anyone currently shocked by the fact that the politicians in power recant and reverse the views they held when they were in opposition (and vice versa) has simply not paid any attention to history.

that's 100% to be expected.

where you stand depends up where you sit.

always.

this latest biden refusal to commit to a view on packing SCOTUS until after the election is just this same phenomenon.

if he wins, he's for packing it. if he loses, he'll be against it.

this is because almost none of these people stand on any principles.

they just seek power.
this is why it's so hard to trust any of them.

and why shouldn't they act this way?

it's what we reward. we all accept their lies even when we KNOW they are lies. we elect them anyway.

we accept that all we ever get is the lesser of evils.

will biden pay any price? nope.
it's behavioralism 101

the fault lies not w/ these narcissistic liars & sociopaths, it lies with us

we're the ones electing them & putting up with monstrous & dishonest behavior because "it's not as bad as what the other guy would do."

those are the railroad tracks to tyranny.
it demands a question:

if the outcome of an election is so impactful that it can make or ruin your life or save or lose the republic (as many claim it is) is that not proof positive that the government is FAR too powerful?

do you really want to gamble for such stakes?
you know the game is rigged by two increasing nasty and power hungry parties neither of whom respects your rights.

most agree it's always a choice between the lesser of evils.

yet we keep giving the government more power and rewarding liars and tyrants.
this is like protecting your home from fire by surrounding it with dry hay bales and filling the basement w/ gasoline soaked rags

the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results

so how else are we to diagnose this?

#DemandBetter

More from el gato malo

global health policy in 2020 has centered around NPI's (non-pharmaceutical interventions) like distancing, masks, school closures

these have been sold as a way to stop infection as though this were science.

this was never true and that fact was known and knowable.

let's look.


above is the plot of social restriction and NPI vs total death per million. there is 0 R2. this means that the variables play no role in explaining one another.

we can see this same relationship between NPI and all cause deaths.

this is devastating to the case for NPI.


clearly, correlation is not proof of causality, but a total lack of correlation IS proof that there was no material causality.

barring massive and implausible coincidence, it's essentially impossible to cause something and not correlate to it, especially 51 times.

this would seem to pose some very serious questions for those claiming that lockdowns work, those basing policy upon them, and those claiming this is the side of science.

there is no science here nor any data. this is the febrile imaginings of discredited modelers.

this has been clear and obvious from all over the world since the beginning and had been proven so clearly by may that it's hard to imagine anyone who is actually conversant with the data still believing in these responses.

everyone got the same R
did you consider checking the facts before buying into such hysterical claims?

this is LA department of health services hospital census. it's essentially identical to the levels from last year.

the media have had a severe tendency to overstate these issues. https://t.co/ktTPIbKcdQ


as you can see, visits to emergency departments have been quite stable for 4 months.


and ICU bed availability has been flat for the whole month of december.

keep in mind that 90-100% ICU capacity is normal this time of year and that all ICU's must be able to flex to 120% (by federal law) and most can hit 150%.


and if you will not take my word for it, just ask the CEO's of the hospitals in texas everyone was so breathless about this summer.

they were not worried. and they were


hospital census in LA seems to be about 3000 patients below where it was in july.

this seems to imply a drop in staffed beds which, contrary to the narrative is not from "exhaustion" but rather from people being laid off or staying home because kids are not in school.
this simple, counter narrative fact keeps cropping up all over the world.

hospital and ICU utilization has been and remains low this year.

it's terribly curious that so few of these monitoring tools provide historical baselines.

getting them is like pulling teeth.


we might think of this as an oversight until you see stuff like this:

this woman was arrested for filming and sharing the fact that their are empty hospitals in the UK.

that's full blown soviet. what possible honest purpose does that

this is the action of a police state and a propaganda ministry, not a well intentioned government and a public heath agency.

"we cannot let people see the truth for fear they might base their actions on real facts" is not much of a mantra for just governance.


90% full ICU sounds scary until you realize that 90-100% full is normal in flu season.

staffed ICU beds are expensive to leave empty. it's like flying with 15% of the plane empty. hospitals don't do that.

and all US hospitals are mandated to be able to flex to 120% ICU.

the US is currently at historically low ICU utilization for this time of year.

61% is "you're all going to go out of business" territory as is 66% full hospital use.

can you blame them for mining CARES act money? they'll die without it.
google censorship of great barrington declaration: update.

this morning, there was no link to it in a direct google search.

now, there is.

could this be because certain internet felines noticed this and @chiproytx and @tedcruz helped call them out on this?

we may never know.


but i'd like to think so.

the google page is still a mess. it's still mostly fringe publication hit pieces and conspiracy theories.

when "mother jones" is your top media result for a science search, well, that says it all, doesn't it?

yikes.

i mean, why would we trust THESE people instead of a reporter at one of the most partisan rags on earth? oh, wait..

they are not being censored for being wrong. they're being censored for being right and being credible

they're censored because the other side cannot rebut them


and that is simply not a thing we can or should tolerate, especially not in a search engine.

so remember this. look for it in the future. demand primary sources.

use other search engines.

bing seems to be seeking to inform, not to inflame and mislead.


if you missed it, the original thread was here:

(and yes, lots of people duplicated my finding this morning)

i'd be curious to see what they are all seeing

More from Politics

You May Also Like

Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇

It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details):
https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha

I've read it so you needn't!

Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.

The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.

Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.