«Coronavirus lockdowns have failed to alter the course of the pandemic but have instead ‘destroyed millions of livelihoods’, a JP Morgan study has claimed.
Falling infection rates since lockdowns were lifted suggest that the virus ‘likely has its own dynamics’ which are ‘unrelated to often inconsistent lockdown measures’, a report published by the financial services giant said.
Denmark is among the countries which has seen its R rate continue to fall after schools and shopping malls re-opened, while Germany’s rate has mostly remained below 1.0 after the lockdown was eased.
The report also shows many US states including Alabama, Wisconsin and Colorado enjoying lower R rates after lockdown measures were lifted.
Author Marko Kolanovic, a trained physicist and a strategist for JP Morgan, said governments had been spooked by ‘flawed scientific papers’ into imposing lockdowns which were ‘inefficient or late’ and had little effect.
‘Unlike rigorous testing of new drugs, lockdowns were administered with little consideration that they might not only cause economic devastation but potentially more deaths than Covid-19 itself,’ he claimed.»
Daily Mail («LOCKDOWNS FAILLED TO ALTER THE COURSE OF PANDEMIC AND ARE NOW DESTROYING MILLIONS OF LIVELIHOODS WORLDWIDE, JP MORGAN STUDY CLAIMS», in INFOWARS, May 23, 2020). See here, here, here and here
«Lock down those who are supposed to be free — and free those supposed to be locked up. That’s the formula being applied, and it’s leading to rising crime, suffering innocents, and murder.
Americans have been arrested for opening their hair salon, working out in a gym, and sitting alone in a lifeguard chair and reading, as officials enforce rules such as you can go to the beach but will be forcibly yanked from the ocean if you swim (huh?!). Apparently, jail-borne Wuhan coronavirus spares the puerilely persecuted but, having a better moral sense than many politicians, not those rightly punished.
Many might thus quip, anyway, pondering how governors have released 67,000 criminals — many dangerous — under the pretext of wanting to protect them and prison workers from COVID-19.
(…) Yet despite efforts such as the above, isn’t keeping convicts “quarantined” in prison the most effective way of preventing their infection? It’s not rocket science: Test the prisoners; separate out, isolate, and treat the sick; test any new convicts before incarceration; eliminate visitation during the outbreak; and test staff every two weeks. Voila!
And outside prison walls? Criminals aren’t exactly paragons of responsibility; they won’t likely “socially distance and wash ... hands as health officials direct, and use a mask — for anything other than a crime tool to protect against identification,” as American Thinker put it last month.
That leftists defy this common sense hints at an agenda, as American Thinker explained: “The far left, including the Soros front groups, Angela Davis, Chesa Boudin, and other extremists, have long advocated for getting rid of prisons and letting their denizens all out to prey upon us, under the tangled rubric of ‘social justice,’ a social justice that always finds itself devoid of [just] laws.”
The pandemic provides a perfect pretext to effect this mayhem. What’s the ultimate goal? Some would say attainment of power. After all, since people will generally sacrifice liberty for security, you can maximize the removal of liberty by first maximizing the removal of security. Yet there’s another factor, a deeper one rarely explained.
Devout leftists maintain that the “real” causes of crime are unaddressed deeper issues such as “systemic racism” and “white supremacy.” And I believe that many of these social engineers are thinking on some level, “You won’t take our sage counsel and implement our progressive prescriptions? Then you’re going to have to endure these problems until you eliminate them our way.”
It also may be a pleasing type of retribution for them. Remember that no one likes having his plans thwarted, and leftists believe it’s the “deplorable” resistance throwing a monkey wrench into theirs. Intensely angry about this, the attitude likely is, “If you won’t listen, you’ll just have to suffer till you toe the line!”
Whatever the thinking, it’s just another example of why the worst crimes being visited upon the American people are the lockdowns themselves. In fact, far more dangerous than 10 Joseph Edward Williamses on the street is one Gretchen Whitmer in office.»
Selwyn Duke («COVID Craziness: Lockdowns for Us but Not 67k Criminals - Now Killing Americans», in The New American, 23 May 2020).
«The Italian government announced intentions Sunday to create an army of social distancing snitches, saying it will recruit 60,000 people to monitor their friends and neighbours’ activities and make sure they are adhering to social distancing policies.
Reports indicate that the government will reach out especially to the unemployed for the roles, in particular those who have applied for benefits recently.
It wants them to become “civic assistants”, who will report infractions on the use of face masks and other state ordered rules in the wake of the coronavirus lockdown.
The informants will not be given uniforms or badges, and will simply be embedded within the population, meaning anyone could be a government snitch.
It’s not unprecedented in Italy, given that Rome mayor Virginia Raggi has employed a website where Italians can inform on their neighbors if they see them breaking social distancing rules.
The announcement was made by the Minister for Regional Affairs and Autonomies Francesco Boccia and the Mayor of Bari (Puglia), Antonio Decaro, who serves as the President of the National Association of Italian Municipalities.
“We are gradually entering a new normal where there is a gradual recovery of productive activities and citizens are returning to populate cities day after day,” a statement reads.
Municipalities “will be able to take advantage of the contribution of ‘civic assistants’ to enforce all the measures put in place to counter and contain the spread of the virus, beginning with social distancing.” the statement adds.
“Now is the time to recruit all those citizens who want to help the country, demonstrating a great civic sense,” the statement concludes.
Social distancing snitches, reminiscent of party informants in Orwell’s 1984, have also been employed by authorities in other countries.
"THE FAMILY HAD BECOME IN EFFECT AN EXTENSION OF THE THOUGHT POLICE. IT WAS A DEVICE BY MEANS OF WHICH EVERYONE COULD BE SORROUNDED NIGHT AND DAY BY INFORMERS WHO KNEW HIM INTIMATELY."
- George Orwell, 1984»
Steve Watson («ITALIAN GOVERNMENT WANTS UNEMPLOYED TO BECOME SOCIAL DISTANCING SNITCHES», in INFOWARS, May 25, 2020).
«Video footage out of Staten Island shows a woman being driven out of a grocery store by an angry mob because she’s not wearing a mask.
The clip shows the woman surrounded by other shoppers as they yell and cuss at her.
“Get the fuck outta here” and “get out” the crowd screams at the woman while pointing towards the exit.
(…) As we highlighted earlier, in Italy the left-wing government has announced it will recruit 60,000 citizen snitches to enforce “social distancing.”
In the United States, it looks like that won’t be necessary, as an army of volunteer Karens are willing to perform the same role for free.»
Paul Joseph Watson («VIDEO: WOMAN DRIVEN OUT OF GROCERY STORE BY ANGRY MOB FOR NOT WEARING A MASK», in INFOWARS, May 25, 2020). See here
«An MSNBC reporter complaining Americans weren’t wearing masks amid the re-opening of a Wisconsin town was put in check by a bystander, who exposed some in the reporter’s camera crew were also unmasked.
In a live shot with MSNBC host Katy Tur, a reporter who is wearing a mask tells her many in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, which reopened last week with minimal restrictions, aren’t wearing masks.
“It seems like you might be one of the only people wearing a mask,” Tur says.
“You can see here, nobody’s wearing them. Katy,” the reporter says.
“Including the cameraman,” a man interjects.
“Yeah, there you go, including the cameraman,” admits the reporter, before attempting to throw back to Tur.
“Half your crew’s not wearing them,” the man adds, before Tur ends the interview describing the footage as “striking images.”
This man should be hailed as a hero for exposing the mainstream media’s fake news mask scare propaganda.»
Infowars.com («WATCH: MSNBC REPORTER PROMOTING MASKS BUSTED LIVE ON AIR WITH MASK-LESS CAMERAMAN», May 26, 2020).
«Dr Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, proclaimed Wednesday that he is wearing a face mask in order to virtue signal ‘respect’ to other people, and that he wants it to be seen as ‘a symbol’ of what everyone else should be doing.
(...) The host Jim Sciutto asked if it helps when Americans “look at folks like you doing it, does that encourage its use to a positive degree?”
“It does, Jim.” Fauci replied, before going on to admit the mask is more of a symbol than an actual deterrent from the virus.»
Steve Watson («FAUCI SAYS HE WEARS FACE MASK AS A 'SYMBOL OF WHAT YOU SHOULD BE DOING'», in INFOWARS, May 28, 2020). See here
«In the period leading up to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration and its media accomplices waged a relentless propaganda campaign to win political support for what turned out to be one of the most disastrous foreign policy mistakes in American history.
Nearly two decades later, with perhaps a million dead Iraqis and thousands of dead American soldiers, we are still paying for that mistake.
Vice President Dick Cheney, Attorney General John Ashcroft, Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, were key players behind the propaganda—which we can define as purposeful use of information and misinformation to manipulate public opinion in favor of state action. Iraq and its president Saddam Hussein were the ostensible focus, but their greater goal was to make the case for a broader and open-ended “War on Terror.”
So they created a narrative using a mélange of half-truths, faintly plausible fabrications, and outright lies:
- Iraq and the nefarious Saddam Hussein were “behind,” i.e., backing, the Saudi terrorists responsible for 9-11 attacks on the US;
- Hussein and his government were stockpiling yellowcake uranium in an effort to develop nuclear capability;
- Hussein was connected with al-Qaeda;
- Iran was lurking in the background as a state sponsor of terrorism, coordinating and facilitating attacks against the US in coordination with Hamas;
- Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and other terror groups were working against the US across the Middle East in some kind of murky but coordinated effort;
- We have to “fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here”;
- The Iraqis would welcome our troops as liberators.
And so forth.
But the propaganda “worked” in the most meaningful sense: Congress voted nearly 3–1 in favor of military action against Iraq, and Gallup showed 72 percent of Americans supporting the invasion as it commenced in 2003. Media outlets across the spectrum such as the Washington Post cheered the war. National Review dutifully did its part, labeling Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Justin Raimondo, Lew Rockwell, and other outspoken opponents of the invasion as “unpatriotic conservatives.”
Tragically, the American people never placed the burden of proof squarely with the war cheerleaders to justify their absolutely crazed effort to remake the Middle East. In hindsight, this is obvious, but at the time propaganda did its job. Disinformation is part and parcel of the fog of war.
What will hindsight make clear about our reaction to COVID-19 propaganda? Will we regret shutting down the economy as much as we ought to regret invading Iraq?
The cast of characters is different, of course: Trump, desperately seeking “wartime president” status; Dr. Anthony Fauci; epidemiologist Neil Ferguson; state governors such as Cuomo, Whitmer, and Newsom; and a host of media acolytes just itching to force a new normal down our throats. Like the Iraq War architects, they use COVID-19 as justification to advance a preexisting agenda, namely, greater state control over our lives and our economy. Yet because too many Americans remain stubbornly attached to the old normal, a propaganda campaign is required.
- So we are faced with a blizzard of new “facts” almost every day, most of which turn out to be only mildly true, extremely dubious, or plainly false:
- The virus aerosolizes and floats around, so we all need to be six feet apart (But why not twenty feet? Why not one mile?);
- The virus lives on surfaces everywhere, for days;
- Asymptomatic people can spread it unknowingly;
- Antibodies may or may not develop naturally;
- People may become infected more than once;
- Young healthy people are at great risk not only themselves, but also pose a risk to their elderly family members;
- Thin, permeable paper masks somehow prevent microscopic viral spores from being inhaled or exhaled toward others;
- People are safer inside;
- The rate of new infected “cases” in the first few weeks of the virus reaching America would continue or even grow exponentially;
- Social distancing and quarantines do indeed “save” lives;
- Testing is key (But what if an individual visits a crowded grocery an hour after testing negative?);
- A second wave of infections is nigh;
- and Our personal and work lives cannot continue without a vaccine, which, by the way, may be two years away.
Again, much of this is not true and not even intended to be true—but rather to influence public behavior and opinions. And again, the overwhelming burden of proof should lie squarely with those advocating a lockdown of society, who would risk a modern Great Depression in response to a simple virus.
How much damage will the lockdown cause? Economics aside, the sheer toll of this self-inflicted wound will be a matter for historians to document. That toll includes all the things Americans would have done without the shutdown in their personal and professional lives, representing a diminution of life itself. Can that be measured, or distilled into numerical terms? Probably not, but this group of researchers and academics argues that we have already suffered more than one million “lost years of life” due to the ravages of unemployment, missed healthcare, and general malaise.
By the same token, how do we measure the blood and treasure lost in Iraq? How much PTSD will soldiers suffer? How many billions of dollars in future VA medical care will be required? How many children will grow up without fathers? And how many millions of lives are forever shattered in that cobbled-together political artifice in the Middle East?
Propaganda kills, but it also works. Politicians of all stripes will benefit from the coronavirus; the American people will suffer. Perversely, one of the worst COVID propagandists—the aforementioned Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York—yesterday rang the bell as the New York Stock Exchange reopened to floor trading. He now admits that the models were wrong and that his lockdown did nothing to prevent the Empire State from suffering the highest per capita deaths from COVID. Like the architects of the Iraq War, he belongs on a criminal docket. But thanks to propaganda, he is hailed as presidential.»
Jeff Deist («CORONAVIRUS PROPAGANDA MIMICS WAR PROPAGANDA», in INFOWARS, May 28, 2020).
 |
See here
|
 |
| See here |
 |
See here
|
 |
| See here |
Should I Wear a Face Mask?
Awkward. This is how it feels to be in public during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some faces are masked; others are not. This polarity has led the public to judgment, anger, and hostile interaction. We all want to do the right thing and stop the spread of disease, but is a face mask really protecting you and those around you? We have all wondered, “Should I wear a face mask?”As an environmental, health, and safety manager responsible for respiratory protection, I understand that face masks can play a supportive role in protecting the wearer from airborne hazards if the proper mask is chosen under the right circumstances. I also know that face masks can be ineffective, can create new hazards, and should not be the first or only line of defense. Face masks should be relegated to those in an industrial, emergency services, or healthcare work setting where proper mask selection, training, fit testing, and mask inadequacies can be addressed. The general public, in community settings, should not be wearing face masks to lessen viral transmission, as the data and potential drawbacks do not support their use. Instead, the focus should be on the more-effective ways you can protect yourself and those around you.
Face Mask Basics
The most common masks worn are cloth face masks, surgical masks, and N-95 respirators. However, these masks are not all created equal.
A cloth face mask is loose-fitting and made from a variety of materials; it has limited filter efficiency, doesn’t adhere to any design or filter efficiency standard, and lacks a test standard that confirms performance.
 |
| See here |
 |
See here
|
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has recommended that the public wear cloth face masks as a form of Source Control and has encouraged the public to make their own masks. And some are wearing cloth masks mistakenly thinking that they will protect them from disease.
Homemade and commercial cloth masks are being worn by the public. The materials of construction vary greatly, which directly impacts their effectiveness. In a 2010 study funded by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), a range of potential cloth mask fabrics (t-shirt, sweatshirt, towel, scarf, and commercial cloth mask) were tested for filter efficiency. The study found, “The use of fabric materials may provide only minimal levels of respiratory protection to a wearer against virus-size submicron aerosol particles (e.g. droplet nuclei). This is partly because fabric materials show only marginal filtration performance against virus-size particles when sealed around the edges. Face seal leakage will further decrease the respiratory protection offered by fabric materials.”
Couple the inadequate filter efficiency with the unstructured, loose fit of these masks, and it should be no surprise that studies have found cloth masks are not effective. In a 2015 study by MacIntyre, et al., they concluded, “In the interest of providing safe, low-cost options in low income countries, there is scope for research into more effectively designed cloth masks, but until such research is carried out, cloth masks should not be recommended.” Also, in a commentary entitled “Masks-For-All For CoVID-19 Not Based on Sound Data,” the authors concluded, “Our review of relevant studies indicates that cloth masks will be ineffective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whether worn as source control or as PPE.”
Cloth face masks are not a form of res-piratory protection and should be thought of as merely symbolic, giving the appearance of doing “something.”
Surgical masks also are loose-fitting masks, ones designed to trap airborne droplets emitted from the mouth or nose of the wearer, preventing droplets from being expelled into the surrounding space. Although regulated by the FDA, surgical masks are not required to form a seal with the face, nor do they have a minimum level of performance to meet.
Surgical masks were initially designed for Source Control to decrease the spread of bacteria or virus from an infected wearer to a vulnerable patient (think open wounds). These were not designed to protect the wearer from disease, and there is much evidence that they do not.
Surgical mask efficacy varies widely. Experimental results are mixed and vary with mask type and manufacturer, experimental setting (clinical, household, lab), and type of disease assessed. So the ability of a surgical mask to function as Source Control is variable. That said, in a recent review by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, it was concluded: “These data suggest that surgical masks worn by the public will have no or very low impact on disease transmission during a pandemic.” This makes sense since, even if the coronavirus is expelled from the body in larger droplets of water that should be caught by the mask, these masks are not fitted and air takes the path of least resistance, so basically through the unsealed edges and openings of the mask.
As PPE, many studies have confirmed that surgical masks do not prevent inhalation of particles due to poor facial fit and limited filtration characteristics. The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety states that the filter material of surgical masks does not retain or filter out submicron particles and is not designed to eliminate air leakage around the edges. A 2008 study by Tara Oberg, M.S., and Lisa M. Brosseau, S.D., concluded, after testing several surgical masks, “None of these surgical masks exhibited adequate filter performance and facial fit characteristics to be considered respiratory protection devices.”
N-95 respirators have a tight-fitting design and are engineered to protect the wearer by removing 95 percent of particles, at least .3 microns and greater, from the air moving through it. They are of intricate design, are capable of high filter efficiency, and remove a wide range of particle sizes. N-95 respirators conform to the NIOSH 42 CFR 84 performance standard, and fit testing is required to ensure a protective fit.
The N-95 respirator was designed to function as PPE. A 2006 study by Anna Balazy, et al., published by the American Journal of Infection Control, concluded that N-95 respirators don’t provide complete protection against small virions. Even with a perfect fit — but with less than 100-percent efficiency and particle size-capture constraints — an N-95 respirator is not fully protective. Yet the N-95 provides better protection than a surgical or cloth mask. The N-95 respirator (without an exhalation valve) performs well for Source Control, although one study published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene indicated that Source Control efficacy could be improved by sealing the mask further.
Face Mask Problems and Hazards
One of the reasons that PPE is the lowest control strategy for hazard mitigation is because people are human: We make mistakes. We not only forget to wear them, we might take the mask off at lunch, but then do not put it back on when we re-enter the hazardous situation. And face masks can be hot and sweaty, and fog up eyeglasses, causing us to lower them on the face to get relief. They’re also lowered because they make verbal communication and breathing a bit harder. As soon as one does this, the mask is not working to protect you or those around you.
Even observational studies of healthcare professionals have shown that they often incorrectly put on and take off their respirators. Compliance is even more difficult for the untrained public. Training is required for effective PPE use. Face masks become ineffective when a wearer does not know how to examine a mask for flaws or damage prior to use; how to properly clean and store it; when to replace a mask; and how to properly position it on the face. An ill-fitting or damaged mask does little good.
As well, wearing a mask has the potential to create new hazards and even illness.
It has been shown that viruses can collect and hang out on the outside of a mask. This is a source of self-contamination or surface contamination, and leads to spreading the virus if you are not careful handling, removing, and disposing of the mask. Moreover, frequently touching your face to adjust an ill-fitting or uncomfortable mask increases the risk of viral exposure by transferring the virus from mask to fingers to common surfaces — or your face.
Others can then pick up the virus from the contaminated surface and, in a moment of poor hygiene, infect the mucous membranes of the nose, mouth, or eyes. This happened to a woman from Charlotte, North Carolina, even though she claimed to follow quarantining perfectly and wore a mask and gloves regularly. One trip to the pharmacy (gloved and masked) and contact with a virus-contaminated credit card reader was all it took (according to contact tracers), and she became sick with the coronavirus.
Studies point to other detrimental health effects of wearing a face mask, especially the tighter-fitting N-95 respirator, if worn for extended periods of time:
• Headaches are a frequent complaint with N-95 use and attributed to impaired breathing.
• One study showed that mask users had a blood oxygen level reduction of 20 percent. Low oxygen levels can cause impaired immunity. According to Dr. Dipankar Saha, scientist and director at the Central Pollution Control Board, this can lead to “oxygen shortage, suffocation, respiratory trouble and heart attacks.”
• In addition, a tight-fitting N-95 can increase viral load. If you are infected, you will constantly be rebreathing the virus and effectively increasing its concentration in the lungs and nasal passages. High viral load early on is associated with worse outcomes for the sick.
• Masks are a potential source of bacteria and viruses. “The moisture from exhalation inside the mask, when in constant contact with the 37 degrees Celsius warm human body, becomes [an] ideal place for virus and bacteria to thrive,” said Dr. Saha.
And simply covering one’s nose and mouth doesn’t stop pathogens from entering your body. According to the American Optometric Association, it is possible that the coronavirus can enter through the conjunctiva of the eye and spread through the body via blood vessels.
Dr. Joseph Fair, a prominent virologist, contracted COVID even though he stated he was using “max precautions,” indicating he was wearing a face mask and gloves while in public. He suggests the possibility that he became infected through eye contact. He states, “Even people like me that do this for a living” can make mistakes (although he does not recall making one).
So in answer to the question, “Should I wear face mask?” the answer is generally “No.” Even WHO, which has taken an alarmist position regarding COVID-19, said on April 6, 2020, “The wide use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not supported by current evidence and carries uncertainties and critical risk.” This thinking is supported in a commentary by Dr. Russell Blaylock, a nationally recognized, board-certified neurosurgeon, health practitioner, author, and lecturer, who stated in a recent article for the online site Technocracy News & Trends, “It is evident from this review that there is insufficient evidence that wearing a mask of any kind can have a significant impact in preventing the spread of this virus.” He very strongly warns that the healthy should not wear face masks.
For the general population, wearing a face mask is a distractor, taking focus away from the more effective mitigation strategies an individual should take. Yes, an N-95 respiratory and surgical mask might have some utility, but due to the problems and risks of their use by the untrained and unsupervised, these should be reserved for work settings where there is oversight. In the case of a cloth mask or covering, the data do not support their use. Add the issues of wearing one (difficulty breathing, discomfort, communication hurdles, the potential to cross contaminate, and the increased risk of infection), and the answer becomes clear, as said Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has been elevated by the mainstream media to near god-like status for his views on the pandemic, on a 60 Minutes Overtime interview: “In America, people should not be walking around with a mask!” (March 8, 2020).
Instead of reliance on a face mask for protection, impeccable personal hygiene, isolation of the sick and high risk, social distancing, and decontamination of common surfaces should be emphasized.
Immaculate personal hygiene includes often and carefully washing your hands, using hand sanitizer when hand washing is not possible, and keeping your hands away your face. These sound like a “duh” to most people, but they are critical to disease-transmission prevention.
Stay healthy.
(in The New American, 22 May 2020).
 |
| See here, here, here, here, here and here |
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário