Couple of good articles by Carlson whose been all over this from the start when the rest of the media was poo pooing (even Comrade Fauci) the virus
Wuhan, in central China, was the first place in the world to suffer an outbreak of the novel coronavirus. It’s worth saying that out loud from time to time, both because it’s true and materially significant, and because a lot of people would like you to forget it.
Because Wuhan is the site of the longest-running coronavirus outbreak, we ought to study what happened there carefully. It’s worth knowing as much as we can about how and why the disease started, and how it moved so quickly to the rest of the world.
Even now, we know surprisingly little about that for certain, though day by day we are learning more. For example, how easily does the Chinese coronavirus spread through populations?
Early data from Wuhan led researchers to conclude that each infected person, on average, infected about 2.5 additional people. In epidemiological terms, that’s a lot; it means the outbreak could double every six days. That’s the assumption we’ve been working under ever since.
Now it looks like that assumption has been a profound understatement. A new draft paper by a team of scholars at Los Alamos National Laboratory concludes that the Wuhan coronavirus is actually highly infectious.
Based on extensive case analysis, the researchers estimate that the average infected Wuhan resident infected 5.7 other people. That’s enough to double the epidemic in fewer than three days.
Is the estimate accurate? We don’t know if it is. An awful lot of conclusions about this virus have turned out to be embarrassingly wrong. It has happened again and again, with enormous consequences.
But for a moment, imagine this new number from Los Alamos is correct, and the size of the outbreak in Wuhan was doubling every three days. That would mean a huge number of people there were infected with the coronavirus.
Here’s the mystery: The Chinese government allowed 5 million residents to flee the city before they locked it down in January. Most of them presumably went to other places in China. And yet, according to the Chinese – as well as all available evidence we now have in the West – there were no other major outbreaks in China. Not in Shanghai, not in Chengdu, not in Beijing.
Meanwhile, other cities all over Europe and the United States have been brought to their knees by the virus. How could this be? It doesn’t seem to make any sense at all.
For some reason, almost no one in the American media has even asked about it. That’s strange. At this point, we have no real explanation for why the coronavirus spread throughout the West, but not throughout China. We should find out.
And that’s far from the only thing we don’t understand about this pandemic. How about the most basic question of all: How deadly is it? We still don’t know.
In Italy, more than 10 percent of people with confirmed cases have died. In Germany, just 2 percent of confirmed cases resulted in death. It seems clear that both these numbers overstate the reality of the death rate, given that most people aren’t tested until they’re already sick.
More comprehensive testing in one town in Germany suggested a death rate of just 0.37 percent. Would that number hold in every place? Or could it be that the town was infected with a milder form of the virus?
Or is it possible that some groups of people are more vulnerable to the illness than others? We know that genetics plays a major role in the way many diseases progress. Is that true here? We don’t know.
While we’re at it, here a few other questions we should answer: Is this virus seasonal? Will it recede in the summer, before returning in the fall and winter? If infected people get immunity, how long does that immunity last? Will the virus mutate, so that people who get it this year could get it again next year? And, critically, what are the long-term effects of being infected?
There’s mounting evidence that an awful lot of people may have the virus and not know it. Do they face long-term health consequences from that? If so, what are they? We can only guess.
Those are just some of the things we still don’t know about this strange new virus from Wuhan, China. It would have been nice if authorities had learned a lot more before they took such dramatic steps in response to it.
Our leaders had two examples to choose from as this pandemic bore down on America: The Swedish model of targeted restrictions coupled with voluntary distancing; and the Chinese model of total lockdowns, internal travel restrictions, and punishment for those who step out of line.
Our leaders chose the Chinese model. With every passing day, their response becomes more restrictive: Requests that people stay indoors have become orders. People are being fined and arrested for driving alone, playing catch in the park and paddle boarding on the ocean.
How are these measures keeping us safe? The short answer is, we don’t know that they are. As noted, we still don’t know much of anything. We’re definitely not encouraged to ask about it.
Dr. Tony Fauci, who has become the face of coronavirus response, is now suggesting that America could adopt a feature of life familiar to the population of mainland China: Internal passports.
Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was asked if he could imagine a time when Americans who have already been infected by the coronavirus and recovered carry certificates of immunity.
Fauci replied: “That’s possible. It’s one of those things that we talk about when we want to make sure we know who the vulnerable people are. This is something that’s being discussed, I think it might actually have some merit under certain circumstances.”
Your papers, please. Imagine a country where illegal immigrants can work, drive, get welfare, and vote, all without a single authentic document. Meanwhile, 300 million legal citizens must produce government papers to prove their right to go outside. That’s where we’re headed and with remarkable speed.
For what has to the first time in our history, Easter services have been banned in many places. Authorities will allow citizens to go to the supermarket, but not to practice Christianity in public. The Chinese population would recognize that too.
In Michigan, Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has ordered the few stores still open to fence off areas that offer furniture, paint or home improvement goods. Whitmer considers these “non-essential” items, so she’s prohibiting their sale.
The governor of Vermont has issued similar orders for stores there. Other places will doubtless follow their lead. What’s the rationale for this? Wouldn’t closing off more sections of a store increase crowding in the areas that remain open?
Where’s the science that suggests this works? There isn’t any. They feel like doing it, so they are. Politicians understand the only risk for them is in restraint. Authoritarian overreach is almost never punished.
When the coronavirus has finally passed, our leaders want to be able to say they took it seriously. But there’s nothing serious about reactions like this. They’re mindless and destructive. Instead of arresting people for going to church, maybe they could pause and answer a few basic questions first.
The host also voiced his dissatisfaction with the restrictions on celebrating Easter.
"For what has to be the first time in the history of this country, Easter services have been banned in many places, "Carlson said. "Authorities will allow citizens to go to the supermarket, but not to practice Christianity in public. The Chinese population would recognize that, too."
Carlson blasted some state leaders for punishing citizens who who don't adhere to the restrictions, including bans on shopping in certain sections of supermarkets.
"These are mindless and destructive measures," he concluded. "Instead of arresting people for going to church, maybe they could pause for a minute, dove into the science and answer a few of the most basic questions first.
Wuhan, in central China, was the first place in the world to suffer an outbreak of the novel coronavirus. It’s worth saying that out loud from time to time, both because it’s true and materially significant, and because a lot of people would like you to forget it.
Because Wuhan is the site of the longest-running coronavirus outbreak, we ought to study what happened there carefully. It’s worth knowing as much as we can about how and why the disease started, and how it moved so quickly to the rest of the world.
Even now, we know surprisingly little about that for certain, though day by day we are learning more. For example, how easily does the Chinese coronavirus spread through populations?
Early data from Wuhan led researchers to conclude that each infected person, on average, infected about 2.5 additional people. In epidemiological terms, that’s a lot; it means the outbreak could double every six days. That’s the assumption we’ve been working under ever since.
Now it looks like that assumption has been a profound understatement. A new draft paper by a team of scholars at Los Alamos National Laboratory concludes that the Wuhan coronavirus is actually highly infectious.
Based on extensive case analysis, the researchers estimate that the average infected Wuhan resident infected 5.7 other people. That’s enough to double the epidemic in fewer than three days.
Is the estimate accurate? We don’t know if it is. An awful lot of conclusions about this virus have turned out to be embarrassingly wrong. It has happened again and again, with enormous consequences.
But for a moment, imagine this new number from Los Alamos is correct, and the size of the outbreak in Wuhan was doubling every three days. That would mean a huge number of people there were infected with the coronavirus.
Here’s the mystery: The Chinese government allowed 5 million residents to flee the city before they locked it down in January. Most of them presumably went to other places in China. And yet, according to the Chinese – as well as all available evidence we now have in the West – there were no other major outbreaks in China. Not in Shanghai, not in Chengdu, not in Beijing.
Meanwhile, other cities all over Europe and the United States have been brought to their knees by the virus. How could this be? It doesn’t seem to make any sense at all.
For some reason, almost no one in the American media has even asked about it. That’s strange. At this point, we have no real explanation for why the coronavirus spread throughout the West, but not throughout China. We should find out.
And that’s far from the only thing we don’t understand about this pandemic. How about the most basic question of all: How deadly is it? We still don’t know.
In Italy, more than 10 percent of people with confirmed cases have died. In Germany, just 2 percent of confirmed cases resulted in death. It seems clear that both these numbers overstate the reality of the death rate, given that most people aren’t tested until they’re already sick.
More comprehensive testing in one town in Germany suggested a death rate of just 0.37 percent. Would that number hold in every place? Or could it be that the town was infected with a milder form of the virus?
Or is it possible that some groups of people are more vulnerable to the illness than others? We know that genetics plays a major role in the way many diseases progress. Is that true here? We don’t know.
While we’re at it, here a few other questions we should answer: Is this virus seasonal? Will it recede in the summer, before returning in the fall and winter? If infected people get immunity, how long does that immunity last? Will the virus mutate, so that people who get it this year could get it again next year? And, critically, what are the long-term effects of being infected?
There’s mounting evidence that an awful lot of people may have the virus and not know it. Do they face long-term health consequences from that? If so, what are they? We can only guess.
Those are just some of the things we still don’t know about this strange new virus from Wuhan, China. It would have been nice if authorities had learned a lot more before they took such dramatic steps in response to it.
Our leaders had two examples to choose from as this pandemic bore down on America: The Swedish model of targeted restrictions coupled with voluntary distancing; and the Chinese model of total lockdowns, internal travel restrictions, and punishment for those who step out of line.
Our leaders chose the Chinese model. With every passing day, their response becomes more restrictive: Requests that people stay indoors have become orders. People are being fined and arrested for driving alone, playing catch in the park and paddle boarding on the ocean.
How are these measures keeping us safe? The short answer is, we don’t know that they are. As noted, we still don’t know much of anything. We’re definitely not encouraged to ask about it.
Dr. Tony Fauci, who has become the face of coronavirus response, is now suggesting that America could adopt a feature of life familiar to the population of mainland China: Internal passports.
Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was asked if he could imagine a time when Americans who have already been infected by the coronavirus and recovered carry certificates of immunity.
Fauci replied: “That’s possible. It’s one of those things that we talk about when we want to make sure we know who the vulnerable people are. This is something that’s being discussed, I think it might actually have some merit under certain circumstances.”
Your papers, please. Imagine a country where illegal immigrants can work, drive, get welfare, and vote, all without a single authentic document. Meanwhile, 300 million legal citizens must produce government papers to prove their right to go outside. That’s where we’re headed and with remarkable speed.
For what has to the first time in our history, Easter services have been banned in many places. Authorities will allow citizens to go to the supermarket, but not to practice Christianity in public. The Chinese population would recognize that too.
In Michigan, Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has ordered the few stores still open to fence off areas that offer furniture, paint or home improvement goods. Whitmer considers these “non-essential” items, so she’s prohibiting their sale.
The governor of Vermont has issued similar orders for stores there. Other places will doubtless follow their lead. What’s the rationale for this? Wouldn’t closing off more sections of a store increase crowding in the areas that remain open?
Where’s the science that suggests this works? There isn’t any. They feel like doing it, so they are. Politicians understand the only risk for them is in restraint. Authoritarian overreach is almost never punished.
When the coronavirus has finally passed, our leaders want to be able to say they took it seriously. But there’s nothing serious about reactions like this. They’re mindless and destructive. Instead of arresting people for going to church, maybe they could pause and answer a few basic questions first.
The host also voiced his dissatisfaction with the restrictions on celebrating Easter.
"For what has to be the first time in the history of this country, Easter services have been banned in many places, "Carlson said. "Authorities will allow citizens to go to the supermarket, but not to practice Christianity in public. The Chinese population would recognize that, too."
Carlson blasted some state leaders for punishing citizens who who don't adhere to the restrictions, including bans on shopping in certain sections of supermarkets.
"These are mindless and destructive measures," he concluded. "Instead of arresting people for going to church, maybe they could pause for a minute, dove into the science and answer a few of the most basic questions first.
