In recent weeks, the number of Covid-19 cases has soared in San Diego County from about 350 per day to 3-5 times that rate. The graph of hospitalizations and ICU admissions below would seem to reflect that same rise. But looks may be deceiving. The local media has been screaming about how the hospitals are overflowing. However, you have to read the fine print under the graph.
They changed the way they count the number of hospitalizations with Covid-19. The increase in hospitalizations and ICU admissions may reflect just the way they count and not a real rise in hospitalizations and ICU admissions. The local sensational media does not read the fine print by just reports that hospitalizations are zooming and our County Health officials do not go out of their way to correct the misunderstanding. After I posted this blog, I heard a County Supervisor, Nathan Hatcher, say in an Covid-19 update that this new counting procedure was mandated by the federal government. So, it is apparently nation-wide, if counties are following CDC guidlines. You can see that statement at 12:25 in this video.
Covid-19 Hospital Census
It is difficult to read the fine print on the above image. You can click on the image to get a larger view, but I have reposted it below in larger letters. The important part is highlighted in yellow.
Data are preliminary and subject to change; data from hospitals reporting directly to County of San Diego; census for San Diego County non-federal hospitals; includes cases and suspect COVID-19 patients for San Diego County residents and non-residents; *Starting 10/31, COVID hospital census numbers will show an increase due to to change in the hospital census definition. Previously, COVID-19 hospitalized patients stopped being counted as a COVID-19 hospitalized patient after ten days. Now, they continue to be counted as a COVID-19 hospitalized patient for their entire stay in the hospital. Prepared by County of San Diego, Emergency Operations Center, 11/28/2020
It states that previously Covid-19 admissions were only counted for 10 days, but starting on October 31st they were going to count all Covid-19 patients, as long as they are in the hospital. It sounds like pantients with other serious health issues can recover from Covid-19 and still be counted as a Covid-19 patient. This could produce an significant rise in the number of hospitalizations. Covid-19 is generally a mild illness and patients recover quickly. If a person enters the hospital with Covid-19 and other serious issues, but Covid-19 is not the main issue, after ten days the illness is probably going to be resolved. If the person dies, even from some other cause, presumably they will also be counted as a Covid-19 death.
Covid-19 Hospital Census
You cannot say that all of this rise in hospitalizations and ICU admissions is caused by the change in counting procedure, but it would very well seem that much of it could be, if not all.
This results of a paper by a student was posted in a student publication, the Johns Hopkins Newsletter. The student compared the number of deaths among older people from year to year and found no difference in number of deaths due to Covid-19. The paper was quickly retracted, because the result does not fit the official Covid-19 narrative.
I am not claiming that the results or accurate or not, just presenting it for you to read, yourself. Whether it is correct or not, it should not be censored. Let people decide for themselves, like adults. Below is an excerpt from the paper:
Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.
The reason we have a higher number of reported COVID-19 deaths among older individuals than younger individuals is simply because every day in the U.S. older individuals die in higher numbers than younger individuals, Briand said.
The media appears to be misinterpreting CDC statistics in a way, which inflates death count by Covid-19. The CDC does not actually claim that 200K people were “killed” by Covid-19 during 2020, but that Covid-19 was “involved”. That is, they died with Covid-19, but Covid-19 was often not the cause of death. The CDC does not make the situation too clear, but the alarmist media that really misrepresents the numbers. Guidelines by the World Health Organization (WHO) encourage this misinterpretation by stating that every death with Covid-19, should be counted as a Covid-19 death. The Guidelines seem designed to inflate the number of deaths by about a factor of two or more.
Under the column of “Deaths involving Covid-19 and pneumonia, excluding influenza” the total number is 89K. This is less than half the cases of deaths “involving” Covid-19, which the media promotes as the number of deaths due to Covid-19. Covid pneumonia is the only mechanism that has been show to patients. If the person did not develop Covid-19 pneumonia, that it seems very likely that Covid-19 did not kill that person.
Our yellow, politically-biased media presents these deaths as being due to Covid, when probably most of them aren’t. This has terrorized the public and made possible the Orwellian restrictions on personal liberty.
From what we have seen in the media, the expected progression of a fatal case is that you have trouble breathing, go to the hospital, develop Covid-19 pneumonia, are put on a ventilator and then the great majority die. According to these numbers, most people counted do not die of Covid-19 pneumonia, but for some other reason and are counted as Covid-19 deaths. But they happen to test positive for Covid-19.
Trump has withdrawn the US from WHO, because he believes the organization is corrupt. Why are we still following political, self-serving guidelines from WHO that greatly inflate the numbers? If he is re-elected, Trump should make it a priority to issue an executive order to stop CDC from following the WHO guidelines and to be more exact in their estimate of deaths due to Covid-19, not just mindlessly count every death with Covid-19 as a Covid-caused death.
The table of numbers of Covid-19 deaths is on page 2 of the document below.
WHO Guidelines state that anyone who dies with an active Covid-19 infection should be counted as a “Covid-19 death”. This is interpreted by many as a death due to Covid-19, when it is often a death with Covid-19.
The guidelines state only that, when the death is clearly due to physical trauma, such as a murder or vehicle accident, it should not be counted as a Covid-19 death.
Without autopsies, no one can really know for sure how may people died from Covid-19. However, an educated judgment could be made. Covid-19 could be informally ruled out as the cause of death in many cases, but the WHO instructions do not allow that.
Some countries may not follow WHO guidelines in identifying Covid-19 deaths. This can be part of the reason there is so much variation in the rates of deaths among different countries. They try to count more accurately the number of deaths due to Covid-19 or even cook the numbers to make their country look better. The mortality rate in different countries can also vary due to social factors.
Paragraph 2 taken from the WHO guidelines for counting Covid-19 Deaths.
The idea that 200K people have died due to Covid-19 appears to be a massive fraud.
COMPARISON TO THE FLU
The director of the CDC, Dr. Robert Redfield, told the Associated Press that there were 80,000 deaths due to the flu in 2017-2018. If this is true and using the standard that only Covid-19 deaths with Covid-19 pneumonia count, only slightly more people died of the Covid-19 pneumonia in the 2020 season (Oct 2019 -September 2020) than in the worst recent flu season on record. However, who would be surprised if Dr. Redfield exaggerates the number of flu deaths, also?
When making the comparison, keep in mind also that there are vaccines for the various strains of the flu, but no vaccine yet for Covid-19. Vaccines for Covid-19 are likely to be just as ineffective as flu vaccines, because corona viruses are similar to the flu virus, a rapidly mutating RNA virus.
Publicity hound, Dr. Fauci, helps Hollywood stars use Covid-19 to promote globalism in a project called, “Pass the mic” in this interview with globalist, Julia Roberts.
The project was launched by the globalist “One” movement, as in “One World”. It is intended to counteract criticism of the draconian, unconstitutional, Covid-19 lockdowns. Various Hollywood stars will be allowing supporters of the lockdowns to use their social media accounts with millions of fans and media connections to generate support for the globalist, lockdown tactics promoted by the World Health Organization and for Dr. Fauci.
There is much evidence emerging that shelter-at-home and some of the other draconian measures employed during the Covid-19 pandemic do not work that it does not stop the spread of the pandemic and does not save lives. The purpose of this post to collect the evidence that shows whether “stay at home” works or not. This post will be updated as new information becomes available.
The US Government is spending trillions of dollars that we do not have and have to be borrowed in our name to pay for these lockdowns. If the measures taken were not effective and there is no science behind it, contrary to what we we told by Dr Fauci and many others, that really needs to be exposed and people have to be held accountable, so that the same mistakes are not made during the next pandemic or even in the second wave of this pandemic that may come next year. There were perverse political motivations from the beginning among some to support a lockdown. The politicians and big media will, of course, try to cover up any failure and try to make people believe that it was actually a big success.
It seems intuitive that, if people are required to stay home, that they will have less chance of being infected. But intuition is not always correct. Viruses evolve to spread. Hard evidence of effectiveness is necessary. People are not really being isolated at home in a “lockdown” at least not in western countries. They still get packages delivered at home that may be contaminated. They still go to stores, shops and gas stations. They are mainly just not going to work and not supporting the economy. Maybe what may work in the Chinese dictatorship will not work in a constitutional republic?
Governor Cuomo of New York recently expressed “shock” that a poll taken showed that the great majority of Covid-19 patients checking into hospitals over a three day period had been sheltering in place. See the video lower on this page.
A recent study by the Spanish government showed in it’s preliminary results that the infection rate of essential workers and non-essential workers, who have been staying at home, was statistically the same. The page from the report is also displayed below.
Sweden never went into a “lockdown”, yet their deaths per million rank is well within the range of other European countries that went into a lockdown at great cost to their economies.
MARK MUESSER & DHILLON LAW GROUP FIGHTING FOR OUR RIGHTS
Mark Muesser, featured in the video below, is an attorney for the Center for American Liberty. He is suing Gavin Newsom and the Government of California in order to protect the constitutional rights of California citizens. He found an review article by doctors and scientist that stated that there was no proof that stay at home and some other such strategies are effective. He is requesting information from state and local governments about the “science” that justified their lockdown decisions and not getting good responses. (Mark is indeed our favorite attorney, as he says in the video, fighting for truth and our constitutional rights in California.)
Below is the article that Mark Meusser mentions in in the video. It reviews mitigation strategies for pandemics and says that many of them have not been shown to be effective. I do not know, if things have changed since the article was published, but we should find out soon. If you do not want take the time to read the whole article, this excerpt sums it up.
Over the years, various combinations of these measures have been used under epidemic and pandemic circumstances in attempts to control the spread of influenza. However, there are few studies that shed light on the relative effectiveness of these measures. A historical review of communities in the U.S. during the 1918 influenza pandemic identified only two that escaped serious mortality and morbidity. Both communities had completely cut themselves off for months from the outside world. One was a remote town in the Colorado mountains, and the other was a naval training station on an island in San Francisco Bay.(1) Obviously, this is not a strategy of general utility. Other studies have suggested that, except in the most extreme applications, disease mitigation measures have not had a significant impact on altering the course of an influenza pandemic. (2,3)
A number of mitigation measures that are now being considered could have a serious impact on the ability of the health system to deliver adequate care and could have potentially adverse consequences for the provision of essential services. Many could result in significant disruption of the social functioning of communities and result in possibly serious economic problems. Such negative consequences might be worth chancing if there were compelling evidence or reason to believe they would seriously diminish the consequences or spread of a pandemic. However, few analyses have been produced that weigh the hoped-for efficacy of such measures against the potential impacts of large-scale or long-term implementation of these measures.
GOVERNOR CUOMO “SHOCKED” THAT LOCKDOWN NOT WORKING
In this video, Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York expresses shock that a study shows that a very large majority of those being admitted to hospitals in New York for Covid-19 had been observing his stay-at-home order under lockdown and it obviously did not protect them. He blames the public for the result, but just maybe such a lockdown has just not been proven by real science to be practical or effective?
COVID-19 INFECTION RATE STUDY IN SPAIN
A government-sponsored study in Spain showed in a preliminary report that the rate of infections was statistically the same for essential workers, who go to work every day, and non-essential workers who were staying home. This is page 8 of the report, entitled “Primera oleada informe seroprevalencia covid-19 en España” (First version of the covid-19 seroprevalence report in Spain), which I first saw reported in this post in the Gateway Pundit.
The title of this page says “Prevalence of IgG antibodies for Sars-Cov2 according to the characteristics of the participants”. At the bottom in the red box are the percentages infected for non-essential (6.9%) and non-essential (5.3%) workers. The non-essential workers were under a stay-at-home order. Since the error limits of the two numbers overlap, this means that no statistically significant difference found in infection rates of the two categories.
There report says the data is preliminary, so we should see the final report later. For some reason, the was no mention of this surprising result in the text of the report. It is just listed in the data table, without comment. Probably, it is not discussed, because that is not a result that would be welcomed by the political leaders, who ordered the enormously expensive and disruptive lockdown in Spain.
SWEDEN CHOSE NOT TO LOCKDOWN
Leaders of a number countries, including Sweden, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, decided not to do a lockdown in response to Covid-19. Sweden is the most notable and transparent of these no-lockdown countries. The fatalities have been somewhat high, but are still well within the range of other European countries that did do lockdowns. Developing immunity in the population may mean more fatalities early on, but less fatalities after herd immunity has been achieved.
About a third of US states also had no lockdown or had relatively mild rules for the lockdowns without disastrous results, so far.
This is an interview of the Anders Tegnell, the architect of Sweden’s no-lockdown policy. Tegnell, very humbly, says that the jury is still out on their decision to not lockdown.
Tegnell points out that is is more sustainable to treat them like adults and inform the people and let them make their own decisions about how to protect themselves. Adopting the methods of the Chinese dictatorship creates resentment and rebellion as we have seen in the US and elsewhere, which is not sustainable.
