Wednesday, April 20, 2022
Tuesday, April 19, 2022
Here’s Why No One Wants to Talk About Sweden
For those who preferred the first perspective, there was plenty of data to lean on. Meticulous records of the death toll were being kept in most countries, especially the wealthy ones, and presented in stylish graphs on various sites: the Johns Hopkins University website, Worldometer, Our World in Data.
It was a lot harder to measure the consequences of the lockdowns. They appeared here and there as scattered anecdotes and figures. Perhaps the most striking data point came from the US: by the end of the academic year, a total of 55.1 million students had been affected by school closures.
But still, the death toll was more interesting. In early summer, The New York Times had published a front page completely devoid of pictures. Instead, it contained a long list of people who had died: a thousand names, followed by their age, location, and a very brief description. “Alan Lund, 81, Washington, conductor with ‘the most amazing ear’”; “Harvey Bayard, 88, New York, grew up directly across the street from the old Yankee Stadium”. And so on.
It was The New York Times’s national editor who had noticed that the US death toll was about to pass 100,000, and so wanted to create something memorable — something you could look back on in 100 years to understand what society was going through. The front page was reminiscent of what a newspaper might look like during a bloody war. It brought to mind the way American TV stations had reported the names of fallen soldiers at the end of every day during the Vietnam War.
The idea spread quickly across the world. A few weeks later, in Sweden, the front page of Dagens Nyheter was covered with 49 colour photographs below the words: “One Day, 118 Lives.” Those 118 people had passed away on 15 April. It was the highest daily death toll recorded throughout the Spring. Since then, it had steadily been falling.
When the epidemiologist Johan Giesecke read the paper, it left him a little puzzled. On any normal day, 275 people die in Sweden, he thought. He’d spent a large part of his life studying just that: where, when, and how people die. The way the world currently thought about death was, to him, completely alien. When he’d taken part in an online conference in Johannesburg, one participant had pointed out that, in that year alone, more than 2 million people had died of hunger in the world. During the same period, Covid-19 had claimed between 200,000 and 300,000 lives.
Giesecke felt as though the world was going through a self-inflicted global disaster. If things had simply been left to run their course, it would have been over by now. Instead, millions of children were being deprived of their education. In some countries, they weren’t even allowed to go to playgrounds. From Spain came stories of parents sneaking down into parking garages with their children to let them run around.
Tens of thousands of surgeries had been postponed by healthcare services. Screenings for everything from cervical to prostate cancer were put on ice. This wasn’t just happening in other countries. Sweden had seen its fair share of peculiar decisions, too. The Swedish police hadn’t tested drivers for insobriety for months, out of fear of the virus. This year, it didn’t seem quite as serious if someone were to get killed by a drunk driver.
It was becoming obvious that the media, the politicians, and the public had a hard time assessing the risks of the new virus. To most people, the figures didn’t mean anything. But they saw the healthcare services getting overwhelmed in several countries. They heard the testimonies from nurses and doctors.
Here and there in the world — in Germany, the UK, Ecuador — people had been taking to the streets to protest the rules, laws, and decrees curtailing their lives. From other countries came reports that people were starting to flout the restrictions. But the force of the resistance remained weaker than Giesecke had expected. There had been no French revolution, no global backlash.
One explanation for the citizens’ passivity might have been the coverage of the deadliness of the virus in the media; it seemed they had been fed a non-contextualised picture of how serious the Covid-19 pandemic really was. During the Spring and Summer, the global consultancy firm Kekst CNC had asked people in five big democracies — the UK, Germany, France, the US, and Japan — about all kinds of things relating to the virus and society. The sixth country in the survey was Sweden. Sweden was a lot smaller than the other countries, but was included due to the unique path it was taking through the pandemic.
The questions were about everything, ranging from people’s opinions on actions taken by the authorities, to the state of the job market, and on whether they thought their governments were providing sufficient support to trade and industry. The twelfth and final topic in the survey contained two questions: “How many people in your country have had the coronavirus? How many people in your country have died?” At the same time as increasingly reliable figures were trickling in with regard to the actual deadliness of Covid-19, there was now a study of the number that people believed had died.
In the US, the average guess in mid-July was that 9% of the population had died. If that had been true, it would have corresponded to almost 30 million Americans deaths. The death toll was thus overestimated by 22,500% — or 225 times over. In the UK as well as in France and Sweden, the death toll was exaggerated a hundredfold. The Swedish guess of 6% would have corresponded to 600,000 deaths in the country. By then, the official death toll was more than 5,000 and inching closer to 6,000.
Reporting the average guess was perhaps a little misrepresentative, as some people replied with very high numbers. In the UK, the most common answer was that around 1% of the population had died — in other words, a lot less than the 7% average. But it was still a figure that overestimated the number of deaths more than tenfold. At this point...
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson -- 'Firsts' Only Matter If They're Liberal
The phoniness of the celebration.
After the confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson as the first black female justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, liberal hypocrites parroted the same talking points.
MSNBC host Yasmin Vossoughian said: "Minority children across the board watching Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson gain this seat on the Supreme Court (were) inspired by what she's been able to achieve."
MSNBC host Tiffany Cross said: "This week we bore witness to history as we watched Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson become Justice Designate Ketanji Brown Jackson. It has taken over 230 years to get to this point, and for the first time in U.S. history, white men are not the dominant representation of what so many have called 'blind justice' on the Supreme Court."
PBS and NBC journalist Yamiche Alcindor said: "Well, this was a profound moment in history. And Judge Jackson, soon to be Justice Jackson, really leaned into the history that she is making. ... She talked about being an inheritor of America's promise of justice for all."
And the race-incendiary Rev. Al Sharpton took a shot at the obviously "racist" Republicans for not joining in the celebration of the historic event: "As great as it is today, for black women, for women, and for black people, we all couldn't celebrate that together. (Republicans) didn't even have enough humanity to say this is historic. And I think that that is very telling."
No, what's telling is the phoniness of the celebration.
Where was this desire for the "first black female" justice to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia — arguably the second-highest court in the country — when then-Sen. Joe Biden and the Democrats, from 2003-2005, used the filibuster to attempt to block the nomination of black conservative female Judge Janice Rogers Brown? Worse, when she finally received confirmation, Biden publicly threatened to filibuster her again should President George W. Bush nominate her to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Rogers Brown, the daughter and granddaughter of sharecroppers, put herself through UCLA law school as a single mom. Appointed to the California Supreme Court by a Republican governor, she received 76% of the vote in this liberal state when she ran to keep her seat. Her winning percentage was higher than any other justice on the ballot that year. But who cares? After all, she's a conservative.
When I ran to recall California Gov. Gavin Newsom, The New York Times wrote a negative article about my candidacy and never mentioned my race or that I would have become the first black governor of California. Fine with me. Isn't it past time to consider one's suitability for office without regard to race, ethnicity or gender? But on the same day, the same newspaper in another article gushed over the "first" female governor of New York, a Democrat.
After the election of Barack Obama, the first black president, isn't virtually every other black "first" anticlimactic by comparison? Blacks have been, and are, CEOs of Fortune 500 companies; presidents of the American Bar Association and...
Hardcore Gang Member Raves About His Love For Soros DA George Gascon
The gang member featured in the clip below – Luis Angel Hernandez – is a murderer and promises to have Gascon’s name tattooed on his forehead.
“I’m going to get that n—–’s name on my face. That’s a champ right there. F—in’ Gascón,” says gang member Luis Angel Hernandez in a jailhouse phone call. The audio was first made public in an episode of “Tucker Carlson Originals” about Gascón called “Suicide of Los Angeles,” which is now streaming on Fox Nation.
One must wonder if he’s even here legally.
As soon as Gascon took office, he removed all enhancements.
This is a clip from Tucker Carlson’s documentary. Listen:
HE GOT TO RUIN SAN FRANCISCO FIRST
Under George Gascon, approximately 61 of the 140 or so attorneys left the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, 24 in the last 8 months of 2019 alone. More than half of those leaving in those final four years were women, and more than a third were...
The 90 Miles Mystery Video: Nyctophilia Edition #993
Before You Click On The "Read More" Link,
Please Only Do So If You Are Over 21 Years Old.
If You are Easily Upset, Triggered Or Offended, This Is Not The Place For You.
Please Leave Silently Into The Night......
The 90 Miles Mystery Box: Episode #1693
You have come across a mystery box. But what is inside?
It could be literally anything from the serene to the horrific,
from the beautiful to the repugnant,
from the mysterious to the familiar.
If you decide to open it, you could be disappointed,
you could be inspired, you could be appalled.
This is not for the faint of heart or the easily offended.
You have been warned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)