Covid---Then, Now and the Future

In the early days of the pandemic it was apparent that the Covid virus was primarily a concern for the old and with vulnerable health conditions.

That was clear in the Diamond Princess outbreak in Japan as well as the deaths we saw in Italy early in the  pandemic back in March, 2020.

In fact, this is a chart I published in these pages on March 15, 2020 detailing the age breakdown of the 780 deaths in Italy from Covid as of that date.

You will note that 87% of the Covid deaths in Italy at that early date were in those over the age of 70.

There were more deaths among those over age 80 than all of the deaths for everyone else below that age.

There had been no deaths for anyone below the age of 30.

I was reminded of this fact as I recently looked at Covid deaths in the United States now that we have some 2-1/2 years of experience.

Over 1 million deaths have been listed by the CDC as being associated with Covid in that period.

However, despite lockdowns, school closures, vaccines mandates and all the rest, the risk of death from Covid by age has not changed substantially compared to what we saw in those early days.

Over 75% of the deaths from Covid in the United States have been in those age 65 or older.

Only .9% of deaths have been in those under age 18. By contrast, that age group represents 22% of the U.S. population.

There have been more deaths in those age 85+ with Covid than all of the deaths with Covid from everyone below age 65.

The statistics are the same in Australia even though almost all Covid deaths have been in the last year  (over 90% of Covid deaths in Australia have occurred after the vaccines were introduced).

This chart from the Australian government shows Covid deaths by age group since the beginning of the pandemic.

Source: https://www.health.gov.au/health-alerts/covid-19/case-numbers-and-statistics#cases-and-deaths-by-age-and-sex

It is even closer to the early experience in Italy than the United States numbers.

85% of Covid deaths in Australia have been in those age 70 or older.

There have been more deaths of those age 80 or older than all younger age groups combined.

However, it looks like it might get even worse in Australia (95% age 16+ fully vaccinated and over 70% boosted) in the near future.

Hospitalizations are soaring down under right now.

The good news in the United States of late has been that despite the fact that reported Covid cases are running about 4 times what they were at this time last year (more likely at least 10 times higher considering home tests that are never reported), hospitalizations and deaths are only about 50% higher.

Source: The New York Times

However, these are still shocking numbers considering what we were originally told regarding the effectiveness of the vaccines in preventing infection (since admitted to be untrue) as well as the continuing argument that they prevent severe disease and death.

50% higher numbers of hospitalizations and deaths this year compared to what we saw last year hardly seems to be an endorsement of the "effectiveness" of the vaccines for anyone looking at the data objectively.

If someone said that these would be the results a year ago would anyone have agreed that should be considered "a success"?

Recall that Joe Biden was saying the following almost exactly one year ago today.

Biden speaking at CNN Town Hall in Cincinnati, July 21, 2021

Do you think he was a little off the mark?

I can't decide if he was further off on this or his statement that inflation was going to "transitory".

It would seem to me that the next several months are going to tell us a lot about where we go next with Covid.

The optimistic view is that the high level of cases we have seen over the last year, with proportionally less leading to hospitalizations and deaths, has created a level of herd immunity that moves Covid permanently to an endemic disease much like the seasonal flu.

The pessimistic view would be held by Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche who sees heavily vaccinated countries on the precipice of another mutation in the virus that will make it even more contagious and deadly than we have seen previously.

When I first started studying what Vanden Bossche was saying a year ago he stated that one of the things to watch for as the pandemic unfolded was whether cases failed to drop below previous lows despite the vaccination effort.

He argued that this was an indication that the virus was continuing to mutate and build within the population in what he called a "valley of fitness". He predicted this would invariably lead to another surge in cases as the virus worked around the vaccines and resulted in another variant. 

Are we seeing that occurring in the United States right now in that case levels are higher now than they were at this time of year in pre-vaccine 2020 or immediately after the aggressive vaccine push in the first six months of 2021?

Confirmed Covid Cases in U.S.-7-day average
Source: The New York Times

Is the next variant slowly and imperceptibly building in the population such that it won't be long before it is dominating the population in ways we don't want to imagine?

Is Vanden Bossche correct in his prediction that those most vulnerable in the next wave will be those who are most vaccinated and have the poorest natural immunity?

Few could imagine what we have witnessed since last year at this time despite everything we were told that the vaccines would do to prevent that result.

Geert Vanden Bossche is one who warned us. Nobody in any position of authority listened.

I documented his prediction in these pages almost one year ago that we would see an astounding surge in Covid cases that would be particularly evident in the most vaccinated countries.

We can only hope that he is wrong about where Covid goes next.

Let's hope that the virus does not leave that "valley of fitness".

Let's also hope we don't see this all end in the final prediction Vanden Bossche made over a year ago and which I wrote about last September.

 

He (Vanden Bossche) predicts that once the reality dawns on the populace of how horribly this pandemic has been mismanaged, leading to massive unnecessary death tolls in those who chose to be vaccinated - that the realization will lead to a form of revolutionary outbreak by a deeply disenchanted and grieving public. Because heads will have to roll. He even thinks that ultimately this will affect how people view vaccines in the future and might even require banning the use of the word vaccine due to the negative impact that current mass vaccine use will have. He really put a lot of thought to his vision of the future!

This reality is even harsher when considering the data above shows that the vast, vast majority of people really had no reason to get vaccinated based on what we knew about the risks of Covid from the very beginning. That has stayed true to today.

The decision to push mass vaccination on the population (most of which had small risks) destroyed any ability to develop herd immunity. It may also be responsible for the endless string of variants we have seen which has extended the length of the pandemic. Let's hope that Vanden Bossche is not correct and those mass vaccination efforts do not also also result in unnecessary illness and death. 

The next few months may tell us once and for all who has been right... and who has been wrong...about our response to Covid.

The answer to that question will undoubtedly have broad implications for the future of our institutions and our society.

I pray Vanden Bossche is wrong. I fear that he is not.

Nothing New Under The Sun

How many times have I have seen a liberal politician with an agenda say something like Adam Schiff did recently as he was pushing the climate change agenda?

Schiff is clearly unhappy that Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) is not willing to sign on to the radical "Green" agenda of the House Democrats.

Time is always running out.

If we don't act soon, we are all doomed.

Does anyone remember this statement from Alexandria Ocacio-Cortez in 2019 that had the same message?

Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/22/ocasio-cortez-climate-change-alarm/2642481002/

How about Al Gore's statement in 2006 "that unless drastic measures were taken within the next ten years the world would reach a point of no return?

Or this claim in 1989 by a senior United Nations environmental scientist that entire nations would be wiped off the face of the earth by the year 2000 if climate change was left unchecked?

Not reversed by the year 2000? That was 22 years ago.

It seems that the same claim has been made over and over again the last 35 years.

We always only have a narrow period of 10,11 or 12 years to act or we are doomed.

Never mind if none of the predictions ever come true,

It does not stop the next politician from making a similar claim.

Of course, the mainstream media plays off of this narrative and that is why any heat wave is now referred to as "unprecedented".

Witness the headlines about the recent heat wave in the U.K.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/14/world/europe/heat-wave-britain-uk.html

Temperatures were predicted to reach 100 degrees F this past weekend.

It is "unprecedented".

Source: https://sports.yahoo.com/u-k-declares-first-ever-180348044.html

I guess it is "unprecedented" if you ignore the 100 degrees that hit London in 1911.

Source: https://realclimatescience.com/2022/07/100-degrees-in-london/

Or the fact that a similar heat wave engulfed the UK and Europe in 2003 that had Pope John Paul II urging people to pray for rain.

Source: https://realclimatescience.com/2022/07/100-degrees-in-london/

Is there "anything new under the sun"?

This quote from a news article in The  Morning Oregonian from 1906 suggests there is not.

“Whenever an unusually hot season is upon us, sweltering humanity talks about the changes in climate and shakes its head in a foreboding fashion.”

Source: https://realclimatescience.com/2022/07/100-degrees-in-london/

Isn't it incredible that a newspaper in Oregon in 1906 could so accurately predict what Al Gore would say in 2006 and Adam Schiff in 2022?

There truly is nothing new under the sun.

The Curious Case of Haiti and the Dominican Republic

Haiti and the Dominican Republic are neighboring nations on the island of Hispaniola in the Caribbean.

Haiti is on the west end of the island and the Dominican Republic stretches to the east.

Hispaniola lies just southeast of Cuba and just west of Puerto Rico in the Caribbean Sea.

Although Haiti and the Dominican Republic share the same island, the quality of life of their citizens are vastly different.

GDP per capita is about 6x higher in the DR as it is in Haiti as are average incomes.

Life expectancies are about ten years longer in the DR as they are in Haiti.

Population density in Haiti is almost double what it is in the DR.

There are twice as many hospital beds and six times as many doctors in the DR per capita as there are in Haiti.

Looking at the background data you would think that Haiti would be extremely vulnerable when confronted with a pandemic brought about by a virus such as Covid-19.

You might conclude that another natural disaster awaited Haiti when you consider that only 1% of the population has been vaccinated compared to 55% in the DR.

How has it worked out between the two countries?

The DR has had about 25 times the number of confirmed cases per capita that Haiti has had since the pandemic began.

Granted, this number is undoubtedly misleading because of Haiti's scant health resources which clearly is resulting in many undiagnosed or missed cases that are not recorded.

In that case, deaths from Covid is a better measure and should be more reliable.

However, deaths from Covid in the DR are reported to be about 6 times higher per capita than they have been in Haiti since the beginning of the pandemic.

How is it that Haiti, in which almost no one is vaccinated, in a country with scant health resources, has only a fraction of the Covid cases and deaths as neighboring Dominican Republic?

Is this not curious?

It is almost as if no one had ever created a test for Covid or a narrative around it that anyone would have noticed.

Have we ever seen any pandemic like this in the history of mankind?

Have we ever seen a vaccine that promised more and delivered less when you look at the actual data?

If you doubt that consider the Covid situation on the neighboring island of Puerto Rico right now.

87% of everyone age 5 and older in Puerto Rico are fully vaccinated. This is much higher than the vaccine rate in the DR.

Right now Puerto Rico has the highest number of reported cases per capita of any U.S. state or territory.

Puerto Rico has over 40 times the number of cases now as it did at this time last year.

Confirmed cases in Puerto Rico are also nine times higher than the DR right now.

New Reported Covid Cases in Puerto Rico-7-day average
Source: The New York Times Covid Tracker

Notice that Puerto Rico had relatively few Covid cases until after the vaccines were introduced in early 2021. 

Hospital admissions this year are over 3x what they were at this time last year for all ages.

Source: The New York Times Covid Tracker

For the most vulnerable age 70+ age group (90%+ fully vaccinated), hospital admissions in Puerto Rico are 4x what they were last year.

Deaths were averaging .3 per week last year. Puerto Rico has been averaging about 6 deaths a week this year---a 20-fold increase. 

It is all quite curious.

Yet almost no questions are asked.

And most assuredly no answers are ever given as to how this is possible based on the public health narrative that keeps being repeated over and over again irrespective of facts like these that are right in front of us but are conveniently ignored.

Sri Lanka-A Cautionary Tale

Sri Lanka is an island nation of 22 million people located just off of the southeastern area of India.

It is colored in green in the map below.

 

It was previously known as Ceylon before the name was changed to Sri Lanka in 1972.

Right now Sri Lanka is a cautionary tale of what can happen to a nation when you have too much political corruption, too much debt, too much inflation, not enough foreign reserves, not enough energy, not enough food production and your government is overly enamored with currying favor with Western green globalist elites by following an ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) agenda.

Sri Lanka was given a near-perfect ESG emissions score of 98 recently. That is higher than even Sweden's 96. The United States score is 59.

However, being environmentally green and socially responsible does little to help people when they have life to live. and they can't live it.

Haven't we human been here before? 

As I have mentioned in these pages before, people get a little testy when they have no energy and no food.

That is what has occurred in Sri Lanka in recent days.

The people had enough and rose up in a real insurrection.

Protestors stormed the President's mansion and caused him to flee the country this weekend.

By the end, they were swimming in the President's pool.

The protestors also set the Prime Minister's house on fire. He had only been in office one month.

How did Sri Lanka get here?

Years of political turmoil and corruption.

Too much debt and foreign borrowings.

A heavy reliance on imports.

Covid exacerbated problems in the local economy which resulted in taking on more debt.

The Sri Lanka Central Bank printed a lot of new currency in the last three years.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Foreign reserves were quickly dissipated for imported goods making it harder and harder to buy essential imports like fuel.

Prices of fuel and other essentials started rising.

The ESG crowd convinced the government to ban imported chemical fertilizers and required farmers to farm organically. Crop yields plummeted over two consecutive growing seasons. 

The argument was that it would help the foreign reserve situation and also be environmentally smart.

However, one oberver points to that decision as the most critical error Sri Lanka made.

But the biggest and main problem causing Sri Lanka’s fall was its ban on chemical fertilizers in April 2021. Many other developing nations had to deal with similar challenges, including covid and high foreign debt, but have not collapsed. The bottom line is this: over 90% of Sri Lanka’s farmers had used chemical fertilizers before they were banned. After they were banned, an astonishing 85% experienced crop losses.

The numbers are shocking. After the fertilizer ban, rice production fell 20% and prices skyrocketed 50 percent in just six months. Sri Lanka had to import $450 million worth of rice despite having been self-sufficient in the grain just months earlier. The price of carrots and tomatoes rose five-fold. Tea, the nation’s main export, Domestic rice production fell by 14 per cent from 2021 to 2022, thereby undermining the nation’s foreign currency and ability to purchase products from abroad.

While there are 2 million farmers in Sri Lanka, 70% of the nation’s 22 million people are directly or indirectly dependent on farming. “We are furious!” said one rice farmer in May. “Angry! Not just me - but all the farmers who cultivated here are angry.”

In November 2021, Sri Lanka tried to reverse course, but it was too late. Rajapaksa said, “we don’t have enough chemical fertilizers in the country because we didn’t import them. There is a shortage.” By the end of last August, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa had declared a state of emergency.

What, exactly, were Sri Lanka’s leaders thinking? Why did they engage in such a radical experiment?

With food in short supply, inflation rose even higher if you could get the food at all.

When you have little energy, little food, you have printed a lot of money and the music starts slowing down this is what you get.

Two weeks ago the Prime Minister admitted that Sri Lanka's economy had completely collapsed.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/06/23/sri-lanka-economy-collapse/

What good is that ESG score of 98 worth right now?

Is it any wonder that people took to the streets and are in the Presidential Palace pool doing the backstroke?

How many times might this scenario play out around the world in the coming months?

Look around and see what is already going on in countries like Panama, Albania not to mention the farming protest in the Netherlands right now.

Source: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/07/10/if-they-lose-you-will-eat-bugs-dutch-farmer-spokesperson-explains-how-eu-climate-change-goals-will-reduce-farm-production/

Sri Lanka should be a cautionary tale to everyone in the world right now.

More Hypocrisy On Display At UCLA and USC

There is no state in the union that is pushing a "green agenda" more than California.

California has already passed a ban on the sale of new combustion-engine vehicles in the state starting in 2035.

Source: https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/23/21452825/california-ban-combustion-gas-vehicles-cars-2035

Beginning in 2024, you will not be able to buy a gas-powered lawn mover or leaf blower in the state.

Source: https://www.route-fifty.com/public-safety/2021/11/california-become-first-state-outlaw-gas-powered-lawn-mowers-and-leaf-blowers/186568/

At the same time, there is no group of institutions who are promoting the climate change agenda more than the nation's colleges and universities.

This agenda is incorporated into almost everything students are taught.

Students are told they have no future unless fossil fuels are eliminated as an energy source.

Almost all universities across the nation have some type of "Sustainability Plan".

For example, here is a screenshot of UCLA's plan. Of course, UCLA is a state university.

Source: https://www.sustain.ucla.edu/plan/

It includes a "Sustainable Transportation Plan" in which the goal is to have a "fossil-fuel LA County"

This is a screenshot from the University of Southern California (USC) Office of Sustainability web page that links to the USC Sustainability Plan. USC is a private educational institution.

A key goal of the program is to increase student, faculty and staff participation in alternative transportation programs.

I was thinking about all of this talk about "Sustainability" when I saw last week that UCLA and USC were applying for membership in the Big Ten athletic conference.

Source: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/34173688/source-usc-ucla-considering-move-pac-12-big-ten

I was wondering how putting all of your athletes on fossil fuel powered aircraft for competitions as far away as New Jersey and Maryland (the closest Big Ten member currently is Nebraska) is consistent with a "Sustainability Plan".

College athletic conferences were initially formed taking account of geography considering regional rivals and the desire to limit travel costs and the time that student athletes spent out of the classroom.

That seems to no longer to be a concern even when it means that thousands of student athletes will have to travel long distances to their sporting events in fossil fuel guzzling jet aircraft.

For example, the carbon imprint of a cross-county flight on a wide body aircraft per traveler is 931pounds per passenger.

A 350 mile trip on regional flight (about the distance from LA to San Francisco or LA to Phoenix or Tucson to play current PAC 12 rivals results in only 222 pounds of carbon emissions per passenger.

It might be one thing if this concerned a couple of football games per year.

However, affiliating with the Big Ten will mean that all sports teams at UCLA and USC will travel thousands of miles to play others schools in the conference.

Here are the current athletic teams at UCLA according to its athletics web page.

If climate change and sustainability efforts are the most important challenge of our lifetimes, according to these colleges and the state of California, why are they making a decision that will increase carbon emissions that is fundamentally at odds with that narrative?

And for what would be considered an incidental purpose related to the educational purpose of the institution?

Why?

Of course, it is all about money.

The importance of the climate change agenda declines rapidly when money is involved or it simply conflicts with what the powers that be want to do in their own lives.

Look no further than the oceanfront mansions of Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi.

Or the private jets that show up at all of the climate change conferences.

If they really believed what they tell others why would they act this way?

UCLA and USC moving to the Big Ten is just another example of the hypocrisy on this issue.

Proud To Be An American?

One of my favorite songs of all time is "God Bless the USA" by Lee Greenwood.

The song is also sometimes referred to as "Proud to Be an American".

It's lyrics begin like this.

If tomorrow all the things were gone

I worked for all my life

And I had to start again

With just my children and my wife

I thank my lucky stars

To be living here today

'Cause the flag still stands for freedom

And they can't take that away

And I'm proud to be an American

Where at least I know I'm free

And I won't forget the men who died

Who gave that right to me

And I'd gladly stand up next to you

And defend Her still today

'Cause there ain't no doubt

I love this land

God Bless the U.S.A.

Greenwood collaborated with the United States Air Force Band, the Singing Sergeants and vocal group Home Free during the pandemic on a terrific version of the song that is worth watching on July 4th.

This is another version of the song that was done by Home Free with Mount Rushmore as the backdrop.

Of course, my personal favorite is still Lee Greenwood's original version which was released in 1984.

Unfortunately, it seems that fewer and fewer people these days are "proud to be an American".

A recent Gallup poll shows that a record low 38% now say that they are extremely proud to be American.

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/394202/record-low-extremely-proud-american.aspx

20 years ago that number was 70%.

Among Democrats that number is only 26%. That is up from 22% when Trump was President in 2019.

However, Republicans who say they are extremely proud to be an American has dropped from 76% in 2019 to only 58% today.

I wonder what the reason for that is?

Among those who are 18-34, only 25% say they are extremely proud and 23% say they are very proud to be an American. That is not even a majority.

Among those age 55+, 80% are extremely or very proud to be an American.

How do Democrats in Tucson, Arizona plan to celebrate July 4th?

Source: https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1543247413464416256

That tweet has bow been deleted....but really?

Democrats control the White House, House of Representatives and the United States Senate. There are two Democrats representing Arizona in the U.S. Senate. Democrats control four of the five seats on the Pima County Board of Supervisors.

Bring your anger?

I would say the system is working pretty well for them.

It is hard to understand anything I have cited above while at the same time millions of people are trying to cross our borders right now to be in the United States of America. A lot of them are trying to get to Tucson, Arizona which is just 70 miles north of the Mexican border.

Why do we see the scorn we do about the United States of America from Democrats in particular?

It seems apparent that a big reason the young have negative views about America is due to our liberal education system that spends more time maligning the United States and its Founders than extolling its virtues.

They love to push the narrative to their students that everything about the United States is illegitimate in that it was founded by a bunch of rich, white men who created a system based on slavery and were primarily concerned with protecting their own self interests.

Of course, this narrative fails to mention that our Founders were generally the elite in the American colonies. The British system had worked out well for their self interests. They were "the 1%" in that day and age.

By declaring independence from the British, they put all that they had at risk--their lives, their livelihoods, and their riches..

As Benjamin Franklin put it so aptly to the other Founders right after they put their names on the Declaration of Independence.

Why did they do it?

They valued freedom and independence for themselves and their fellow Americans more than their own self-interests.

How many would do the same today?

The United States founding is also maligned and students are taught that the country is evil because it was established on a foundation of slavery.

The narrative that many Leftists believe today is that the United States of America is inherently flawed and evil because slavery was not explicitly forbidden in its founding documents. The argument follows that all of the Founders, at a minimum, were complicit in supporting the institution of slavery and that everything that follows is forever tainted and illegitimate.

I find it amusing that the primary thing that progressives seem to have that supports their view that the country is inherently flawed is to cite things from 250 years ago. I guess none of the good that the country did over the next 250 years counts? Being the first country in the world to provide power to the people to govern themselves. Providing the highest standard of living to people in the history of the world. Confronting and defeating the axis of evil (Germany and Japan) in WWII. Rebuilding those countries and returning those countries to the citizens after they had been defeated. When has that ever been done in the history of mankind?

It should also be remembered that our Founders inherited the slave system from the British. It was not an invention by our Founders. In fact, a little known fact is that in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson included a provision that attacked slavery and the King's actions in "suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce."

This passage was deleted in the final Declaration that was approved but I think it pretty clearly shows that Jefferson was not aiding in "the construction of institutionalized racism and subjugation of racism" as has been alleged by Leftists.  He was actually attempting to deconstruct it.

Yes, some of the Founders owned slaves but most of those were inherited. Most of our Founders wanted to curtail and find a way out of slavery. That is one of the main reasons that slaves were only counted as 3/5 in census calculations for the number of reps each state got in Congress. It was done to limit the influence of the slave states so they could not expand the practice. It was to put pressure on those states to end the practice. Notice it did not apply to free black citizens. They were fully counted. It only applied to slaves. It was a penalty. 

Why did Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers accede to removing this language in the Declaration of Independence? Quite simply, if they were to be successful in breaking away from Great Britain, and gaining independence, all 13 colonies had to be totally united. If not, as Franklin said, they all might hang separately.

The larger goal of independence from Great Britain took precedence as it was not possible to move forward without all colonies being united on the issue of slavery. Several southern colonies simply would not sign on to the Declaration of Independence with that passage in it. The Founders wanted freedom from Great Britain. They were not going to achieve that goal by dividing the colonies at the outset.

Tough compromises are necessary on tough issues. Moving forward allows for a fight for another day. Retaining the status quo accomplished nothing for the cause of freedom in the 1770's---for anyone---colonists or slaves.

Jefferson was later instrumental in making sure there was a ban on slavery in the Northwest Ordinance in 1787 and it was Jefferson who as President initiated the legislation that banned the importation of any more slaves.

Were the Founders perfect? No.

Did they create a perfect United States of America? No.

However, they made it a whole lot better than it was. They also established a foundation of freedom that endures today. Should that not account for a fair and balanced view of the contributions of Jefferson, Washington and others who founded the United States at great risk and cost to themselves?

The framework they established also provided a model that has provided rights and freedom for billions of other people on this earth that was unheard of before these men made that Declaration of Independence in 1776. 

Our Founders were not inherently flawed. They devised a system of government that has survived longer than anything in existence in the world today. Think about it. UK, France, Germany,  China. Russia, Japan are all operating under a different governing system than they were 200 years ago. The USA has endured. These men were flawed? No, they were geniuses.

Today is the day to celebrate their contributions.

It is also a day to be proud to be an American

God Bless the USA!

Well, That Is Odd

My grandmother used to  say "Well, that is odd" when confronted with something she did not expect.

We don't tend to hear things referred to as "odd" any more.

I guess that is because it is not "woke" to make any judgment about what is supposed to be ordinary or usual and what is not. There is no "truth" other than what the individual believes for themselves. As a result, if there is no ordinary or usual there can be nothing that is odd.

Of course, that has not been the case with Covid.

Since the Covid pandemic began there has always been an accepted narrative of what was necessary to curb the pandemic.

We were told what those steps were and any opinions to the contrary were censored and silenced as misinformation. Any alternatives weren't allowed to be considered as "odd". They were treated as if they were an impossibility.

By now, you are fully familiar with what those narratives were and how they even evolved over time.

Lockdowns were the only way to curb the pandemic. In the first year of the pandemic we were told that Australia and New Zealand proved this and any failures elsewhere were due to the fact that they had not locked down hard enough.

Schools had to be closed.

Everyone had to wear a mask.

Vaccines were necessary and any suggested alternative treatments were dangerous.

The narrative at first was that boosters would never be necessary until the narrative changed and they became necessary for all.

As we look back over the last two years it is easier to put those narratives into perspective.

Did things turn out as EXPECTED based on what we were told?

You can be the judge of that for yourself.

However, here are a few facts that have me saying, "Well, that is odd".

Isn't it odd that Australia and New Zealand now have more cumulative confirmed cases of Covid per capita than the United States since the pandemic began?

Isn't it odd that the explosion of cases in Australia and New Zealand occurred despite the fact that over 80% of every man, woman and child in these countries was fully vaccinated.

Is it just an incredible coincidence that the enormous increase in cases in Australia and New Zealand began soon after booster doses were very first administered?

It also seems odd to me that the "safe and effective" vaccines don't seem to be so effective when you look at the data in the United States comparing where we are today versus last year.

In that we have had "highly effective" vaccines (and boosters) for over a year and a half you would have expected that cases would have practically disappeared.

Confirmed cases in the United States right now are actually over 9 times higher than they were at the same time last year. (7-day average of 114,000 now vs. 12,900 last year).

Source: The New York Times

Daily new hospital admissions are 53% higher now than they were at the same time last year.

For the most vulnerable age 70+ age group  91%+ fully vaccinated), daily hospital admissions from Covid are 128% higher than last year.

Source: The New York Times

Deaths are also 38% higher at the end of June, 2022 than they were at the same time in 2021.

Well, isn't that odd?

This oddity is not confined to Australia, New Zealand and the United States.

Germany is currently dealing with its second largest Covid surge since the pandemic began.

Oddly, both surges occurred after the vast majority of the country was fully vaccinated and boosted.

One of the oddest things I have seen recently is this graphic that shows Covid seven-day average infection rates in Germany right now.

The darker colors signify higher infection rates. The lighter colors lower infection rates.

Source: https://www.eugyppius.com/p/omicron-ba5-prefers-hypervaccinated?utm_source=email

 

What is interesting in the data is that lower infection rates seem to be prevalent in almost all areas that are part of the former East Germany (areas within the green outline in the map). Metro Berlin is in the middle of the old East Germany.

It is almost as if former Communists are not as susceptible to Covid.

However, the analyst who noticed this phenomenon also found that the population in the old East Germany were much more likely to not be vaccinated, in particular, with the booster doses.

Yes yes, there are systematic demographic differences between East and West Germans, but there is also an important difference in vaccine uptake. In this map of triple vaccination rates across my country, the old DDR borders are also evident:

Source: https://www.eugyppius.com/p/omicron-ba5-prefers-hypervaccinated?utm_source=email

This is the conclusion of that German analyst about the data.

East Germans have direct experience with government propaganda, and have proven more resistent to the vaccination campaign than Westerners. Their reward, after being much maligned by state media, is now higher levels of natural immunity and lower rates of BA.5 infection, which appears to infect vaccinated populations preferentially.

As the effects of vaccine failure grow clearer, you have to wonder how long the pandemicists will be able to publish even simple infection statistics, without raising extremely awkward questions.

Some might say that is a little odd.

Finally, we have the odd case of Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Based on everything Fauci has said and told us about social distancing, masking and the vaccines, don't you wonder how it is possible he could ever become infected with Covid?

He has talked about double and triple masking.

Fauci was fully vaccinated and had also taken two additional booster doses.

Two weeks ago Fauci stated that he had tested positive for Covid with mild symptoms and he was starting on the anti-viral Pfizer drug Paxlovid.

Just as odd is this list of various politicians who have tested positive for Covid since April 5, 2022.

What is also odd about the list is that almost every one on it is a Democrat.

What are the odds?

Source: https://twitter.com/ITGuy1959/status/1539689915226947584/photo/1

Is this because Democrats are more transparent or is there some other reason?

On Wednesday, Fauci stated that he initially improved but after finishing the Paxlovid course of treatment he tested positive again four days later and over the next few days started feeling much worse than he had in his first Covid go-around. This is what has been referred to as a "Paxlovid rebound".

Two initial vaccine doses. Two additional booster shots. A five-day course of Paxlovid and Fauci feels worse after his second Covid positive case than the first?

How is that not odd based on everything we have been told?

You would think that after all of this, the science might suggest to Fauci that something was amiss.

You would be wrong.

Fauci has stated that he is going to start another course of Paxlovid.

Talk about doubling down. At what point would Fauci admit that he might have been wrong about anything? 

Speaking of science, it should be noted that Paxlovid was never tested on vaccinated people before it was authorized. It has also never been tested or recommended that anyone should take a second course of the drug after a rebound case. In fact, the CDC and FDA specifically state there is no evidence that additional treatment with Paxlovid is warranted for a rebound case.

This is from the official CDC Health Advisory on "Covid-19 Rebound After Paxlovid Treatment". 

Source: https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2022/pdf/CDC_HAN_467.pdf

The doctor who has told us more than anyone that he is just following the science is not following the science?

My grandmother might say,

Well, that is odd.

Odd indeed and the oddities seem to be accumulating by the day.