ZdoggMD gives an accurate, reasonable and rational explanation of the “6% COVID19 death rate” controversy.
Please, we can debate the efficacy and/or negative consequences of lock-downs and without resorting to misinterpretation of this data. Think through what the data means, and what it DOES NOT mean.
Think about comorbidities as you would survivors on the ocean floating in multiple life rafts.
The young & healthy are in the new life rafts made from the strongest puncture-resistent material and balanced to minimize the impacts waves. Those with serious comorbidities are in the oldest life rafts. The material is worn from years in the sun. The air valves tend to leak under pressure. The rubber has been patched multiple times and those patches are susceptible to erosion from water and sun. And the older rafts are flimsy & unbalanced which promotes taking on water more easily.
Think of COVID19 as high waves that splash into the rafts. The new rafts drain the water automatically and any excess is quickly bailed out by the healthy people in the raft. The older rafts take on water from waves more easily. This makes them more susceptible to tipping or sinking. And those inside the older rafts stay cold & wet, further weakening their ability to fight against the elements.
So those in the older life rafts might float & survive in a calm sea until rescued, but rain & wind would sink them much quicker than those in the newer rafts.
J.P. says, nothing to see here. Go back to sleep. We’ll let you know when your rights are reinstated.
Lockdowns come with a host of adverse unintended consequences, and some of them are deadly.
When policymakers across the country decided to “lock down” in response to the March outbreak of the novel coronavirus, they took a leap into the unknown. Not only did we know little about COVID-19 itself at that time, but we knew almost nothing about how shutting down nearly all of society would affect people.
Policymakers focused on their models predicting how lockdowns could help limit the spread of COVID-19; an important factor, to be sure. So, too, many acknowledged the negative economic ramifications of lockdowns. But in the months since, we’ve seen many other dire consequences stem from the unprecedented shutdown of society.
Future public health policy should take these four life-threatening unintended consequences of COVID-19 lockdowns into account.
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim, speaks to Candace Owens about the dangers of political/theocratic Islam and its incompatibility with the Constitutional Representative Republic form of government in the USA. He discusses the ideological roots of theocratic Islam and it’s alliance with social collectivism and separtist/fascist movements of the 20th Century. He contends that disruption, by speaking truth to power, within the Muslim communities will be the only force effective enough to bring about reforms compatible with western democracy.
Friday’s Philosophical Foray beyond Healthcare explores how the unintended consequences of anti-poverty government policies actually erect obstacles to prosperity and incentivize the breakup of two-parent families.
While Joe Biden and Kamala Harris go on and on about leadership we should look back to leadership lessons from Thomas Jefferson’s first inaugural address.
Harris says she wants a mandate, yet Jefferson understood the country was a republic, not a democracy. In the Constitution, there are no provisions for claiming a governing mandate; claiming to have a mandate based on a majority vote, Jefferson would say violates a “sacred principle” and makes you an oppressive tyrant:
“Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”
Many have pointed out that today’s progressives behave like “Medieval Inquisitors.” Jefferson pointed to political intolerance as “despotic” and as “wicked” as religious intolerance:
Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions.
So, what should government do? Jefferson was clear:
A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.
In his address, Jefferson didn’t promise a single new program, but he explored the principles by which he would lead:
Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies…