-COV-2–specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies within 2 to 3 months after onset of infection, according to a report published yesterday in Nature Medicine. Further, 40% of the asymptomatic group tested negative for IgG antibodies 8 weeks after they were released from isolation.

The Miami Herald reported on a study from Spain:

A large study from Spain showed that antibodies can disappear weeks after people have tested positive, causing some to question how possible it will be to attain herd immunity. 

A study published in medical journal Lancet showed 14% of people who tested positive for antibodies no longer had antibodies weeks later.

And there's more, here.

Who was it who thought it was a good idea to run gain-of-function research on corona viruses in a Captain Ahab like quest for a vaccine--and who, when the research was shut down in the US as too dangerous, paid to have it taken up again in China, a country with a dismal lab safety record? Yes, that was our own Anthony Fauci. Let's have some accountability, why not?

In the meantime, because accountability for malfeasance seems not to be such a thing in the US any more, perhaps we need to come to terms with this virus. The best hope seems to be that the virus may be weakening and may turn into something like the most common human corona virus, the common cold. There are medicines that hold out some promise, too, and we need to keep up that research. But vaccines? That's almost certainly a pipe dream. In the meantime, we need to find ways to live our lives while taking sensible, targeted precautions.

A COVID Cure?

What do I know? This sounds interesting, and if you search "budesonide pulmicort covid-19" you'll find lots of results. Check it out:

Ya Gotta Luv CNN

It must be a slow news day if I have to resort to shooting fish in a barrel ...

CNN Reporting (via FR):

CNN: Study finds hydroxychloroquine helped coronavirus patients survive better

CNN ^ | July 2 2020 | By Maggie Fox, Andrea Kane, and Elizabeth Cohen, CNN

(CNN) A surprising new study found that the controversial antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine helped patients better survive in the hospital.

A team at Henry Ford Health System in Southeast Michigan said Thursday its study of 2,541 hospitalized patients found that those given hydroxychloroquine were much less likely to die.

(Excerpt) Read more at amp.cnn.com ...

TDS strikes deep--and it can kill you and/or your loved ones.

1. There's NOTHING "surprising" about this study--it simply confirms what all legit studies have confirmed previously. As opposed to unscientific, rigged "studies."

2. There is NOTHING "controversial" about HCQ--it's one of the most widely used and safest drugs when properly used in human history--per Wikipedia. It's regarded by WHO as "essential." And its use as an anti-viral agent is not news:

Hydroxychloroquine was approved for medical use in the United States in 1955. It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines, the safest and most effective medicines needed in a health system. In 2017, it was the 128th most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than five million prescriptions.

There should be law suits over this travesty:

Dr. David Samadi
@drdavidsamadi 

The media’s obsession with harming the President literally resulted in thousands of unnecessary deaths. 

Not to mention state governors who banned this drug simply out of disdain for the President. 

I don’t think we have ever seen such an egregious misuse of power in our lives. 

Stacie
@bluesbuster11
Replying to
@marklevinshow 

The studies were out there for years! Dr Fauci even touted its safety and effectiveness for SARS years ago. Sue your governor if they blocked your Primary care or hospital physician from prescribing and your loved  one died!

Informed Opinion On Covid?

My wife and I were lamenting yesterday the glaring lack of transparency regarding SARS CoV-2 (i.e., Covid). I've long since come to the view that this lack of transparency on the part of most of our State and local governments and the public health authorities can only be explained by political motives. There's no health related reason why, at this point, we should not have access to the data that they have. Not to put too fine a point on it, Lib Prog fear mongering must be behind the lack of transparency. The fact of the matter is, you know and I know that--after months of the pandemic--there is no lack of relevant data out there, collected by government health officials. Yet somehow that relevant data is, for the most part, not being pushed out to the people (you and me) who need it to respond rationally. It's as if there are people or 'folks' who don't want us to know, who don't want us to be part of the decision making process.

Amid the talk of a new surge of "cases", I want to know what a "case" is, how that relates to hospitalizations and deaths, and who these people who have become "cases" actually are. More, I'd like to know how they became "cases."

Now along comes the State of Florida--and Avik Roy to explain what's going one there. Maybe this data--which unfortunately doesn't include data on contact tracing, the "how"--will suggest a rational course of action. I don't think Roy can be mistaken for a hardcore Trump apologist. This data raises serious questions about what's currently going on, both medically and politically. It's certainly a useful starting place for informed discussion:

UPDATED: It's Perfect! Fauci Adopts Egg-On-Face Look!

This morning I asked whether Trump Derangement Syndrome is a killer. This evening we have the answer: TDS is a Liberal Killer.

Tristan Justice at The Federalist picked up the story:

Lancet Formally Retracts Fake Hydroxychloroquine Study Used By Media To Attack Trump

This story is just incredible to me. The Lancet--a peer reviewed journal--apparently got reviewed by scientific peers for not subjecting a "study" on HCQ to the most minimal vetting. The verdict of the peers was extremely negative. The folks at The Lancet are now consuming a large helping of crow:

The Lancet, a peer-reviewed medical journal that published a 96,000-subject study indicting the efficacy of the politically controversial hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 has retracted its findings that the malaria medication led to an increased risk of death.

“Today, three of the authors of the paper, ‘Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis”, have retracted their study,” The Lancet said in a retraction statement Thursday. “They were unable to complete an independent audit of the data underpinning their analysis. As a result, they have concluded that they ‘can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources.”

The "study", now retracted as bullsh*t, was widely touted by experts such as Neil Cavuto in puerile attempts to discredit a guy who obviously has done his homework on the subject: President Trump. But the most delicious reminder of how unscientific not only know-nothings like Cavuto but the scientific establishment has become is this one:

"The scientific data is really quite evident now about the lack of efficacy," Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert, said of using #hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19.

But he stopped short of calling for an outright ban of the drug https://t.co/8qezrmzorn pic.twitter.com/x8URfoL2zC

— POLITICO (@politico) May 27, 2020

Imagine that--Fauci, "the nation's top infectious disease expert", stopped short of banning a drug that is used worldwide and has been approved by the FDA as safe for 60 years! Is there any nonsense that TDSers will not espouse in their insane rage against a president who has consistently done his best to further the interests of everyday Americans--in the face of a steady drumbeat of vilification?

UPDATE: When you think about it, Fauci's performance with regard to HCQ is really a firing offense. He's supposed to be offering leadership in a pandemic that has targeted the elderly in particular, but instead he has embraced a hoax narrative that is essentially a type of conspiracy theory ('Trump has a financial interest in HCQ' - the NYT). In the moral equivalent of a war--we did shut the country down, pretty much, right?--he has sabotaged our defenses. Inexcusable.

Is Trump Derangement Syndrome A Killer?

It's an interesting question, and it's posed at the end of an article at Pajamas Media today. The article,

Remember Those Studies Linking Hydroxychloroquine to Higher Mortality? They Were Based on Possibly Bogus Data

was based on an expose in The Guardian that debunks the slew of recent stories that cited "scientific" studies purporting to prove that HCQ can kill you--so, for God's sake, don't take it! Remarkably, two of the leading medical journals in the world--The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine--published articles that were co-authored by the CEO of the very dodgy sounding firm that was behind the "studies". Those journals have been compelled to issue "expressions of concern" (EOC) about what appears to be fake science appearing in their prestigious pages. Writes The Guardian:

A Guardian investigation can reveal the US-based company Surgisphere, whose handful of employees appear to include a science fiction writer and an adult-content model, has provided data for multiple studies on Covid-19 co-authored by its chief executive, but has so far failed to adequately explain its data or methodology. 

Data it claims to have legitimately obtained from more than a thousand hospitals worldwide formed the basis of scientific articles that have led to changes in Covid-19 treatment policies in Latin American countries. It was also behind a decision by the WHO and research institutes around the world to halt trials of the controversial drug hydroxychloroquine. 

Two of the world’s leading medical journals – the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine – published studies based on Surgisphere data. The studies were co-authored by the firm’s chief executive, Sapan Desai.

That's some hoax! You'd be hard pressed to make it up, but hoaxes will happen when "scientific" journals don't do the most basic fact checking. The question is, why were those basic checks not done? After all, the whole crusade against HCQ was "absurd on its face," as PJ Media points out:

A Cuban American Perspective On Lockdown Violations

I know you won't be exactly blow away by this, and may not even consider it news, but ...

Poll: Democrats Much More Likely Than Republicans to Snitch on Neighbors for 'Lockdown' Violations

Nevertheless it's worth reading, as further documentation of our ongoing Culture Wars. Sample:

“Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say they’d report neighbors for holding a social gathering in violation of coronavirus stay-at-home orders, according to a new Just the News Daily Poll with Scott Rasmussen. 

“There is a huge partisan difference,” Rasmussen said. “By a 44% to 31% margin, a plurality of Democrats would turn in their neighbors. By a 60% to 25% margin, Republicans would not." 

Any more questions about why Cuban-Americans register majority Republican, and why many of us have an instinctive—almost visceral—revulsion to many Democrat policies? 

Though not mentioned, even by the conservative media, with regard to this issue, Castroite Cuba is the historic prototype of a snitch society.

Maybe it was a coincidence that New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio—a Democrat who honeymooned in Cuba and quoted Che Guevara during his micro-campaign--seemed particularly fond of installing neighborhood snitch/rat groups in his realm.