11. Climate change/global warming and COVID-19.
“
Data sources:
COVID Tracking Project Data Download: https://covidtracking.com/data/download
Our World in Data: https://github.com/owid/covid-19-data/tree/master/public/data
San Diego Open Data Portal: https://sdgis-sandag.opendata.arcgis.com/search?groupIds=2ee90ba1cdf84381935c591c2a125a45
Orange County, CA: https://data-ocpw.opendata.arcgis.com/search?tags=health
Data sources:
1. COVID Tracking Project Data Download: https://covidtracking.com/data/download
2. Our World in Data: https://github.com/owid/covid-19-data/tree/master/public/data
3. San Diego Open Data Portal: https://sdgis-sandag.opendata.arcgis.com/search?groupIds=2ee90ba1cdf84381935c591c2a125a45
4. Orange County, CA: https://data-ocpw.opendata.arcgis.com/search?tags=health“
All of that are from these two pages:
Rational Ground – Clear Reasoning on National Policy for COVID-19 » Mask charts
Rational Ground – Clear Reasoning on National Policy for COVID-19 » More mask charts
Death by Lockdown | Tom Woods:
“(1) In the UK, cancer authorities have been warning that the lockdowns will wind up leading to as many or more avoidable cancer deaths than COVID deaths there — as many as 60,000, according to one estimate.
The UK’s Sunday Express – not exactly some obscure dispatch – reports that increased cancer fatalities will result from the redeployment of health resources caused by COVID hysteria. The BBC says the same. In fact, says Richard Sullivan, a professor of cancer and global health at King’s College London and director of its Institute of Cancer Policy:
The number of deaths due to the disruption of cancer services is likely to outweigh the number of deaths from the coronavirus itself. The cessation and delay of cancer care will cause considerable avoidable suffering. Cancer screening services have stopped, which means we will miss our chance to catch many cancers when they are treatable and curable, such as cervical, bowel and breast. When we do restart normal service delivery after the lockdown is lifted, the backlog of cases will be a huge challenge to the healthcare system.
According to the Daily Mail on October 6:
Vital operations were cancelled and patients missed out on potentially life-saving therapy in the spring because tackling Covid-19 became the sole focus of the health service, instead of cancer and other cruel diseases.
Almost 2.5 million people missed out on cancer screening, referrals or treatment at the height of lockdown, even though the NHS was never overwhelmed — despite fears it would be crippled by the pandemic.
Experts now fear the number of people dying as a result of delays triggered by the treatment of coronavirus patients could even end up being responsible for as many deaths as the pandemic itself.
(2) A United Nations report in April warned that economic hardship generated by the radical interruptions of commerce could result in hundreds of thousands of additional child deaths in 2020. The report further warned that 42 million to 66 million children could fall into extreme poverty as a result of the crisis.
Even The Atlantic had to admit, “When you ask them to stay home, in many cases you’re asking them to starve.”
And in the UK, The Telegraph says, “The absurd demand that developing countries adopt economically disastrous lockdowns is driving untold misery.”
(3) The Well Being Trust in Oakland, California, released a study that seeks to determine how many “deaths of despair” (from drug or alcohol abuse or suicide) will occur as a result of the pandemic, including the lockdowns. Their estimate, according to CBS News: about 75,000.
(4) UNICEF warned of 1.2 million child deaths — “visits to health care centers are declining due to lockdowns, curfews and transport disruptions, and as communities remain fearful of infection.”
(5) Oxford University’s Sunetra Gupta has pointed to warnings by global authorities that as many as 130 million people are at risk of starvation thanks to the possibility of famine in several dozen places around the world, brought on by lockdown-induced disruptions of supply chains.
(6) Suicidal ideation is massively on the rise in the United States.
The federal government’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reports on percentages of people who have considered suicide within the previous 12 months, organized by age.
People between the ages of 18 and 25 fluctuate between 6.8 percent and 11 percent.
Now, from the Centers for Disease Control, we find that percentage (for the 18-24 group) has leaped to 25.5 percent — and this survey asks not about the previous 12 months, like the earlier one, but whether they’ve considered suicide just in the past 30 days.
(7) The CDC estimates 93,814 non-COVID “excess deaths” this year, including 42,427 from cardiovascular conditions, 10,686 from diabetes, and 3646 from cancer, and many of these were caused by the cancellation of “nonessential” care in the midst of the COVID panic.
Meanwhile, almost no American hospitals were actually “overwhelmed” during 2020, despite what your Facebook friends told you. In April alone, 1.4 million health care workers were furloughed because the hospitals were empty. In May NPR reported on those field hospitals that were assembled to take care of the surge of people who were supposed to appear: “U.S. Field Hospitals Stand Down, Most Without Treating Any COVID-19 Patients.”
(8) According to The Lancet, “During lockdown people with dementia or severe mental illness had a higher risk of excess death.” Dementia patients had a 53% greater chance of death because of lockdowns and elderly patients with severe mental illness had a 123% greater chance of death.
(9) As a direct result of the lockdowns, the New York Times reports that there will be 1.4 million excess tuberculosis deaths, half a million excess HIV deaths, and 385,000 malaria deaths.
See why “public health” shouldn’t be confused with “the monomaniacal fixation on one virus”?
Meanwhile, if you look at the charts for country after country and state after state, you will not be able to tell which ones locked down, how hard they locked down, when they lifted their lockdown, whether they had a mask mandate, when they imposed such a mandate, and when and if they lifted that mandate. The charts show zero correlation. Zero.
For example: for masks, click here. “If we only wore masks at the beginning this wouldn’t have happened” is hereby refuted.
Non-pharmaceutical interventions — voodoo, we might well call it now — appear to have accomplished nothing, apart from creating all this avoidable misery around the world.
This is why, instead, you should listen to these professors from Oxford, Harvard, and Stanford.“
Free e-books:
Your Facebook Friends Are Wrong About The Lockdown - Tom Woods
COVID Charts CNN Forgot - Tom Woods
If you are super-interested in how corporations are helped by lockdowns, listen to these 2 videos:
Economic rape under the cover of pandemic crisis
Playlists I suggest seeing:
Wuhan Bat Lab Flu 19 - VID.ANC REPORT
Truth about COVID-19 exposed - YouTube
For more information, see
The ultimate COVID-19 resource page: everything you need to know about COVID-19
"Doomsday cultists love to show you this graph;
It's the same one that Al Gore used in his movie with the clips plagiarized from other fictional movies. It shows the years from 1850 to about 2000, and nothing from before 1950, and nothing from the past 10 years because its been getting cooler. Now here's some graphs that you don't see;
When you look at all the data, which is about 100 times more than the slice that Gore used. You see that this is a normal cycle, and it's been going on since before humans were even on the planet."
"The proposed government solutions don't even lower greenhouse emissions. All they do is create an expensive middle man. The normal process as it stands now, goes like this; raw resources are processed by factories and businesses into consumer products, which consumers buy, so their money goes to the factory, and some pollution will be made in this process. The government solution is the exact same thing, only they allow more pollution so long as these factories and businesses buy carbon credits from the IPCC, which is just a clique of elitist control freaks that say 'you have to buy carbon credits from us' so that you have an allotment of how much you can pollute, how much you can produce, which means it's going to cost more for factories and businesses to make finished products, which means that it's going to cost more for consumers to buy these products.
It's just like a sales tax. What happens when the sales tax goes up? Let's say it goes from 6% to 8%. Does the factory actually pay anything more? Not really. You do. [The price of] Every item in the store goes up 2%. It's whatever the price was plus the tax. If the tax goes up, then the tax is higher, and all that happens is that you have to pay more when you go shopping. It's not really a punishment on the factory. It's mostly a punishment on you, the public. That's who's really going to have to pay for the carbon credits. These people (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) will make trillions because there are so many products and transactions, and if they (the public) have to buy carbon credits, because government forces it, then they have a nice middle man that can profit from pollution. That doesn't mean that they're going to make less pollution if they're making profits from it, you have carte blance to make as much as you want, double the pollution we have now by 2030, no problem.
There is an extra layer of evil here, though. Smaller businesses, and agribusinesses especially, you've all heard the cow farts motif, they have to decide whether they want to sell their allotments to a 3rd party, or purcahse credits themselves but they're only allowed to produce x amount. Well, these bigger businesses are happy to buy from the smaller ones, rather than from the IPCC, which they're allowed to do. But that would give them a tighter monopoly around distribution, because (when it comes to) these smaller factories and businesses, why should they produce and work when they can just sell their allotment and make money from that? And so ranches and all your agribusinesses are going to get more and more monopolized, which takes out competition, which means the prices are gonna go up, (and) in addition to that, they're going up because of this carbon credit system, so they're going to make more money, and you are either going to have to buy less stuff, have less stuff or pay more, and you usally going to have to pay for things that you can't say no to like gasoline. Not many people just drive around for fun. They drive to work and back, they drive to school and back. They're not just driving for the sake of driving. Most people don't even like to drive. They do it because it's a necessity.
It will not curb pollution. It has nothing to do with the environment. This is about creating a middle man so that they can enrich themselves off of the process of people buying things. They're using Chicken Little tactics to scare you into saying that the end is near, and they have government funded pressure groups to get the Paris Accords signed by different nations. Pollution is not reduced. Pollution and consumption are simply made more expensive by creating a do-nothing middle man under the theme of environmentalism."
- Climate alarmist debunked in minutes
Climate Change "science" has POLITICAL bias
"Climate change!!! Don't be Anti Science!! There is a consensus! But science!... It's false dichotomy to assert that skepticism in a scientific claim is anti-science. No one is questioning the validity of the scientific method, they're questioning the corrosive influence of politics in science. Climate change has political bias. Denying that there is a political push behind this is to deny reality.
Controlling gas emissions means control over energy and agriculture. It's the new way to oppress the third world. Politics effects what we are told science says. They used to say smoking cigarettes was healthy too and they knew it wasn't. Admitting it led to cancer took pulling teeth. But the tobacco lobby got the results it wanted for decades. Lobbying had marijuana painted as "reefer madness" and it was not. That doesn't mean it is healthy but it was certainly not what it was exaggerated to be. It wont make you blind, jump out a window, or play the piano too fast. Over and over again agriculture lobbies have created the latest dietary fads about foods and which are health and what is so bad for you. Dietary fads change like the direction of the wind.
It's about money not science especially when you are relying on correlation studies and statistics. Statistics can be stretched and fudged (faked). They are not at all a hard science like chemistry or physics. We can't even predict daily weather much less a hundred year scale. The warming and cooling cycle has existed longer than people have been on the planet. Cherry picking a graph that starts at the industrial revolution and ignoring everything before it, is not science. It's government. It's as honest as saying Iran is enriching uranium for a bomb. They are not and we know they are not. You need over 90% for a bomb and they were in the 3% range. Again science has been brow beaten by government.
Universities need government funding. It's easy to get people to fall in line when you equate skeptics to global warming as anti-science. It's like saying opposing the war is makes you against the troops. No one wants that stigma so they stay quiet. A lot of smart people fear voicing support for Donald Trump because the media branded him a sexist racist xenophobe. And no leftist especially, wants that stigma. The odd thing is the very opposite is true. It's the extremist leftist identity politics obsessed left who is prejudice and witch hunting. They ignore science when it comes to things like there being only two genders. Again that ordeal is political not scientific. Based on Biology one can not simply deny physical reality through the magic of self identification. Well at least not unless enough people scream at you and call you prejudice unless you comply.
I'm telling you science is not pure. It is polluted by politics. Climate change is a gambit to control the third world. Now just because politics influences science that doesn't mean we should doubt every issue. But it does mean that we should be allowed to within reason. In History, consensus has been broken many times in science. Even saying the earth is flat was something that had been debunked for ages, but the belief was promoted for as long as it was for political reasons. The Church had said the earth was flat and religion and government were one in the same. A round earth undermined the Bible and the validity of the religion. And so naysayers had their books burned or were put in prison or were even killed. Eventually commerce won the day and so the belief in the round Earth for trade sake was finally allowed to disseminate.
If you want to talk about climate change with a skeptic of political purity not of science, then do it. But don't be smug and dismissive. You may know about science. but if you dont know about Politics and History too then you dont really understand at all why people are doubting the new chicken little, Noah's Ark story."
More content:
Mike Rivero and Ryan Dawson on Climate Change (39:41 long)
Why Would People Lie About Climate Change? - Questions For Corbett
altCensored playlist Climate change
CLIMATEGATE: A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY/THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE