Category: science

No it is foolish thing to have economy based on 18 to 19th century technology. We have seen in the past 120 years, massive prosperity, and better health worldwide due to fossil fuels and yet in a slightly warming planet that is greener today than decades ago.

The question is that we are feeding more people better diets and no one can dispute that. As countries liberate their economy more freedom has happen to go with prosperity. The real lie is the “capitalist reset” that will mean less growth, less prosperity, more poverty.

I am not supporting economic stupidity or questionable science. There is one solution to any future climate issues that befalls us, innovations from free minds. We are seeing energy shortage and higher energy cost that is pushing many downward due to the bad policies.

Without fossil fuels, we don’t have our quality of life we have today and we won’t have our quality of life if we eliminates fossil fuels. Personally I prefer prosperity.

Trying to compare the tobacco industry to fossil fuels is plain stupidity. Without fossil fuels we don’t our quality of life. Fossil fuels produce wealth and improve our quality of life, allowed us to feed more people better diets and more people escaping poverty.

Here is the problem with the Lockdown and economic restrictions argument. First my opponents have yet to come to grips of the damage our response to overall society.

I haven’t even touched on other impact including additional suicides, drug overdose increases, chronic diseases not being treated, delayed in screenings for cancer and other diseases. There are more than enough data to show more people have died or will PREMATURELY DIE.

One critic wants us to take New York out as outlier, now that is cherry picking. When reviewing bigger states run by GOP and Democrat governors, we found Demographics, density and age were similar. Not only that the Democratic states may have had slight advantages.

States like Illinois and Pennsylvania have similar per capita death data to similar Republican states like Florida, Georgia, Texas and Ohio. And they have higher unemployment due to their policies.

So unless you can defend the higher unemployment by Democrat states (we are talking 30% higher on the average, look at the data ) was worth the sacrifice or the delay in opening the schools, the increase suicide and drug overdoses, then you have no legitimate argument.

Lockdown and economic restrictions in the loss of freedom, loss jobs and businesses failed in stemming the virus. That is not even no longer debatable.

Had a great exchange with Jason twitter and here is the exchange.

Jason: You’re definitely in the league of cherry-picking and manipulating data to support your cognitive bias, and no I am not in that league with you…agreed. Yet, your rebuttal doesn’t actual address my point. Redirecting the argument is not a “rebuttal”. Try again

Tom: I did rebut your arguments and that others. You have failed to respond to my arguments that the cost of lockdowns have been worse that dealing with the virus. Thanks for the response and will use your shallow thinking on my timeline on the failure of your thought process.

From here the tone changes

Jason: That is a different argument, and one I actually agree with you on. My point was in your depiction of infection and death rates. You disingenuously discount the fact that comparing Dem states (that have the most densely populated cities) is a false equivalence to Rep states.

Tom: I referred to studies that dealt with density of population, noted that many GOP bigger states have density and demographics to bigger blue states. Illinois and Pennsylvania are similar to Florida and other red states in per capita death.

Jason: When you use misleading data to build toward your ultimate point, your intended argument loses it’s validity and credibility. It’s unfortunate because you make some valid points…but it seems you need to take classes in argument structure.

Tom: You have missed my entire argument namely lockdowns failed to stem the infection and had higher cost to society. That was my argument and your friends failed to see that. Since you agree with them on this We may not be far apart

Jason: I’m not sure who my friends are that you are referring to. I agree with you that draconian restrictions did more harm than good in the grand scheme of things, but I think it’s a more nuance argument than what you are presenting.

Jason: I hear you. Twitter wars are futile, but I think we all need to be careful when making “seemingly” ideologic points

Tom: I was referring to Sean and Dennis who fail to see my larger point or respond to it like you are now doing. Normally I avoid twitter wars but since you are willing to look at overall data, this was worth while exchange. But I will add there are individuals like Andy Slavett who have refuses to see the damage of the lockdown.

Tom: My data is not misleading, and my argument is sound. Trust me, I had others validate my overall data. How would you make the argument?

Jason My argument, specific to population density, is that you cannot aptly compare a city like New York or Chicago to even the largest cities in red states. And even if you could, then your data should compare those cities as opposed to the states, otherwise the data is diluted

Tom: Good point but I chose states and we compared them in different ways as to ensure the best numbers possible

Tom: I am going to apologize to you since you understood my arguments but had serious question about methodology and allowed me to flush it out. Have a good day.

Jason: I appreciate that and thank you as well.

Jason had serious question about the data and we discussed my methodology. Unfortunately, these discussion end up in name calling. Certainly when some of tweeters question your intellect, do you get into a pissing contest? Jason challenge me and decided to go for it. Interesting conversation went from insults to serious discussion on methodology. I defended my methodology and he understood what I was doing. He made reasonable recommendations but I stand by our methodology and the general point. For me, it is not about just death per capita but the overall impact of the lockdown and economic restrictions.

Received interesting comments from all sides but no one has bothered to discuss the wide difference in unemployment and ask or answer the question, was the trade off of the lockdowns and economic restrictions worth the higher unemployment?

Updated data on states: among GOP governors, the average death per capita was 184 to 180 for Democratic states. That represent 2% difference. Top 8 populous states, There is 221 deaths per 100,000 in Democratic states vs 204 in GOP states. This represent a 8% difference-GOP.S

No real statistic difference in deaths but major differences in unemployment. Proof the Lockdowns failed in saving lives but economic damage was far worse.

Democrat run states had 20 per 100,000 less death but 2300 per 100,000 more unemployed. Overall 2 per 100,000 more people died from Covid in GOP states but Democrats had 2000 per 100,000 unemployed. That is the trade off.212S

Updated data on states: among GOP governors, the average death per capita was 184 to 180 for Democratic states. That represent 2% difference. Top 8 populous states, There is 221 deaths per 100,000 in Democratic states vs 204 in GOP states. This represent a 8% difference-GOP.

Put it this way. Among 50 states, there was 1600 per 100,000 more people unemployed under Democrat governors, 2100 per 100,000 in most populous states, and among Democratic control states, 2300 per 100,000 more unemployed for an average of 2000 per 100,000 per unemployed.

In the first study, 4 per 100,000 died from Covid in GOP states but they had stronger economy with 1600 more per 100,000 employed. Among bigger states, the GOP governors have lower death and lower unemployment.

For the past two weeks, we have had special programs on Corona Virus and what we should know about the virus including all the right lesson.

1. This is a virus that the IFR is around .2 to .4 or 2 to 4 per 1000. The past decade the average flu season was 1 per 1000 with ranges from 3 per 10,000 to 1.7 per 1000 in 2018. The later is close to the IFR of Corona virus. The 1957 pandemic was at least 2 per 1000 and maybe 3 per 1000 so we have has seen flu pandemics similar to Coronavirus. We are talking a virus that ranges from 1 to 3 per 1000 more than past flu season and significantly lower than the 1918-1920 Spanish flu pandemic.
2. Corona virus has high incidence of serious illness with the elderly, those with underlying condition as well as being overweight. The flu hurts the young more.
3. The lockdown was complete failure and there should be no doubt on that. Our own data has shown that there have been no significant difference in deaths between Lockdown and non-lockdown states as well as Democrat versus Republican states but Republican states and non lockdown states have lower unemployment rates compared to lockdown and Democratic states.
4. I have been vaccinated and would recommend others to do the same but I will not force anyone to get a vaccines. Contact your doctor and decide on the risk versus benefits. One example was the drummer Peter Parada, drummer of the Offspring. In his own words, “Given my personal medical history and the side-effect profile of these jabs, my doctor has advised me not to get a shot at this time. I caught the virus over a year ago, it was mild for me – so I am confident I’d be able to handle it again, but I’m not so certain I’d survive another post-vaccination round of Guillain-Barré Syndrome, which dates back to my childhood and has evolved to be progressively worse over my lifetime. Unfortunately for me, (and my family – who is hoping to keep me around a bit longer) the risks far outweigh the benefits.” He has been kicked out of the band and he does have immunity due to having been exposed to the virus. No one should be forced to vaccinated.
5. No vaccine passports. Denying some one access to restaurants, job opportunities, and other enjoyments impacts minorities and lower class who are less likely to be vaccinated. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/08/04/dr-drew-vaccine-passports-are-modern-day-segregation/ and https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/08/04/bostons-democrat-mayor-compares-nyc-vaccine-mandate-to-slavery/ This point was made by John Phelan on our show today.
6. Delta virus according to British data is less lethal and with less hospitalization. We are talking 1/5th as lethal with 1/2 of the hospitalization. The lethal is similar to mild flu season. Hardly a threat and not enough of a threat to lockdown or mask mandates.
7. There is no real data showing mask mandates or closing schools are beneficial to stopping the spread but there is enough data to show closing schools have a negative impact on students as they fall behind. A Democrat school board who happens to be a Doctor told me he saw no reason to force mask on children but he was out voted on mask and agreed to a mask mandates because he felt it was important to open the schools five days a week. Call it a compromise but unfortunately panic has produced bad policies.
8. As one Biden advisor admitted, cloth masks are ineffective against the virus. It is nothing more than a placebo.
9. This is no longer about science but control of the population. I made this point and I will make it again. Fauci is a mediocre scientist who has done more damage to the credibility of science. And those who support masking school children and lockdowns are ignoring the science. Period.

When I think of Fauci, I think of the line in Men in Black where Zed the leader noted, to candidates rejected as MIB agents: “Gentlemen, congratulations. You’re everything we’ve come to expect from years of government training. Now please step this way, as we provide you with our final test: an eye exam…”

That is Fauci, he is everything we have come to expect from government training and work. He has been a disaster as a public health officials but it hasn’t cost him anything, certainly not his job. Among his mistakes:

1. He overestimated the IFR of the virus by a factor of 3 to 5.
2. Propose the lockdown and never backed off
3. His position on masks were confusing and often wrong .
4. He should have known that the Chinese lab was the origin of the virus or he did but did nothing.
5. He admitted to lying on occasion since we couldn’t have handle the truth.

He has been a disaster. Period.