Coronavirus 2020



Hey @EconomicCrashDummy you’re over in Asia somewhere IIRC. How’s it on the ground currently still mostly back to normal?


The VAERS numbers for the US are around 35/50 deaths per year from around 150M annual flu shots.

There are just over 500 deaths so far in the last 6 / 7 weeks from about 20M SARs CoV vacines. It looks like only the Pfizer vaccine so far.

So the SARs CoV 2 vaccines look about 80X more dangerous than the flu vaccines from the initial SARs CoV 2 VAERS data.

About 50% of SARs CoV 2 deaths > 65. The rest under. Most over 35. The old people mostly die of cardiac arrest or related, the younger of anaphylactic shock and related.

The number of deaths so far is tracked by under 65s being left “disabled”. Which seems a catch all term. The number of hospitalizations is actually quite low considering how common mild forms of allergenic reaction are in the VAERS case records. It seem if there is any kind of adverse reaction they just jab them with a epipen and try to send them on their way. The usual rate for general population vaccines of these kind of adverse reactions seem to be the 1 per million range.


That’s right. As I predicted, a few cases of Covid-19 were found in the centre of my city right before the Spring festival vacation. This meant all larger social gatherings were shut down in those parts of the city… although, the malls and restaurants still remain open and packed. Go figure. The 20 or so people found with the virus had all their contacts traced and miraculously the virus had not spread to anyone else (if you can believe that). My part of the city is also completely unaffected although you do have to get your temperature checked going into the shopping centres and wear a mask just to get through the door. Quickly taking it off after. You still need to wear a mask on public transport.

Almost everything in the country here was back to normal from April last year. In fact, I was nearly going to go out to an Irish pub on March 17 in the centre, somebody having invited me out to it the week before, but I said I’d wait another couple of weeks before doing stuff to get more data on the virus.
I knew they would shut down things for this Spring festival. I have a feeling they just didn’t want people travelling and spreading the virus to old grand parents in the regions outside the main cities. I have a strong suspicion that the virus had spread throughout the country here in 2019 but still hasn’t reached many elderly. While I was teaching at the University last Semester, many people had colds and flus. One person had a cold for about the first 2 months of class. I teach each class of students once per week.
Nobody here has really cared about the virus for a very long time, except the westerners. There was momentary worry when some new people were found with it at the start of this Spring festival.
Obviously, a lot of the above is my opinion but I can’t imagine the virus having not spread extensively through the country in 2019. I think the outdoor dinner attended by around 40-60K people in Wuhan is what rocketed up the cases there, and these things are always attended by loads of elderly people.
Finally, I’m also amazed that the Western world seems to carry the same level of anxiety for over a year that I had upon seeing the first images and videos of the virus when the death rate could have been close to SARS-1, and while I was in it’s general vicinity. Also noting how blasé some western countries were at the time about a virus that was proven to be more contagious than the flu. It’s baffling for me to have viewed some of the News articles on it from about last May on so I really just stopped paying as much attention. The vaccine’s of course have gotten me more interested again.


Thanks for sharing. Gives slight hope.

Death Jabs etc notwithstanding. :ninja:


Would like to see this debate happening here sooner rather than later…

UK scientists call for debate on allowing ‘big wave of infection’

Advisers to government warn of national discussion after most vulnerable are vaccinated

“There will be a massive debate about whether we should allow a big wave of infection once we’ve vaccinated all the over 50s,” one influential member of the government’s Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling (SPI-M) told the FT. “Are we going to aim for low prevalence or accept high prevalence for a period?”

“It boils down to what we, as a society, are prepared to accept,” added Mike Tildesley, an academic at the University of Warwick and also a member of SPI-M. “We see waves of seasonal influenza and we don’t lockdown every winter, we accept a level of risk. “It’s possible you could run hot in terms of cases, and low in terms of number of hospitalisations and deaths,” he added, noting that having a high R number — which indicates the rate of transmission of the virus — would not necessarily be a bad thing if hospitalisations are low.


Fundamentally it comes down to what is acceptable?
Minimising the number of COVID Cases versus economic disruption?
Vaccination verses herd immunity, which will kill the fewest to achieve the end goal of virus eradication due to it being unable to spread.
higher healthcare costs verses overwhelmed hospitals, every year the flu season has resulted in patients on trolleys.

The ethical issue of how much disruption do you permit in the wider community to prolong the lives of elderly people who are already “in the undertaker’s” waiting room being kept alive on a cocktail of drugs.


Death jabs and the government proposing to limit the right to private housing notwithstanding…


I think is the absolute crux of the current situation, every other cohort in this country is being sacrificed for a few over 80’s to have another 5-10 years. Children, teenagers, college kids, young working(or not working) now adults and parents with kids are paying a huge price for this bolloxology of never ending lockdowns. FF and FG only care about reelection and their base of the over 50’s are the least affected by this past year.


In the case of many, I would say 6 - 18 months, rather than years because there are many elderly who are not in poor health that are surviving the virus.




I guess they’ll need to spend another $5 million on VR headsets to solve this lady teachers issues. :icon_cool:


BBC & Ch4 airing some sensible views for a change - seen via twitter:


Don’t be surprised if these these tweets, or their original videos, sink without trace under a deluge of the “truth”.


True - I snagged /recorded them first…

I know how to archive webpages, but not sure how to “archive” a video embedded in a tweet. Does or any of those sites work, does anyone know?



Report that the Cuomo administration may have underreported the (already high reports) of nursing home deaths by as much as 56%


Putting this here also. Move if needed. Wake up and stop letting them murder your family.


Smell the Coffee.



The Physiological Burden of Prolonged PPE Use on Healthcare Workers during Long Shifts

Posted on June 10, 2020 by Jon Williams, PhD; Jaclyn Krah Cichowicz, MA; Adam Hornbeck, MSN, APRN, FNP-BC, FNP-C; Jonisha Pollard, MS, CPE; and Jeffrey Snyder, MSN, CRNP.

Healthcare workers (HCW) and first responders often work long, physically and mentally exhausting shifts as they provide care for patients, especially during a public health emergency. These long hours can result in fewer adequate breaks for personal care, nutrition, and hydration. During these extended work shifts, many HCWs are also required to wear personal protective equipment (PPE), which may include N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) elastomeric half-mask respirators, or powered air-supplied respirators (PAPRs). Particular features of PPE can impose a physiological (how the body normally functions) burden on the HCW which can be exacerbated by long work hours without adequate breaks for eating, hydration and self-care.

While every HCW should be medically cleared before wearing respiratory protection, there are still many factors that can exacerbate the PPE burden, including obesity, underlying respiratory conditions (asthma, allergies, COPD, etc.), and smoking. HCWs should be provided regular opportunities to take breaks and a supportive environment to report symptoms related to their PPE use. For example, using an FFR for an extended period may cause dizziness (as well as other symptoms), which could compromise the worker, workplace, and patient safety. Dizziness is an important warning sign, as it can be caused by dehydration, hyperventilation (gasping for breath), elevated carbon dioxide [CO2] levels in the blood, low blood sugar, and anxiety, among other things.

Respirator wearers should be aware of the potential physiological impact of using each type of respirator.

Filtering Facepiece Respirators

An N95 FFR user is always going to experience some level of difficulty breathing, or breathing resistance, even though these devices are designed to minimize breathing resistance as much as possible. Enough breathing resistance could result in a reduction in the frequency and depth of breathing, known as hypoventilation (the opposite of hyperventilation).

Hypoventilation is a primary cause of significant discomfort while wearing an N95 FFR (Williams 2010). However, studies done by Roberge et al. (2010) indicated that this hypoventilation did not pose a significant risk to healthcare workers over the course of less than one hour of continuous N95 use. When HCWs are working longer hours without a break while continuously wearing an N95 FFR, CO2 may accumulate in the breathing space inside of the respirator and continuously increase past the 1-hour mark, which could have a significant physiological effect on the wearer (Lim et al., 2006). Some of the known physiological effects of breathing increased concentrations of CO2 include:

  1. Headache;
  2. Increased pressure inside the skull;
  3. Nervous system changes (e.g., increased pain threshold, reduction in cognition – altered judgement, decreased situational awareness, difficulty coordinating sensory or cognitive, abilities and motor activity, decreased visual acuity, widespread activation of the sympathetic nervous system that can oppose the direct effects of CO2 on the heart and blood vessels);
  4. Increased breathing frequency;
  5. Increased “work of breathing”, which is result of breathing through a filter medium;
  6. Cardiovascular effects (e.g., diminished cardiac contractility, vasodilation of peripheral blood vessels);
  7. Reduced tolerance to lighter workloads.

To fix the problem of breathing too much CO2 that has built up within the respirator facepiece, a worker can simply remove the respirator. Some facilities practice oxygen supplementation during these breaks from respirator use, but there really is no need for this as the oxygen in the environment is more than enough to relieve most of the symptoms listed above.

Elastomeric Respirators

The effects experienced with FFRs may also occur when wearing elastomeric half-mask respirators (EHMRs), which are a reusable type of respirator with a silicone facepiece and replaceable filter cartridges. Because they are reusable, EHMRs are a highly recommended alternative to the disposable N95 FFRs (Hines et al., 2019). However, the physiological burden on the wearer is more likely to cause anxiety when wearing an elastomeric respirator when compared to FFRs (Wu et al., 2011). The increased breathing resistances found in EHMRs can result in a decreased frequency of breathing and an increase in tidal volume (the air displaced between normal inhalation and exhalation).

In addition, studies have shown that using EHMRs with a greater resistance to breathing have resulted in the wearer breathing less oxygen (O2) and more CO2(Roberge et al., 2010), which can cause elevated CO2 levels in the blood. The issues surrounding the use of elastomeric half-mask respirators in healthcare settings is discussed in further detail in a National Academies of Sciences report (Ref. 8).

Powered Air Purifying Respirators

Another reusable alternative to N95 FFRs is the Powered Air-Purifying respirator (PAPR). The physiological benefit of PAPRs is that they have a fan that blows fresh air through the filter; therefore, there should not necessarily be any sense of breathing resistance as experienced with an N95 FFR or an elastomeric respirator. Because of this, wearing a PAPR would not cause either shortness of breath or hypoventilation, which may contribute to the increase in CO2 in the breathing space. However, there may be other psychophysiological (the way in which the mind and body interact) effects resulting from the constant noise produced by the PAPR motor, such as headache, distraction, anxiety, difficulty communicating with others in the room to mention a few.


Studies have shown that HCWs prefer wearing N95 FFR respirators to wearing elastomeric half mask respirators or PAPRs when considering comfort and the ability to communicate, HCWs perceive EHMRs and PAPRs to provide greater protection in higher threat environments (e.g., during pandemics) and prefer these respirators to the N95 FFR in spite of the limitations of comfort and reduced ability to communicate. The limitations are tolerated for the purpose of greater perceived protection.

Tips for HCW Health Awareness


While workers must concentrate on their important job duties and the proper use of PPE for self-protection, they must also be aware of the impact of PPE on their wellbeing. The balance between the protection afforded by PPE and the burden of that PPE must be met with a plan to mitigate the burden.

Take scheduled breaks

Find a safe place to properly take off the respirator to reduce CO2 build-up and the negative physiological effects associated with it.

Breaks during work shifts are vital to worker health and safety. The potential physiological burden brought on by PPE use can be an unfortunate side effect; however, it can easily be remedied with a little fresh air and proper self-care.

Hydrate and eat

Dehydration can be a significant problem when wearing PPE while working in high threat environments. The effects of dehydration may contribute to the experience of the physiological burden such as headache, dizziness, strong sensation of thirst, and reduced cognition or greater distraction from the job. Therefore, HCWs must be aware of the need for proper hydration especially if wearing PPE causes significant sweating from heat exposure. A rule of thumb is to drink 1 ml or 1 oz of fluid for every 1 ml or 1 oz of body weight lost. For example, if the HCW has lost 1lb of body weight they must drink 16 oz of fluid (or for metric, if the HCW has lost 1 kg of body weight, then they must consume 1000 ml of fluid to make up for the loss).

Similarly, one must eat healthy food in part because the calories are needed to provide energy for HCWs to continue their work and also because most food contains water which will help with re-hydrating the body.

Institute policies to care for employees

Supervisors and hospital management can minimize the physiological burden of PPE by instituting policies and procedures to assure breaks for HCWs, encouraging front-line supervisors to check in regularly with staff to assess for symptoms or concerns, and providing a mechanism to report symptoms immediately and without fear of penalty.

Warren (Jon) Williams, PhD is a research physiologist in the NIOSH National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory Research Branch

Jaclyn Krah Cichowicz, MA, is a health communications specialist in the NIOSH National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory Research Branch

Adam Hornbeck, MSN, APRN, FNP-BC, FNP-C is a nurse practitioner in the NIOSH National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory Research Branch

Jonisha Pollard, MS, CPE, is a team leader in the NIOSH National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory Research Branch

Jeffrey Snyder, MSN, CRNP is a nurse practitioner in the NIOSH National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory Research Branch


  1. Williams WJ. Physiological response to alterations in [O2] and [CO2]: relevance to respiratory protective devices. J Intl Soc Resp Protect 2010; 27(1):27-51.
  2. Roberge RJ, Coca A, Williams WJ, Palmiero AJ, Powell JB. Physiological impact of filtering facepiece respirators (“N95 Masks”) on healthcare workers. Respiratory Care; 55(5):569-577, 2010.
  3. Lumb, AB. Changes in the carbon dioxide partial pressure. In: Lumb, AB (ed.) Nunn’s Applied Respiratory Physiology, Seventh Edition, Churchill, Livingstone Elsevier, Edinburgh, pp. 355-361, 2010.
  4. Psycho-physiological effects. Technical Specification Part 6: Respiratory Protective Devices – Human Factors (1st Edition 2014). Reference number: ISO/TS 16976-6 06:2014 (E).
  5. CDC Blog on Fatigue in Healthcare Workers.
  7. Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication 2016-106.
  8. Reusable Elastomeric Respirators in Health Care Considerations for Routine and Surge Use National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Health and Medicine Division; Board on Health Sciences Policy; Committee on the Use of Elastomeric Respirators in Health Care. Editors: Catharyn T. Liverman, Olivia C. Yost, Bonnie M. E. Rogers, and Linda Hawes Clever. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2018 Dec 6
  9. Wu S, Harber P, Yun D, Bansal S, Li Y, Santiago S. Anxiety during respirator use: Comparison of two respirator types. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene. 2011;8(3):123–128.
  10. Lim ECH, Seet RCS, Lee KH, Wilder-Smith EPV, Chuah BYS, Ong BKC. Headaches and the N95 face-mask amongst healthcare providers. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica. 2006;113(3):199–202
  11. Patel PM, Patel HH, Roth DM. General Anesthetics and Therapeutic Gases. In: Brunton LL, Chabner BA, Knollmann BC (Eds) Goodman & Gilman’s Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 12th Edition, McGraw Hill Medical, New York, pp.557-558, 2011.
  12. Hines S, Brown C, Oliver M, Gucer P, Frisch M, Hogan R, Roth T, Chang J, McDiarmid M. User acceptance of reusable respirators in health care. Am J Infect Contr. 47:648-655, 2019.

Archived link here -


August 2020

Stanford Study Proves Covid-19 Was Overhyped. “Death Rate Is Likely Under 0.2%”

Stanford study proves many more people are infected - between 50-85 times more - than reported and thus the “death rate” is astronomically lower than we were told.

By Tony Cartalucci

Global Research, August 27, 2020

Region: USA

First published on April 17, 2020

MIT Tech Review’s hyped coverage of the Covid-19 outbreak is led by the tag-line, “Navigating a world reshaped by Covid-19.”

Their articles reflect an eager embracement of the public hysteria prompted by Covid-19’s spread, the socioeconomic paralysis it has created, and the many profitable solutions – particularly those involving technology – proposed to “shape” the world post-Covid-19.

It should come as no surprise that a corporate-influenced outlet hiding behind academia and technology would take issue with anyone casting doubt on just how warranted all of this hysteria really is or isn’t – going as far as labeling them “pandemic skeptics.”

This is particularly the case when MIT Tech Review covered the work of researchers at Stanford University who found a much larger number of people are infected with Covid-19 than reported – meaning that the death rate is much, much lower than we’ve been told.

In fact, MIT Tech Review had to admit that the actual death rate is likely under 0.2%, which means its is about as “dangerous” as the common flu. If the common flu isn’t “reshaping the world,” Covid-19 certainly isn’t – at least not the pathogen itself.

An Oblique Smear

Instead of acknowledging the work of Stanford University as an important advancement in our understanding of Covid-19 and a check against public hysteria – MIT Tech Review peppered their article with oblique smears against the team who carried out the study.

The headline includes the subtitle (emphasis added), “A study from a noted pandemic skeptic suggests the virus is more widespread but less deadly than people think.”

We know that the suffix “-skeptic” is added to undermine the credibility of people who call into question widely promoted narratives. The article also uses the term “data skeptic” to describe John Ioannidis who helped carry out the study.

MIT Tech Review continued by adding:

Ioannidis, a Stanford medical statistician and a coauthor of the new report, made waves in March by suggesting the virus could be less deadly than people think, and that destroying the economy in the effort to fight it could be a “fiasco.”

Ioannidis’ statement regarding Covid-19 – even without the results of this study – is already self-evident even if looking only at available and limited statistics regarding Covid-19 infections versus deaths and the demographics hit hardest.

But Stanford’s findings not only bolster Ioannidis’ statement – the findings were predictable.

An RT article titled, “How likely are you (yes, you) to die from the Covid-19 virus?,” published over a month ago predicted (emphasis added):

When the worst of the crisis is over, the real overall death rate will potentially be significantly lower than the reported one — since many people will contract the virus but remain asymptomatic or display only mild symptoms and will never get tested at all.

Indeed, Jeremy Samuel Faust, a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital wrote in Slate that the frightening death rates are “unlikely to hold” as time goes on and that the true fatality rate is “likely to be far lower than current reports suggest.”

Stanford’s study confirms this. And it makes sense. Infection and death rates can only be determined by actually testing people – and the narrative the world has been presented is that not enough testing can be done because of a lack of testing kits, and those being tested are people who are already ill and showing symptoms.

Obviously if many more people have little to no symptoms and aren’t being tested – they also aren’t making it into Covid-19 infection statistics and thus “death rates” are artificially high because of this. If many more people are getting the virus and not dying, the death rate obviously goes down – in this case – drastically so.

The Guardian in an article titled, “Antibody study suggests coronavirus is far more widespread than previously thought,” would report:

White House Declassified Four Page Report Accusing “Assad Regime” of Using Chemical Weapons “Against Its Own People”

The study from Stanford University, which was released Friday and has yet to be peer reviewed, tested samples from 3,330 people in Santa Clara county and found the virus was 50 to 85 times more common than official figures indicated.

The article would also reluctantly note that (emphasis added):

That also means coronavirus is potentially much less deadly to the overall population than initially thought. As of Tuesday, the US’s coronavirus death rate was 4.1% and Stanford researchers said their findings show a death rate of just 0.12% to 0.2%.

MIT Tech Review is based out of the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology – the university the magazine is named after. Why – instead of an oblique smear against the Stanford team who carried out the study – didn’t MIT go out into their local community and carry out a similar study to compare results?

Isn’t that what real scientists are supposed to do?

MIT Tech Review closes its article on the study by reasserting a narrative meant to stoke panic and allow the publication to continue on with its “a world reshaped” theme, claiming:

Overall, there are more than 30,000 covid-19 deaths in the US, more than in any other country, so it’s hard to find good news in the blood surveys even if you are looking for it. If the Santa Clara study is accurate and the death rate is lower than many think, covid-19 is still going to lead to a shocking accumulation of bodies if it moves through the rest of the population, which explains the extraordinary stay-at-home measures in place in most of the country since March.

If 30,000 have died in the US because of Covid-19 since the virus appeared in December, that means another 30,000 would need to die this month and next in order for it to even match a moderate to severe annual flu season which runs from December to May.

So – no – there is not going to be a “shocking accumulation of bodies” unless Covid-19 deaths are presented to the public by the media out of context deliberately to shock uninformed audiences. And thus – obviously – it does not “explain the extraordinary stay-at-home measures in place in most of the country since March” or the hysteria promoted by MIT Tech Review in its other Covid-19 articles.

Studies will continue to emerge proving what many have already known – that Covid-19 the pathogen is nowhere near the threat we were told and nowhere near justifying “Covid-19 the hysteria.” Society is in the crosshairs for transformative policies enacted by the very interests who hyped the outbreak in contradiction to scientific fact, not because of it.

It is important to expose this and more importantly to resist it. It is also important to ensure that the governments, politicians, “experts,” institutions, and corporations that were involved in hyping Covid-19 and all the socioeconomic damage it has done never be allowed to do so again.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on Land Destroyer Report.