• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, five years young! For a low subscription fee, you will be able to download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! FLASH! For a limited time, you can save up to 40% on your subscription. Long-term susbcribers will receive a free coupon code for the James Fox UFO documentary "The Phenomenon," which includes 3 hours of extras, while supplies last. It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

COVID-19 News

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
A great argument for getting the vaccination going and making sure that other vaccine programs are renewed ASAP.
Also a great argument against the lockdowns as a strategy in the first place, along with a stack of other reasons. But here's more on the vaccine issue from the WHO:

WHO and UNICEF warn of a decline in vaccinations during COVID-19


There's a clear double standard going on with the pro-vaxxers when it comes to the COVID-19 vaccinations and pandemic management.
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
7 month-old story, by the way.
That doesn't change the facts about it, and I don't see any articles saying that the disruptions have been eliminated. Here's a story published Feb 1, 2021

The vaccine program in India​

"According to WHO, approximately 80 million children under the age of one are potentially at risk for developing a vaccine-preventable illness. This is because they are living in countries where routine immunization services have been disrupted by the pandemic."


More correctly it should say: "routine immunization services have been disrupted by the pandemic management that includes lockdowns and other measures that interfere with vaccination programs."

The "pandemic" isn't the cause. It's the management of the pandemic.
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member


YouTube removes Ohio committee video, citing misinformation​



The problem here is that so far as I can tell, nobody had said that people under the age of 19 can't transmit the SARS-C0V-2 virus, which was the reason cited for taking down the video, under a YouTube policy created specifically for COVID-19 misinformation, and we don't get to see the video that was posted, because it was removed.

Apparently a claim was also made that nobody under 19 had died in the state, and that the claim had been "debunked by "state data". But we have not seen that "data". Actual "deaths with" as opposed to "deaths from" have been misreported throughout the pandemic. In addition, the criteria by which "deaths with" as opposed to "deaths from" are counted doesn't appear consistent across borders.

This has all been exposed in previous posts on this thread. Here in Calgary we got a report that 6 people had died from COVID-19 in one day, and the next day it was reduced to 1 because of these issues. So how much fact checking does Google do to verify the "state data"? How much of the "state data" is misinformation? We don't know for sure because instead of spending time figuring that out, they're banning public testimony!

Let's not get into what a platform should have the right to censor and not censor. That's beside the point. Simply because someone has the "right" to do something doesn't mean they're not being unfair or biased. Assuming this was a public hearing made by elected representatives, the public should be allowed to hear what their representatives are saying, and make up their own minds about it.
 

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
Long and short is that the claim that people under 19 do not get COVID-19 or get seriously sick is false. Period. Consult the stats on all this stuff from the U.S. CDC.

As to the right to censor, YouTube is not a public agency, but a private service, and thus can set its own regulations as to managing content. That applies to us too.
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
Long and short is that the claim that people under 19 do not get COVID-19 or get seriously sick is false. Period. Consult the stats on all this stuff from the U.S. CDC.

As to the right to censor, YouTube is not a public agency, but a private service, and thus can set its own regulations as to managing content. That applies to us too.
That's not the same reason as cited by YouTube, so it doesn't apply to this situation. YouTube cited "transmission" not vulnerability. And again whether or not YouTube has the right is beside the point. The point is fair-mindedness and like I was saying, I don't see them investigating the "State's claims" to see if they're in error, and errors have been made in many states ( as shown in other posts ).
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
And:

The problem with citing "risk" is that "risk" is something we all deal with on a daily basis, and there are many "risks" more deadly than the risk that COVID-19 is to 19 year olds, that affect a wider demographic ( like cigarette smoking ). So young people being "at risk" is a complete red herring when it comes to COVID-19 management policies that bureaucrats arbitrarily apply to everyone. The targeted approach makes much more sense.

Let's also not confuse "cases" with "deaths from". Every day there are new "cases", a number of which are ruled out later ( see the PCR testing post ), and even when a case is determined to be a genuine positive, it's rare for young people to require hospitalization unless they have some preexisting condition that raises their risk factor significantly.
 
Last edited:

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
Sure, if you isolate young people from older people. Remember that they can still infect others more vulnerable even if they have little or no symptoms.
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
Sure, if you isolate young people from older people. Remember that they can still infect others more vulnerable even if they have little or no symptoms.
And that is why places where there are high concentrations of high-risk people, such as clinics, hospitals, retirement homes, and long-term care facilities typically already had enhanced infection control equipment and protocols prior to the pandemic. The problem was that they were often lax about maintaining and practicing them. Why because of that should the lives and livelihoods of millions of perfectly healthy people be destroyed?
 

Constance

Paranormal Adept
We all have to learn to live with ambiguity (which we should all have learned to do in the planetary world we live in today), and particularly so given the plain fact that scientists attempting to develop vaccines and recommend other safety measures against the pandemic are working to a considerable degree in the dark. I mean dealing with unpredictables. The following article provides a good amount of useful insight:

Scientists, including Fauci, are facing off over whether to delay 2nd vaccine doses. Here's why the risk of more mutations from delaying shots may ultimately be worth it.
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
Obviously a lot of people were infected who do not fit into those categories.
Obviously yes, however case numbers aren't the problem. Hospitalizations are, and after a year, how many new hospitals have been built to deal with this? They built one in China in 10 days. So where's the real problem? It's with governments bound, bent, and determined not to improve the healthcare system, no matter how much it costs.
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
We all have to learn to live with ambiguity (which we should all have learned to do in the planetary world we live in today) ...
And unless it's some sort of artform, how we live with ambiguity should be to to diminish it as much as possible rather than simply accept that we can't do better.
... and particularly so given the plain fact that scientists attempting to develop vaccines and recommend other safety measures against the pandemic are working to a considerable degree in the dark. I mean dealing with unpredictables. The following article provides a good amount of useful insight:

Scientists, including Fauci, are facing off over whether to delay 2nd vaccine doses. Here's why the risk of more mutations from delaying shots may ultimately be worth it.
The article says that about 2.4 million deaths have been from COVID 19 have been reported. Those number are dubious, but let's just assume for the sake of argument that they're true. That means that according to 2017 statistics, COVID deaths have not yet surpassed the number of deaths from dementia, and haven't come anywhere close to the numbers for cancers and cardiovascular diseases.

1613954367217.png
 
Last edited:

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
You are speaking of additional deaths, adding to the total. Already, the average lifespan in the U.S. is down one year as a result; it's far worse for some minorities.
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
You are speaking of additional deaths, adding to the total. Already, the average lifespan in the U.S. is down one year as a result; it's far worse for some minorities.
The average lifespan has already been reduced more than that as a result of the school closures. Maybe you missed that post.


That doesn't even begin to touch the lives lost as a result of other compromises in healthcare due to pandemic management. As I and the others far more well educated than me keep saying, the cost of lives from pandemic management may very-well far outweigh those from the virus alone, and in many cases those people may have never even been infected and would today still be living productive lives. Why is there so little focus on them?
 

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
Don't miss this:

"…the modeling methods are subject to speculation, not necessarily real outcomes. Only time (decades) will tell whether or not these projections carry any validity."
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
Don't miss this:

"…the modeling methods are subject to speculation, not necessarily real outcomes. Only time (decades) will tell whether or not these projections carry any validity."
The same could be said for the life expectancy estimates you cite as well as for the virus. The only difference is that those dying now as collateral damage aren't getting the same attention, even when their numbers have in some places exceeded the deaths by COVID-19. Remember the article I posted about suicides in Japan? The overdoses in BC? And other real numbers have climbed as a result of the lack of care for other medical issues. These aren't just some far-off abstract model. They are real people too.
 

Top