I rate “b” a lot at MoA. It’s worth considering his points here to see how we feel about them.
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2020/09/in-which-we-debunk-a-coividiots-pamphlet.html
Cheers
Hi Pontius. I rate “b” highly too though mainly from political analysis, on Covid he/she made some early calls (one was about HCQ during the now-apparent propaganda offensive) and may be sticking resolutely with them. It’s not a very objective start to have ‘Covidiots’ in the headline. It’s not just the disrespect, it reveals a degree of entrenchment. And if the arguments are ‘idiotic’ then surely “b” should find better ones to answer?
I kind of agree about point 1. that it’s probably a bit misleading to talk about coronaviruses; though it cuts both ways as two of the family are actually much worse than Covid-19. I’d say it’s more of a pointless oversimplification than misleading, though there could be some convergence in the corona family over time as immune systems develop immunity.
On 2., MoA estimates the IFR of Covid-19 (1.29% in New York) to be ten times the Off-G estimate (0.1%-0.2%), and declares the Off-G claim that they are about the same to be a lie and outright nonsense.
Do we have many infection fatality rates to compare with? The trouble with
“Just take a look at New York City…” is that MoA has chosen the US state with the second worst death rate, about 2.5 times worse than the US average. The city is likely worse than the rest of the state. Having castigated Off-G for ‘misleading’ MoA does worse.
Given that the US does have one of the worst death rates, and is also one of those countries ignoring options for both prevention and treatment , how much worse is Covid-19 is a rather complex question. So IMO there is no justification for MoA’s aggressive certainty (a general point that our Rhis has been making since the beginning).
This is Off-G’s point 3.
" 3. An immense majority (95%) of fatal evolutions happen in old and frail individuals with premorbidities, with an average age of death at or above 80 years old."
This isn’t a great statement TBH but is clearly meant just to make a general point about age and co-morbidities.
MoA’s ‘refutation’ of this point says it’s an ‘outright lie’.
This tone really grates on me; the point is a general one made widely elsewhere.
Further, MoA doesn’t actually refute it. S/he refers to an ACSH table of Covid-19 deaths broken down by age groups. This table is of US deaths, and doesn’t give figures for co-morbidities.
Using the table MoA does make a very interesting point that I have wondered about; is age an independent predictor of Covi-19 death, or is it just that older people have more co-morbidities and it’s the co-morbidities that lead to the bad outcomes? This US data would suggest that old age on its own might be less important than the co-morbidities that accompany it.
Anyway - if reading about people calling other people liars, it would be good to see the question examined in other countries - at the same level of detail (ie including co-morbidities) as given in the statement being ridiculed.
Thanks for posting. Overall I think MoA is too aggressive and too certain by half. I have to leave it there, for now; going out to get some topical vitamin D - could be the last for a while 
Cheers
1 Like
Definitely score a big blind spot for bernhard on this matter. He’s been - uncharacteristically - hysterical about the line getting investigated by Off-G, from the off; quite unreasonable. Bad case of TDS, I assume. Mask-slagging in particular drives him into positive foaming fits. How dare anyone EVER question masks!!! Not the usual bernhard whom I rate so highly, at all.
He reminds me in this of another writer whom I rate highly, Jim Kunstler. I go always to his blog for the penetrating perceptions and - as much - for the mordant, witty language. But let the subject of zionistan come up, or the fact that 11/9 was a false flag, and he becomes instantly de-trollied; and his usually sparkling prose turns - on a sixpence - to wet cement.
Almost any of us can be de-railed by some fatal illusion/delusion which we just can’t bear to let go. A sobering lesson…
2 Likes
Hi @Evvy_dense
I think you made some very good points here. Sorry for not getting back sooner - hope you got your daily vitamin D 
I too found the tone problematic. Personally I find the tone problematic on all sides of this debate. There’s a lot of certainty on all sides… Moving on.
A good question. From the last press conference by Vallance and Whitty, I recall the estimate of 60,000 new cases leading to about 200 deaths, so an IFR of 0.3% was discussed. Imperial College, in their modelling, used an IFR of 0.9%
The IFR is a difficult thing to calculate as there is no easy way to determine how many people were actually infected. It looks like the seroprevalence tests suffer from similar imprecisions (possibly worse) as PCR tests, so false negatives and false positives are a real problem. We also know that the anti-bodies fade, and sometimes quite rapidly. Taking 23K covid deaths (not all excess deaths) and dividing by 2.1 million people with recorded antibodies gives what we might cautiously view as an upper limit to the IFR - i.e. it can’t really be higher than 1%, but it could be significantly lower, as some people have T-cell immunity, not antibodies, and even those who might have had antibodies early on could have “lost” them by the time they were tested. So my best current guess for the IFR is between 0.3% and 1%. I need hardly point out that the latest estimate from Vallance - 0.3% - is not 10x higher than the flu, and he’s about as establishment a figure as one could find.
It’s worth pointing out here, even though b doesn’t, that is not just the ultimate IFR number that matters. It’s the number of people who get seriously ill but don’t die, that really matters. That’s what chews up hospital beds, ICUs and other NHS resources, leading to a cascade of shortages. I’m not sure what the latest thinking is on that, except to say that vitamin D, HCQ+ and ivermectin+ should all be able to help keep this number as low as possible.
With regard to deaths by age, I feel like this is something that we could look into a bit more. I’ve seen graphs showing an exponential increase of mortality with age, but (as you like to say) the devil is in the detail. I’d have to look more carefully.
Another thing we should look at very closely is the mortality vs age table that b links to. First question looking at that take is “but what was the mortality per case?” Let’s say that as many 30 year olds (for example) died as 80 year olds. What does that mean? Nothing much, as it stands. If 1 million 30 year olds were infected, and 100 80 year olds, then there is an obvious correlation between age and mortality that is hidden by b’s table.
You also raise a really good question:
I don’t know, but I think the points raised are definitely worth looking into further.
On the issue of trying to say that people die of their “comorbidities” and not strictly from covid, I’m personally quite aligned with b. Yes some people are more vulnerable if they have certain pre-existing conditions, but as I’ve argued before, that doesn’t mean we get to not count those deaths in the covid death toll. We just know who the at risk groups are.
On the subject of herd immunity and cross immunity, I think b is wrong. He completely ignores T-cell immunity, focusing only on antibodies. That’s just half the story. There are good studies from multiple sources indicating that a good proportion of the population may have t-cells that will recognise this virus and neutralise it, based on our exposure to other coronaviruses. Estimates range from 30-60 percent of the population might have pre-existing t-cells. If 10-20 percent of a population has antibodies (because of exposure to SC2), 30 percent had pre-existing t-cells (from other Coronaviruses) and another 10 percent have t-cells (but not antibodies) from exposure to SC2 then we’re already getting up to 50-60% of the pop having some kind of immune protection. Not far off the numbers required for herd immunity… 60% was the initial target quoted by Whitty, early on.
So. I think I’ll stop there for the moment. A few things to dig into. It’s a shame that, where this subject is concerned, folks are reduced to calling each other liars and shills. A productive dialogue is possible…
It’s all reminding me too much of what the post September 11 dialogue looked like. A big tragedy occurred, many people died, and then the powers that be suddenly had carte-blanche to act as they saw fit to protect us.
We know where that road goes…
Cheers
PS - a late edit on the IFR I forgot to mention. Iceland was a good test case as they were and to do a very comprehensive set of tests on a pretty small population. According to our friends at the CEBM
Current data from Iceland suggests their IFR is somewhere between 0.3% and 0.56%.
I’m not quite considered as waltb. There is just so much wrong with this that MOA has lost all the respect and admiration I had developed over the years. I agree with all the points @Evvy_dense has made, and add two more.
First, on the co-morbities issue, if one looks at the figures from Italy, there has to be little doubt that these are as or even more important than age.
Second, taking New York as indicative of the whole of the US is (in my opinion) completely false. Anyone living in New York over 19 years of age, will have spent days, weeks, possibly even years breathing is asbestos dust from the World Trade Centre “collapse”. Again, just my opinion, but this would have to make every single one of those much more susceptible to any infection affecting the respiratory system. Also, we all know that stress weakens the immune system. Living in New York must be pretty stressful, not on the scale of Gaza, but all the same an immune suppressor. And as touched on, the treatment in New York, could well have been a major contributor to the death rate.
MOA seems to me to be just to certain of “facts” and has taken a position, rather than really ask questions.
Amusingly perhaps, I posted a long analysis of this on the Lifeboat, posted by Tomski, but my post hasn’t appeared! I think Dan has told me not to post on this subject.
My subject line said - "MoA should stick with military analysis, and leave cyber warfare to others.
I agree with Pat here, and Walter, and could even go further. This is the third time I’ve written it, so could post what I put in an email:
I don’t know who the poster is, but most of what he says is perfectly valid, such as the claim that 90% of CV victims are over 80. It could be only 75% in the US, where as you say there are a lot of unhealthy fat people – so many in fact that their obesity and conditions accompanying it are not classified as “co-morbidities”. What MoA has done is present the data in a highly misleading fashion, by noting that the percentage of people dying with CV 19 in each age group is much the same, but the total number of people dying in the 35 - 45 age group is less than 10% of those dying 85 and over. If you add the totals for each age group you get this:
7.5% of deaths from/with Covid are under 55, ie 92.5% are over 55. And 20% of deaths are under 65, or 80% over 65.
He has also concealed the reality even in his claims that the percentage of deaths in younger age groups is much the same as a proportion of the total, but if you look at deaths of those under 24 – allegedly of Covid, you see that they were only 1% of total deaths in that age group, compared with around 9% of the total for people over 45, or over 75.
It’s a good example of the way that stats can be twisted around, but it is disturbing that this guy ‘b’ is the one twisting them. And the way he portrays OffGuardian, which for the most part has excellent articles, is truly delinquent. It’s MoA that has twisted Tim Anderson, and many others who have been on our side.
I also note what he says about “Point 6” which is one of the best points the poster made.
(that was about the general effect on the population resulting in far greater mortality from other conditions than from CV19, or even than would have happened from CV19, given sensible drug treatment and protection of vulnerables.
I agree that I’ve long regarded “b” as a prime source on military matters, Russia and Ukraine, and Syria, but also gone off him since he started going on about masks, and with such 'passionate intensity". I said on the Lifeboat , fwiw, that “I am NOT a Covidiot” - but if that’s the label for those who are “in-credulous”, then it will have to do. I can’t bear the word COVID and try not to use it, whereas I always was a great fan of Von Trier’s “The Idiots”. … !
Agree with all of the above generally (FWIW) but would add that that feeling of going to your usual places for the sceptical view, only to be confronted by orthodoxy, is a feeling I’ve come to expect over the last few months. Stats can be thrown around, graphs can show this or that but it comes down to reality at the end of the day. In my experience, having worked throughout the Covid era, people are not dying. I’m a gardener with a bunch of customers,say 20 -25 or so. Of them, one person has died with Covid and one had Covid but recovered with no ill effects. The person who died was an old man in the last stages of Alzheimers, in a home, and the person who had the virus but recovered was his thirtysomething daughter who caught it from him.
I used to do a lot of ‘recreational’ drugs back in the early 2000’s, particularly pills (ecstacy) and every now and again someone would be in the group about to go out who hadn’t done that drug before. A common question was ‘how will I know I’ve come up?’ to which the answer was ‘you’ll know’ assuming the drugs were any good. This ‘crisis’ is the same. If ‘The Virus’ was as deadly and terrible as we’re meant to believe we’d feel it. We’d have lost someone close; a friend, a relative, a friend of a friend, a neighbour; in other words we’d feel it; it would be obvious and tangible. When the Black Death swept across Europe it wasn’t a thing that was happening to other people, it was right there in your face, undeniable.
My potted theory as to why ‘the left’ has fallen hook line and sinker for this hysteria has to do with how the left sees itself in an era where it has little to no real political power, and relates to the mindset engendered by the pursuit of identity politics, by the left, given that that is the sole arena where they have any sway, even though that sway is ultimately self defeating. Identity politics, which started out as an emancipatory force, has devolved into an extreme individualism where every point of view has as much weight as any other and any new faction, or division, must be accepted as valid and of equal weight with any other. To disagree is discriminatory and comparable to the Nazis or whatever evil spectre can be applied.
So with Covid. People dying is bad, we are good, therefore we must oppose people dying, therefore any measures that purport to help are admissable. If the left had more power, it might be able to instigate sane policies to combat disease more generally but in lieu of that, a blanket acceptance of goverment dictats (which purport to be saving lives) is the logical position, except they must go further, to differentiate themselves from the bad people. Thus we see serious pronouncements from the socialist left about ‘zero Covid’ and the like and a general acceptance of each new rule,as it’s brought in, all in the name of ‘doing the right thing’. I think this, in part, explains the aquiescence and reinforcement by the left of govt policy as we’ve seen it play out in the west; hamstrung by political impotence, the left has latched on to something where it feels it can make a difference, only it makes the situation worse and exposes its position in western society; that of a child closing its eyes and wishing the bad men away.
1 Like
Thanks Spike, most interesting. I can hardly speak from the situation in Australia, which even with its “second wave” here in Victoria, has only seen 15000 odd cases, and none ever within 200 kms of where I live.
But what has struck me about the plague, particularly as the “second wave” is daily hyped in Spain, France and the UK, is that when you see photos of people waiting to be tested they don’t look sick! You couldn’t pick out ones who might test positive, as if they were coughing and sneezing and being supported by a friend or relative. But they’ve come to be tested because they are actually worried that some minor symptoms or even just feelings could mean they’ve caught the Virus and will end up in hospital. But of course there isn’t any treatment offered by those hospitals that would actually help them if they were infected and needed it.
It really is, as the Donald said - herd mentality. And everything the governments are doing is fostering this sense of fear and panic. I do take a little heart in signs that people are now being pushed too far, as in scenes of people having a street party after being tossed out of the pub at 10 pm, or in the civil disobedience of people in Marseilles and Aix who are refusing to stop going to bars and restaurants and refusing masks. The French could save us, as they did in '68 - finally, if there are enough against the state. But here we’ve lost the battle completely.
What also strikes me is - as I’ve said, “the exception proves the rule” - as why would it be necessary to have a story about a 29 year old who “nearly died” in hospital if there were thousands of other 29 year olds who were really sick and really dying? Just as it would not be a story if they told the story of a 50 year old who had a few mild symptoms and tested positive and then recovered in a few days and went back to work. There would be thousands of those.
I’d add that here there would be many doctors who have never encountered a patient with CV19, leave alone one that needed hospitalisation - which means sadly that they mostly believe the fairy stories too.
In all this BS and martial law madness, thanks @spike and @Dimac for a few words of sanity.
I find when talking to people, even my own brother in law (who’s brother “has it”), they always know someone who’s “had it” or “got it”. When digging a little deeper, sometimes its someone who has tested positive (on a test the informed know is not a test) and have no symptoms. Sometimes they have had flu like symptoms and recovered. Apart from spike, I have yet to come across anyone who knows of any person who has actually died “from” Corona virus.