Thursday, May 7, 2020

What We Know

·         We know that the original model from Neil Ferguson of Imperial College was wildly wrong.
·         We know that the number of deaths in Sweden were an infinitesimal fraction of what the model would have predicted given Sweden’s relative do-nothing policy
·         We know that models from Neil Ferguson in the past were also always wildly wrong.
·         We know that massive funding from the Gates Foundation goes to Imperial College.
·         We know that original estimates of the number of deaths that would be attributable to the corona were greatly overstated.
·         We know that even the reported number of deaths (the numerator) attributed to the corona are overstated – my guess from what I have read, by a factor of two or three.  This is because people who die with the corona (and even for this, they can’t or don’t really test) is not the same thing as people who die due to the corona.  Yet all are counted as victims of the corona.
·         We know that the number infected (the denominator) is wildly understated – some estimates, by as much as 50 to 80 times, maybe more.
·         We therefore know that much more of the population has already been exposed, with no meaningful or debilitating symptoms.
·         We know that there were many in the medical community that were making such points as the above before all of the hysteria.  This isn’t a matter of 20/20 hindsight.
·         We know that a large portion of global medical funding comes from the Gates Foundation, which stands to profit substantially from disease-induced panic.

·         We also know that the initial reaction of many medical experts was that this corona would present something a little more or a little less than another cold and flu season.
·         We know that something caused them to change their minds.
·         We know that the “reaction” to this corona has offered a pretext to bail out the financial system – with efforts that dwarf what was done in 2008.
·         We know that now that these floodgates have been opened, only collapse will bring the current system to its just end.
·         We know this will harm the innocent, not the guilty.

·         We know that there is some meaningful portion of the population that isn’t buying any of this: witness the beaches and other public spaces being occupied for leisure.
·         We don’t know how large or small this portion is.


None really.  Maybe show your disdain in any way that works for you. 

Maybe, come November, assuming that there is an election, vote for any candidate from any party other than the republicans or democrats.  I mean any party.  And don’t vote for any republican or democrat.  None.

It won’t really matter, but it might be fun.


  1. It won't matter, really? I think if Rothbard were alive he would urge a strong though critical support of Trump. Sure there are a thousand things which Trump has done which go against the purist libertarian grain. In terms of real time politics he would fight tooth and nail to preserve/expand every inch of freedom. What is bad about Trump is that he hasn't been able to exert control of the Executive Branch of government. Is this his fault? Perhaps. And perhaps he has been insidiously gaslighted into actually giving assent to some of the ideology of the political class, to the extent that he has become a different man from the populist Trump of 2016. Who knows? All I know is that it would be far worse if an actual member of the poltical class were sitting in the Oval Office once again. OK, I'm not a "purist" libertarian ideologue, but Walter Block hunch is that WB will vote for Trump this November, and that is about as close to Rothbard incarnate as you are likely to get.

    1. Pico, my comment has nothing to do with "purist libertarian." You have given the reason behind my comment yourself:

      "What is bad about Trump is that he hasn't been able to exert control of the Executive Branch of government. Is this his fault? Perhaps."

      Whoever or whatever is at fault, there could not have been a better-designed candidate than Trump to "exert control," one who also would have had his supporters solidly behind any exerting that he wished to do.

      The guy built towers in New York City. He understands muscle and leverage. He flamed out even before he took office, by firing Flynn - who, at least, was a mild warmonger. About 75 days into office, he parroted the line of Assad gassing his own people.

      Like I said, it won't really matter. Not in any meaningful way. If those who Trump cannot exert control over can panic the country into 40 million unemployed and no church on Easter, then who, or what, will it take to "exert control"?

    2. Pico,

      To be sure, Rothbard would have rejoiced at Trump beating Hillary Clinton in the last election, since he hated the Clintons with a fiery passion. But I don't think there is a very solid reason to believe he'd be a Trump supporter this time around, his defense of demagogues and populists not withstanding.

      Trump has proven himself to be a Reagan like Republican, in that he co-opted a rising libertarian movement and re-directed it away from liberty and towards a rightist form of statism. Rothbard disliked Reagan for taking all the fire out of the growing libertarian movement of the 70s. He also wrote several articles destroying the notion that Reagan was a conservative President.

      If you read some of Rothbard's historical work concerning the 1800s American political scene, you'll see that he admired when party adherents would sit out elections when their representatives failed to abide party principles and he lamented that we've lost that attitude now.

      This is really the only way to effect change in your party. I for one am tired of voting for the least bad option (Republicans) and watching things continually get worse. I'll probably vote for Hornberger or just sit out the election.

      On the culture war front, Rothbard would no doubt find some sympathy for Trump, but on Rothbard's most important issue, war, Trump has not lived up to all his campaign bluster. And it's Trump's own damn fault for appointing so many obvious Neocons.

  2. I'm going to leave 2 links. I'm going to trust that readers are capable of understanding that something is killing many thousands of people, that deaths are far above normal:

    2018 was a really bad year for the flu in the US, the worst in many decades:

    See the 2018 spike? HUGE.

    Know what's twice as big as huge? The 2020 spike:

    Those figures have nothing to do with tests or political spin or certificates, just counting the dead bodies and comparing them to the dead bodies we normally expect in those countries.

    Look at those graphs. Anyone seeing those and still claiming this is some overblown hoax is either lying or incredibly stupid.

    Or just scared of the reality?

    1. I looked at your first graph. Do you know how to read graphs? Do you see where the Y-axis begins? it begins at 40,000. So what you call "far above normal" are optical-illusions creations. In 2017, the number peaked at 71,000; in 2020, it peaked at 87,000. There is nothing "Huge" about this.

      I looked at the US graph as well. Same problem: 11% in 2017, 15% in 2020.

      I never said it was a hoax. The disease is real. The reactions, given the fakery of the projections and the actual deaths is overwhelmingly overblown.

      But you need to learn how to read graphs.

    2. BigSofty

      The Euromomo site has zero information on the sources of the data they used to compile these graphs. Not that having the sources would convince me of the necessity of destroying the economy and our freedom to contain the virus, but this very basic level of accountability and professionalism has been omitted from the study.

    3. We also know that the CDC has two totally different numbers on the website in regards to total deaths supposedly from the COVID bug. One says 78,771, and the other says 47,128. So which is correct? Why publish two numbers on the site? Why are all the news agencies running the higher number and failing to mention the lower one? (rhetorical questions)

      I would say the second number is more "accurate" since it requires actual death certificates and it differentiates between COVID deaths, pneumonia deaths, flu deaths, and combinations therein. But bear in mind that to have COVID-19 on the death certificate doesn't even require a lab confirmation of the disease, just a doctor's medical opinion (#believealldoctors).

      The need for a death certificate in the latter number purportedly also accounts for the discrepancy because of the lag (of a week or so) in death certificate filing. But the biggest weekly reporting of deaths happened multiple weeks ago (week of 4/4 thru week of 4/25), which should negate the possibility of the death certificate lag (of around a week) changing the data significantly at this point. And data from this period, which should be finalized, already shows a normal distribution curve up and down that lines up with the most recent minuscule data, which may have some death certificate lag issues.