Coronavirus Is A Political Weapon
August 1st, 2020 | DS
Politicians and intelligent citizens are being shamed for not wearing masks and for downplaying the severity of COVID-19. Some jurisdictions have made mask-wearing mandatory and punishable by law. Real science is being thrown aside for what is starting to look more and more like a political agenda. Every time we ask a question, or express doubt, we are attacked. Debates about masks or the virus are rarely met with civil debate. Instead, detractors are shouted down and met with demands to shut up and comply.
Theresa Tam and the World Health Organization sent mixed messages when they changed course on wearing masks. First, we were told they didn't work (which science has confirmed countless times), then we were told they do—but only if you are infected with the virus. The science has changed often, but politics has blurred the lines and made it harder to find the truth. Using “science” as a backdrop for political shaming isn't new, but it's not getting any older. Debates are still becoming less civilized and the accusers are growing more self-righteous.
It's not about our own safety, they tell us. It is about protecting everyone else. How dare you question any of it!
In reality, there are countless controlled scientific studies, new and old, that contradict everything our politicians and media have been telling us about the Coronavirus. In addition, the very actions of politicians and media contradict their own messaging. (We'll get into the studies and provide links to them as we go on.)
For instance, data in most wealthy nations show an average mortality age of 80 for COVID-19. Several factors influence the mortality rates, like class, overall health and access to drugs and medical treatments. More impoverished countries drift toward an average mortality age of 60. In Canada, the average age of mortality is 80. This data has been consistent since Canada first began experiencing an outbreak.
In Alberta and BC, the average age of mortality for COVID-19 is 82.
Worldwide, less than 1% of people with no underlying health conditions die from COVID-19. You can see those statistics here. Over the age of 75, that number only increases to about 10%. This means that 90% of all deaths over the age of 75 have been mostly due to underlying and pre-existing health conditions.
As the new cases increase, the death rate shrinks. Like all statistical samples, a bigger sample size produces more accurate results.
Growing evidence is showing that the Coronavirus might have only a slightly higher mortality rate than Influenza. The Flu has different strains and some can have a higher or lower death rate. According to John Hopkins Medicine, the Flu is unreported in many parts of the world, including the United States—meaning it could be more widespread and infectious than what is reported during any Flu season. Coronavirus may be similar. In both cases, mortality rates could be a lot lower for both viruses.
Two recent papers suggest COVID-19 may be more widespread and cases of asymptomatic carriers may be far higher than what has been reported, which would likely mean that mortality rates are much lower. If many cases go unreported, it skews the overall mortality rates. When testing increases, cases rise. When cases rise but mortality rates decrease, it usually gives a more accurate picture of what is really happening. (Mortality rates are determined by the number of total confirmed cases)
Currently in the United States, infection rates are rising due to increased testing—but mortality rates are declining. That adds credence to the theory that the virus may have a far lower mortality rate than originally presumed. It also proves that the mortality rate decreases significantly when younger demographics become infected.
We can't trust mainstream news to give us an accurate picture. When reporting deaths of younger people, the media tends to sensationalize the headlines and withhold important information.
We'll often see frightening headlines like, “Two Infants Now Believed To Have Died From COVID-19” and share them on social media. Not everyone will read the actual stories to the end, where they would find statements like this: “Health officials and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker said the exact cause of death is still unknown and an investigation is underway, but confirmed the infant tested positive for COVID-19.”
(article continues after ads)
Like a lot of stories about this virus, the Global News headline blatantly contradicts the actual guts of the story—which they expect you not to read.
Sadly, most follow-up stories never come—and if they do, they are mostly ignored by mainstream news, or are too boring to be shared on social media by people looking to spread more panic porn. Weeks after such sensationalized panic porn gets published, follow-up stories like “Chicago's Top Doctor Says Investigation Has Raised Questions About Whether Infant Died Of COVID-19” fall by the wayside. In the age of link clicks and ratings, facts don't really seem to matter. Cable news is more interested in keeping us scared and hungry for more horror.
The actual number of children and teens under the age of 19 who have died from COVID-19 is below 0.1% worldwide and 0.2% in China. You can see those stats here.
With so much new data on the Coronavirus and with so much progress being made on treating it successfully, we have to wonder why the fear-mongering is getting stronger than it was when the pandemic was first declared in March. Masks are now being made mandatory in several cities and emergency declarations are being extended. People still aren't allowed to have large outdoor gatherings (unless they are protesting for a politically convenient cause) and most massive public events have been cancelled, like the Calgary Stampede.
In a few short months, we have gone from “stop everything, or you could murder your grandmother and crash the healthcare system” to “sure, you can protest in massive crowds safely” and then back to “wait, stop everything, wear a mask, stay inside, or you'll murder your grandmother and crash the healthcare system”.
The whiplash is becoming more dangerous than the actual virus.
COVID's new role as a political weapon is becoming more dangerous than both the whiplash and the virus. A few weeks ago, Andrew Scheer made headlines for travelling without a mask, while Justin Trudeau was caught engaging in more political corruption. By now, we all know which headline the media preferred to use as a political fireball at the time.
It turns out, the Coronavirus has a particular taste for anyone who is not a Liberal or left-wing goon. At the height of the pandemic, Canada's Liberal health minister was travelling around the country while warning everyone to stay home. During the Easter holiday, Justin Trudeau had a family getaway in Quebec. Judging by the reaction of media and left-wing politicians to the BLM protests and the mass gatherings that happened in June and early July, the virus only poses a risk at conservative and right-wing events. Somehow, Donald Trump's outdoor event at Mount Rushmore posed a risk, but weeks of crowded streets and looting in major cities did not.
Rules For Thee, But Not For Me
Going to the park, throwing a birthday party and visiting dying loved ones at the hospital are still major risks—unless politicians find it inconvenient at any particular moment. Elderly grandparents are dying alone, unable to have visitors, while Barack Obama gives a politically charged speech at the crowded funeral of John Lewis. This virus has the ability to discriminate based on what kind of political agenda is currently being given a priority. Both left-wing politicians and media will refrain from shaming anyone who decides to break the rules, as long as they are on the same page and subscribed to the correct ideology.
These blatant acts of hypocrisy and hysteria tell us everything we need to know. This virus is not as lethal as they want us to believe. The virus is only a public health risk when people start to fall out of line—and when certain politicians and organizations find a need to attack their opponents. It is only when fear starts to subside and people begin to ease back into normalcy that the media reignites the hysteria about COVID-19. We're only reminded about social distancing, masks and the importance of staying indoors when a certain political agenda stands to benefit.
When the virus proves to be an obstacle for any particular political goal, it suddenly vanishes from headlines.
Creating a new social norm, like wearing a mask in public, has given all political sides a new weapon in an ongoing war on freedom. Not wearing one is now the new racist. Anyone who fails to comply is a monster and a pariah. Yet, the science on the effectiveness of masks has changed within just a few short months. After nearly two decades of hard science, we have now been given a set of new “facts” that better fit the overall goal of shifting the Overton Window.
Masks Test Your Compliance, Push Society's Boundaries
If Coronavirus isn't much more harmful than the Flu, we probably don't need to be forced, by law, to wear masks. We don't wear them during Flu outbreaks and we didn't wear them during H1N1. By all means, we can encourage it, but we should not be making it the law.
It is wrong to treat Coronavirus like it's harmless, but it's also wrong to make mass social modifications and to pass new laws to protect against a virus with a 99% survival rate. It is also not worth arguing too much about the effectiveness of masks, as they do block some small droplets of spit and mucus—particles which, according to science, drop to the ground quickly and would only be a risk in close proximity. We'll look at the previous, post-2020 science behind masks later, but in the game of numbers, we know that COVID-19 kills only 1% of people who contract it, making mandatory mask-wearing in public unnecessary.
"In the age of link clicks and ratings, facts don't really seem to matter."
The Flu kills an average of 500,000 people worldwide, but has several known vaccines specific to each strain. Without the vaccine, Influenza might have a higher death rate. There is not yet a cure for Coronavirus, or a vaccine. This leaves the question of whether masks will continue to be the status quo even after a vaccine is distributed. They never were the status quo during any other pandemic, before or after a vaccine was discovered.
We can disagree on whether masks actually work, but we can't really argue with the fact that COVID-19 has a relatively low mortality rate. When compared to other killers, like heart disease and cancer, we can approach it by encouraging changes in behaviour, without passing laws to make certain behaviours mandatory.
When arguing with those who claim that percentages don't matter, or that every life saved is worth it, simply ask them to apply that logic across the board. If they argue that a 1% mortality rate is still enough to warrant mandatory masks, ask them how far we should go on heart disease, diabetes and other ailments directly linked to diet and behaviour. Since the mortality rates for those diseases are higher than COVID-19, their logic would suggest that junk food should be illegal and exercise should be made mandatory by law. Their logic implies that any politician who refuses to pass laws that could save the lives of 1% of the population is immoral.
Media and politicians have exposed their own lack of concern for the mortality rate of this virus by ignoring it when it's politically convenient. The virus was used to shame Trump and his supporters for holding rallies, but largely swept to the side when it came to coverage of protests against police brutality and racism. When it came to tearing down statues, media failed to shame protesters for increasing the public health risks posed by COVID-19.
If you asked the hooded and masked Antifa criminals if masks should be mandatory, they would agree. Some jurisdictions were beginning to make wearing a mask during a protest illegal before the pandemic, so Antifa's political agenda seems to align perfectly with new laws that make masks mandatory.
Again, this has told us exactly what we need to know. Masks are a political tool.
Wearing a mask is unnecessary in public, unless we visit care homes and hospitals. If businesses choose to implement their own rules, they have a right to do so—and we have a right to take our business elsewhere. But, passing laws that make mask-wearing mandatory is a blatant and unnecessary infringement. Such laws and bylaws are nothing more than an attempt to shift the Overton Window and to test the population's compliance.
This is an experiment. If we comply, we will have shown that we are ready to give up even more in the name of fear and hysteria. As of now, we have already lost a great deal of the freedoms we had in 2019. Everything from going to the local pub and going shopping have been limited in the name of public health. Forcing us to wear masks is yet another push to see how far we are willing to let it go.
The “Old” Science On Masks
-In 2011, a paper published by the UK Department Of Health and various international bodies analyzed thousands of small global studies on the effectiveness of masks during Influenza and cold seasons. Researchers found more than 15 eligible studies that met the criteria and that had results reflective of adequate sample sizes and controlled environments. The paper concluded that, “None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”
The paper can be accessed here.
-In 2016, a similar analysis of six controlled studies on the effectiveness of surgical masks and N95 respirators “found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection or influenza-like illness”. Previous studies have concluded that simple surgical masks are ineffective in stopping airborne viruses.
The analysis found that neither mask was effective is preventing infection. The paper can be accessed here.
-In 2017, a systemic scientific review of the effectiveness of masks among healthcare workers found that “evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection (VRI) was not statistically significant”. That review can be accessed here.
-A meta-analysis as early as 2019 stated, “There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and surgical masks.”
That scientific paper can be accessed here.
In just a few short months, decades worth of science has been turned on its head. Who benefits? Perhaps in the same way that Coronavirus is able to discriminate based on our political ideology, it can defy all previous science on the effectiveness of surgical and cloth masks against viruses.
This virus must have been genetically engineered! There is no other explanation.
Avoid getting a fine, buy your own "controversial" masks here.
© 2020 Poletical