Negative And Positive Liberty: Two Sides, Same Coin

If you are reading this right now, there is a very good chance that you have been feeling "politically homeless" recently.  You may find yourself torn between progressivism and libertarianism, and have thus sought out what we call "progressive libertarianism".  You may strongly oppose lockdowns and related restrictions as egregious violations of civil and human rights, but yet still just as strongly support things like Universal Basic Income, single-payer Medicare For All, fair and progressive taxation, labor rights, racial justice, gender and reproductive justice, environmental justice, and stuff like that.  And take it from us, you are NOT at all alone.

One thing all tyrants and their lackeys both today and throughout history have in common is that they convince the masses that negative and positive liberty ("freedom from" vs. "freedom to", respectively) are somehow at odds with one another or even mutually exclusive, when in reality they are (when properly understood!) two sides of the same coin.  And those who follow the "power-over" or "dominator" paradigm of social interaction (as opposed to the "partnership" paradigm per Riane Eisler) simply cannot see that you really can't have one without the other.  That is true whether one is a Marxist or Neo-Platonist (preferring only positive liberty at the expense of negative liberty), or a Republican or Libertarian (preferring only negative liberty at the expense of positive liberty).  And by cynically pitting one type of liberty against the other, We the People ultimately end up with neither as a result.

If literally everything has strings attached and/or requires one to beg permission from the state or others higher up in the social dominance hierarchy, can one really consider oneself to be free?

If there is no firm social floor below which one cannot fall, then there is a "race to the bottom" which inevitably results in economic coercion.  And economic coercion makes negative liberty into a cruel joke:  the "freedom" to starve under a bridge in a world of natural abundance but artificial scarcity.

The same is also true for individual rights vs. collective/community rights as well, by the way.

To quote the late Mikhail Bakunin, "We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality."  Simply insert "negative" before "liberty", and replace "socialism" with "positive liberty" and the quote in fact makes even more sense, regardless of how one feels about that rather nebulous snarl word, "socialism".  That basically sums it up.  QED.

We at the TSAP have one and only one agenda:  liberty and justice for all.  What's yours?

Updated Report Card For The Pandemic

It is 2021 now, and we at the TSAP think it is time to issue updated grades for each country on how they handled the pandemic.  These will be updated further over time.  Grades are based on a mixture of per-capita COVID death rates, overall excess deaths, economic damage, and policy measures.  All grades are on a curve, normalized with the European average set at C.  Here is the current list:

Taiwan:  A+ (very best in the world)
Hong Kong:  A
Iceland:  A
Norway:  A
Finland: A

Nicaragua:  A

South Korea:  A
Japan:  A-
New Zealand:  A-

Uruguay:  B+

Denmark:  B+
Germany:  B+

Australia:  B+

Austria:  B
Canada:  B

Belarus:  B

Russian Federation: B
Singapore:  B-

Slovakia:  B-

Portugal:  C+

Austria:  C+
Switzerland:  C
Netherlands:  C
Sweden: C

France:  C
USA: C- (overall, varies by state)

Brazil:  C-

Argentina:  D (don't cry for us now!)

Czechia:  D-

Peru:  F (formerly worst in the world)

Slovenia: F
Italy:  F
Spain: F
UK:  F (two lockdowns is dumb, but three?)
Belgium:  F (worst significant country in the world, twice!)

China:  F (though they really deserve a Z, for infecting the whole world!)

Countries that avoided a full lockdown and still got good results automatically get higher grades than those who achieved the same results with a full lockdown.  And further demerit points are deducted for unusually stringent and/or long-lasting restrictions compared to the world average.

(Entries in green are countries that never forcibly shut down in any meaningful way, while those in orange did so only very briefly, very locally, and/or used a very light touch overall.)

For US states, a partial list of states' grades:

Vermont:  A
Wyoming:  A
Hawaii:  A

Washington State:  A

Utah:  A

Oregon:  A

Iowa:  A-
Arkansas:  B

North Carolina:  B

California:  C
Florida: C
Georgia:  C
South Carolina:  C
Texas: C
Maryland:  C
Virginia:  C
Wisconsin:  C

DC:  C-

Arizona:  C-

South Dakota:  D+

North Dakota:  D+

Illinois: D
Michigan:  D

Louisiana:  D

Pennsylvania:  D

Connecticut:  D

Rhode Island:  D-

Massachusetts:  D-

New York:  F (second worst in the world)
New Jersey:  F (worst in the world)

Interestingly, non-lockdown states generally outperform most non-lockdown states.  Note how Florida and California both ended up about average despite polar opposite approaches to their epidemics. 

  

That's why you don't call the winner at halftime. 

All of these grades are of course subject to change in the coming weeks and months.  But at this point, they probably won't change very much.

State Of The Planet Address 2021

It is now 2021, and this year the TSAP will not waste any time giving our annual State of the Planet Address as we do every January.  Yes, we know it is a bit of a downer to say the least.  So sit down, take off your rose-colored glasses, and read on:

Our planet is in grave danger, and has been for quite some time now.  We face several serious long term problems:  climate change, deforestation, desertification, loss of biodiversity, overharvesting, energy crises, and of course pollution of many kinds.  Polar ice caps are melting.  Rainforests have been shrinking by 50 acres per minute.  Numerous species are going extinct every year.  Soil is eroding rapidly.  Food shortages have occurred in several countries in recent years.  Weather has been getting crazier each year thanks to climate change.  We have had numerous and often record-breaking wildfires, floods followed by long periods of drought, and a "storm of the century" at least once a year for the past several years.   And it is only getting worse every year.  In fact, 2020 is tied with 2016 as having been the hottest year on record.  Look no further than the three record-breaking storms in the past 15 years:  Katrina (2005, highest storm surge), Sandy (2012, largest diameter), and now Harvey (2017, a 1000-year flood, and overall worst hurricane on record), followed by Irma and Maria which devastated Puerto Rico, for a taste of the not-too-distant future.  And that was before Hurricane Michael devastated a rather large chunk of Florida recently.

In fact, on the other side of the world, just a little over three years ago, the worst monsoon season in recent memory has recently displaced 41 million people due to record flooding.  At the same time, severe, bone-dry droughts have been plaguing the Horn of Africa for over a decade now.  Thus for many, the future is sadly already here to one degree or another.

Australia was on fire just a year ago, with record heatwaves and massive wildfires (with koalas now basically endangerd as a result), and California was recently on fire as well, again.

And, of course, there is the threat of far worse pandemics.  While COVID-19 in particular may or may not be related to ecological destruction or climate cataclysm, the fact remains that the risks of future epidemics and pandemics will only increase with overcrowding and loss of wildlife habitats making zoonotic diseases that much more likely going forward.

None of this is an accident of course.  These problems are man-made, and their solutions must also begin and end with humans.  We cannot afford to sit idly by any longer, lest we face hell and high water in the not-too-distant future.  Our unsustainable scorched-earth policy towards the planet has to end.  Yesterday.

While we do not invoke the precautionary principle for all issues, we unequivocally do for the issue of climate change and any other environmental issues of comparable magnitude.  In fact, for something as dire as climate change, as of 2015 we now support a strong "no regrets" approach.  With no apologies to hardcore libertarians or paleoconservatives, in fact. We are not fazed one bit by the naysayers' pseudoscience as it does not really "debunk" the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. The only serious debate is about how fast it will happen, and when the tipping point (or points) will occur. It is not a matter of if, but when. And the less precarious position is to assume it is a real and urgent problem. We need to reduce CO2 emissions to the point where the CO2 concentration is at or below 350 ppm, ASAP.  And it is currently at an unsustainably high level of 400+ ppm, and growing rapidly every year.

Given the latest IPCC report, which is truly nothing short of horrifying, the general consensus among climate scientists is that we have only at most 12 years left (now more like 11) to act radically before truly catastrophic climate change is a foregone conclusion.   And 2030 will be here before we know it.  

Now THAT is a national emergency!  And a global one, in fact.  Thus, a full-steam-ahead, Green New Deal 2.0 is LONG overdue.  We have already squandered a whole decade since Copenhagen, and we cannot afford to squander even one more day, let alone another decade.

Solving the problem of climate change will also help to solve the other ecological crises we are facing, for they all ultimately have the same root causes, not least of which is our insatiable addiction to dirty energy.  However, there is a right way to solve it, and several wrong ways.  Technology is important, but it won't be decisive on its own (economics geeks may recall Jevons Paradox).  The real problem is the paradigm that our society has been following, and that system is based on wetiko, the parasite of the mind and cancer of the soul.  It often seems that the only difference between capitalism and cannibalism is the spelling.

The TSAP endorses the ideas embodied in Steve Stoft's new book Carbonomics, most notably a tax-and-dividend system that would tax carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) at the source, and give all Americans an equal share of the revenue generated from this tax.  (Note that our proposal to tax natural resources and pay out an Alaska-like citizen's dividend already includes this.)  Yes, prices for various things would undoubtedly rise due to this tax, all else being equal, but the dividend will allow Americans to pay for this increase. The average American would in fact break even, but those who (directly or indirectly) use less energy than average will effectively pay less tax, while the energy hogs will effectively be taxed more, as they should be. Thus it is certainly not a regressive tax, and may even be mildly progressive. This is both the simplest and most equitable way to reduce carbon emissions as well as other forms of pollution, not to mention waste of dwindling non-renewable resources. The real challenge is getting the feds to accept something that won't directly benefit them (in the short term).  Carbonomics also includes other good ideas, such as improving how fuel economy standards are done, and crafting a better verison of the Kyoto treaty.   

In addition to the ideas in Carbonomics, we also support several other measures to help us end our addiction to fossil fuels once and for all.  Our Great American Phase-Out plan would phase out all fossil fuels by 2030 at the latest, via alternative energy, efficiency, and conservation.  One good idea to further the development of alternative energy would be the use of feed-in tariffs for renewable power sources. 

Of course, it is not enough to stop emitting carbon dioxide, we also need to remove the current excess levels of it from the atmosphere as well, as that stuff can otherwise linger for centuries and continue wreaking havoc on the climate.  We support ending net deforestation completely, planting a LOT more trees, and putting carbon back in the ground through carbon sequestration. One method is known as biochar, a type of charcoal made from plants that remove carbon dioxide from the air, that is subsequently buried. This is also an ancient method of soil fertilization and conservation, originally called terra preta.  It also helps preserve biodiversity.  Another crucial method would be regenerative organic farming, which also turns the soil into an effective carbon sink as well.  And we will most likely also need to employ higher-tech methods of sucking carbon out of the air as well.

We've said this before, and we'll say it again.  Our ultimate goal is 100% renewable energy by 2030, but we need to hedge our bets.  We can phase out fossil fuels, or we can phase out nuclear power, but we can't do both at the same time--and fossil fuels need to be phased out first, and quickly.  Nuclear is doing a pretty good job of phasing itself out as it is.  So let's not get rid of it prematurely.  

But the biggest elephant in the room (make that the elephant in the Volkswagen) is overpopulation.  It does not make for pleasant dinner conversation, but it must be addressed or else all other causes become lost causes in the long run. We absolutely need to have fewer kids, or nature will reduce our population for us, and the latter will NOT be pleasant to say the least. The TSAP believes in voluntarily reducing the total fertility rate (TFR) to 1.5-1.9 children per woman to do so, but let us be clear that we do NOT support draconian and/or coercive measures of population control (like China has used).  We believe that more liberty is the answer, not less.  In fact, the two most effective means of reducing the birthrate are poverty reduction and female empowerment.

Fortunately, America's TFR has recently dropped to a record low of about 1.73 with no indication of rising back above replacement rate in the near term.  And with the massive social and economic fallout from the pandemic and especially the lockdowns, the TFR is forecast to drop to 1.6 for 2021 (and even that is most likely an overestimate).  But clearly we cannot keep growing and growing, that's for sure (in fact, we need to shrink). And our insatiable addiction to economic growth (despite being decoupled from well-being) is also every bit as harmful as overpopulation as well, if not more so.  Growth for the sake of growth, the ideology of the cancer cell,  is clearly one of the most asinine obsessions our nation (and world) has ever had.  We clearly need to transition to a steady-state economy, most likely following a period of what Naomi Klein calls "selective degrowth" as well.  And to do that, we need a radical paradigm shift to happen yesterday.  Put another way, we need to leave room for Nature, lest Nature not leave room for us.  We have been warned, decades ago in fact.  Unfortunately, such warnings have largely fallen of deaf ears until very recently.

Yesterday is the time to jettison the Twin Big Lies that "everybody must work for a living" and "everybody must procreate".  Because doing so is the sine qua non of any realist plan to avert ecological catastrophe.

Last but not least, the TSAP now believes that as long as men remain in charge, we are all merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.  Let's face it, it ain't gonna be us fellas who will save the world, as the past 7000 years or so have shown.  We paved paradise and put up a parking lot, we created a desert and called it peace.  We devoured and suffocated our own empire, and our proverbial 15 minutes of fame is almost up.  Only when women finally take over and reclaim their rightful position as the new leaders of the free world--and they will--will there be any real permanent solution.

Bottom line: we need to take the environment much more seriously than we do now.  We ignore it at our own peril.  And while the current administration in DC clearly doesn't care, We the People must act nonetheless.  With no apologies to the deniosaurs or Big Oil, Big Gas, or Dirty Coal.

Oh, by the way, wanna hear a joke?  Peak Oil.  Not saying it won't happen, of course--it will eventually peak and decline at some point--but climate change kinda supersedes it.  While conventional oil most likely has already peaked, there is more than enough total oil (including unconventional) to deep-fry the Earth--and most of which needs to stay in the ground if we wish to avoid catastrophic climate change.  Fossil fuels are, after all, what Buckminster Fuller referred to as our planet's "energy savings account", which we need to wean ourselves off of and save just in case of a planetary emergency--and he first said this in 1941!

So quibble all you want, but the truth must be faced head-on.  Hindsight is 2020, and we have a planet to save.  So let's roll!

UPDATE:  We never thought we would ever have to say this, but the TSAP does NOT support a "climate lockdown" or any other type of lockdown for that matter.  It is at best a category error, and would do far more harm than good in the long run.  And of course it flies in the face of the basic principles of anything remotely resembling a free society.  So take that off the table now!

How To End The Pandemic In ONE WEEK Without Lockdowns, Masks, Or Vaccines

DISCLAIMER:  The following article references third-party sources and is intended for general information only, and is NOT intended to provide medical advice or otherwise diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease, including (but not limited to) COVID-19.  Consult a qualified physician before beginning any sort of treatment or prophylactic regimen and/or if you know or suspect that you currently have COVID-19.  Anyone who takes or does anything mentioned (or alluded to) in this or any other TSAP article does so entirely at their own risk and liability.  The TSAP thus makes absolutely no warranties, express or implied, and is not liable for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, consequential, or punitive damages resulting from any act or omission on the part of the reader(s) or others. Caveat lector.

See also our previous articles here, here, and here as well.  Also, special thanks to Bill Sardi, Dr. Gareth "Gruff" Davies, Dr. Dmitry Kats, Dr. Mikko Panunio, and Swiss Policy Research, et al. whose research this article draws upon and cites in the links throughout.

It's January 2021, and the COVID-19 pandemic is now over a year old, with still no signs of ending anytime soon according to the official narrative.  The much-awaited vaccines are finally here, but they are unfortunately far too slow to end an established pandemic quickly enough, and questions still remain about their safety and effectiveness.

But according to the ever-insightful Karl "Ticker Guy" Denninger, there is apparently a way to effectively end the pandemic within one week or less.  Yes, really.  It would not only cure existing cases, but also quickly cause an over 80% reduction in transmission that would thus push the R-value so low that the epidemic would be impossible to sustain itself.  And it does NOT require lockdowns, masks, restrictions of any kind, expensive new drugs, or vaccines:

The Ziverdo kit contains Zinc, Ivermectin, and Doxycycline.  And it apparently works very well as both treatment and prophylaxis.  Make it OTC and send to everyone.  Denninger notes that the Doxycycline (antibiotic) is optional, especially for children whose baby teeth it stains, and if it were up to him he would substitute Vitamins C and D instead, making it even cheaper still.  And we at the TSAP would add Quercetin to the mix, as well as Thiamine (Vitamin B1) and Niacin (Vitamin B3), and make the Vitamin C the liposomal variety.  Problem solved.

Quickly, safely, and cheaply.  $2 per kit × 330 million Americans = $660 million, the size of a negligible rounding error on the nearly $5 trillion federal budget.  A real no-brainer.  Apparently, this has been known for months now, yet ignored by the powers that be (who thus have massive blood on their hands).

For example, the recently updated MATH+ protocol (for hospitalized patients) and the new I-MASK+ protocol (for early treatment and prophylaxis) both from the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), both currently include Ivermectin.  See also the recently updated protocol by the Swiss Doctor as well.  And the EVMS protocol strongly echoes these ideas as well, as does the newly-updated and famous Zelenko Protocol.

One other thing that people may not think of (and is not part of any of the other aforementioned protocols) is Niacin (Vitamin B3).  Dr. Dmitry Kats, apparently discovered months ago niacin (as nicotinic acid), at about 20 cents per 1000 mg dose, actually does work as prophylaxis and even as a practically overnight cure for COVID.  It has to be the immediate-release, "flush" kind in order for it to work, since the classic "niacin flush" reaction is a feature, not a bug.  And niacin has numerous other health benefits as well, while being practically harmless when used as directed.  Certainly better than Gilead's Remdesivir (which is really just a "bunk niacin" and apparently the world's most expensive failure at $5000/dose) and better than even Regeneron's shiny new monoclonal antibody cocktail.  And yes, Dr. Kats ran a very impressive double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial himself with niacin alone.  (Though of course, we would still recommend Vitamin C, Vitamin D, thiamine, zinc, and quercetin along with it anyway.)  The censors, however, are not at all pleased with his findings.  Gee, I wonder why?

Talk about a game-changer!  It seems that everything else is a mere sideshow in comparison.

As for long-haulers (those suffering from longer-term COVID after-effects), many of the reported symptoms sound a lot like those of deficiencies in several of the aforementioned key nutrients, particularly Vitamin D (in general), Vitamin B1 (dysautonomia and recurring fevers), and zinc (loss of smell and taste).  Correcting these deficiencies would likely work very well to promote healing.  And according to Dr. Dmitry Kats, there is also at least anecdotal evidence as well that niacin (Vitamin B3) can be beneficial as well in healing from remnant COVID damage, which is not really surprising given how well it works to treat acute COVID (as he discovered in his aforementioned RCT study).

The famous Dr. Joseph Mercola also has a great article about Niacin, largely echoing what Dr. Kats has been saying for months now.  The article also notes the many benefits of the other B vitamins as well in relation to COVID.  Food for thought indeed.

Of note, Ivermectin also seems to work for long-haulers as well, to the tune of 94%.

And of course, wash your hands, clean and disinfect high-touch surfaces, cover coughs and sneezes, stay home if you are sick, and avoid contact with people who are sick.  Vulnerable individuals (over 65, immunocompromised, and/or with underlying health conditions) should really avoid crowds as much as possible.  In other words, use common sense. 

Also remember to ventilate, ventilate, ventilate indoor spaces, and avoid packing too many people in as well.  This is especially important during "broken immune system season", formerly known as flu season.

As for the massive test "casedemic" superimposed on top of the actual pandemic, that can be easily solved by reducing the PCR cycle threshold to between 30 and 35, and/or switching to lateral-flow rapid testing instead.  Additionally, mass testing can be phased out in favor of more targeted testing as well.

So what are we waiting for?

UPDATE:  The ever-insightful Bill Sardi recently pointed out that giving severe, deathbed COVID patients a thymus gland hormone called thymosin alpha-1 raises T-cell counts and dramatically slashes death rates by nearly two-thirds.  Note that this miraculous treatment only works when actually sick, thus it is not for prevention, but it works very well will no side effects.  It also works well against cancer, by the way.  While the pure stuff is rather pricey and can be hard to get, bovine thymus gland extracts would likely have similar benefits and can be purchased as dietary supplements.  And the effect can also be mimicked and/or enhanced with zinc supplements as well, which we should really be taking regardless as both treatment and prophylaxis.  Our white blood cells don't work properly without zinc, and zinc also stops viral replication too.

T-cells appear to be at least as important as antibodies, if not more so for this virus.

As for prophylactic nasal sprays, some are in development as we speak, though not yet commercially available.  Until then, fortunately there is already one that is likely to block the virus while yielding additional health benefits in the meantime.  It is called Xlear, a natural, drug-free saline nasal spray with xylitol and grapefruit seed extract.

(Probiotics might also be promising too.)

And yet another study via meta-analysis confirms the effectiveness of Ivermectin, and even helps elucidate the mechanism by which it works.  Apparently, it blocks a particular enzyme, and thus stops the virus from replicating, kinda like zinc does but with a different enzyme.  In the USA, unfortunately it is not yet available OTC except for veterinary use, or for topical use against head lice.  But President Biden, if you're listening, you of course could change that with a stroke of your executive pen.  Yesterday.

Another safe and promising treatment and prophylaxis, Bromhexine, is available OTC in most countries, but unfortunately NOT available in the USA at all.  Like the drug camostat mesilate does, but much more cheaply and safely, it apparently blocks the TMPRSS2 protein that the virus needs to unlock the cells' ACE2 receptors, thus inhibiting cell entry.  (A protein whose relative lack in prepubescent children also seems to explain their largely being spared the worst of the disease as well as being less likely to spread it.)  That, of course, can also be fixed with a stroke of Biden's executive pen as well.  Yesterday. 

For Vitamin C, very high, "Klenner-sized" doses may be in order, especially for serious cases.  In his book Curing the Incurable, Dr. Thomas Levy discusses its curative potential for virtually all viruses, many bacterial infections, and even some poisons as well.  No reason think COVID would be radically different in that regard.  And not for nothing, high-dose IV Vitamin C is indeed a key part of the MATH+ Protocol.  Note that liposomal Vitamin C can also be used as an alternative to IV use early on, since it makes very high doses possible to absorb orally.

As for the study that supposedly finds that Vitamin C and zinc don't work, well, the ever-insightful Bill Sardi does an excellent rebuttal of that study.  And don't forget to take your Quercetin too, which is known to synergize with both zinc and Vitamin C.

Back to Vitamin D, don't forget to also take it with magnesium and Vitamin B12, which apparently enhance absorption and thus its benefits according to a new clinical trial.  For prophylaxis and very early treatment, D3 is best taken in several thousand units daily, or tens of thousands of units weekly.  And for serious, critical, or otherwise late-stage patients, remember that the active form calcifediol (25-hydroxyvitamin D) would work better, since regular Vitamin D3 takes time to convert to its active form.

And the evidence for Vitamin D just keeps on piling up, with the latest impressive study.  A 60% reduction in death rates and an 80% reduction in ICU admissions is certainly nothing to, ahem, sneeze at.

Be sure to also check out the amino acid lysine as well, which is now emerging as a dark horse in treating and preventing COVID-19 as well.

Additionally, Dr. Thomas E. Levy has a new, FREE e-book out titled Rapid Virus Recovery, whose central idea has also been echoed by Dr. Joseph Mercola, namely the use of nebulized hydrogen peroxide against the virus.  A nebulizer can be bought in a drugstore for less than $40, and a bottle of hydrogen peroxide for as little as one dollar.  If you find that idea floats your boat, please do use caution, follow the instructions, and be sure to to properly dilute the hydrogen peroxide solution before nebulizing it.

And even failing all that, we now know that there are always cheap steroid inhalers to fall back on, that cost next to nothing in nearly every country except of course the USA where the Big Pharma racketeers mercilessly gouge their prices.  In fact, like that Texas doctor pointed out last summer, early use of steroid inhalers seems to reduce the number of severe cases by 90%!  Let that sink in.  Problem solved.

Worried about the supposedly scary new mutant strains of the virus?  Worry not, since unlike vaccines and antibody treatments, the aforementioned protocols are NOT strain-specific and thus would work for ALL strains, full stop.  But if you are still concerned, then the best thing to do is to NOT support ANY degree or kind of lockdowns since in practice those just concentrate and incubate these new strains which inevitably escape and spread further, when it's really better to dilute, dilute, dilute so they don't become the dominant strains anywhere.  Seriously. 

FINAL THOUGHT:  When we say to end the pandemic, that is NOT to be confused with the mirage of "Zero Covid", which frankly makes about as much sense as "Zero Flu".  Like it or not, the virus is here to stay, but by doing the above we can easily accelerate the process by which it stops being a pandemic and becomes just another endemic nuisance like--and about as scary as--seasonal flu or the common cold.

Still More Evidence That Lockdowns Don't Work And Do More Harm Than Good--So Why Do They Still Exist?

In case you are still not convinced that lockdowns are worse than useless, after we have repeatedly presented evidence since April 2020, there is even more evidence now a year into the pandemic.

A recent study that compared more-restrictive NPIs (i.e. mandatory stay-at-home orders and business closures) to less-restrictive NPIs, and (unlike some studies) teased out the the effects of the latter from the former, did not find significant benefits on the course of a country's epicurve from the former, and perhaps even a perverse effect.  And another study finds an uncanny resemblance between the shapes of the epicurves of each virus wave in nearly every country in the world regardless of what they did for the most part.  This also works when comparing states and localities as well, by the way.  And worse, yet another study finds that the harms of lockdowns may very exceed the supposed benefits by a factor of TEN.

But hey, we could've told you that nine months ago.

In other words, with very few exceptions, the strictest lockdown countries and states sure "flattened the curve" all right--VERTICALLY.  If such extraordinary restrictions are applied too late, it is like gasoline on the fire.  And when applied earlier, it may delay things a bit before exploding sooner or later, but the more it does when it does.  But ultimately, it does not make much if any difference in terms of the progress of the virus once it becomes widespread enough.  Thus, early lockdowns are unnecessary compared to less-restrictive NPIs, late lockdowns are truly worse than useless, and both cause unnecessary and utterly preventable collateral damage.

So what do we call doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

QED

UPDATE:  Still another study, this time in the Northern Jutland region of Denmark where some areas had strict lockdowns while others didn't, finds no detectable difference in COVID rates between lockdown and non-lockdown locations.  Lockdowns apparently did not stop or even slow down transmission of the virus.  If the results of that natural experiment are not the final nail in the coffin for lockdowns, we really don't know what is.

And the UK?  Well, COVID infections were apparently already dropping before Lockdown 2.0 went into effect, and already rising again before the lockdown was relaxed.  Thus, the correlation with cases and deaths is most likely spurious and unrelated, and the lockdown clearly didn't do a lick of good.  But of course that didn't stop Boris from implementing Lockdown 3.0, which will likely last longer than the first two lockdowns combined.  The first time was naive, the second time was stupid, and the third time is truly the very height of thick-headedness!

And yet again, true to form, early evidence suggests that for Lockdown 3.0, infections also already peaked before that one would have had any sort of effect either.  In other words, the powers that be have a tendency to impose or tighten lockdown restrictions right around the peak, and then take credit for declines in cases that would have occurred regardless.

Oh, and school closures?  Yet another study came out showing that the lockdown zealots were wrong and that we at the TSAP were essentially right all along, namely that keeping schools open and fairly normal, even in times and places of significant community spread, and even without masks, does NOT lead to disaster for students, teachers, or anyone else.  And again, we could have told you that nine months ago.

Meanwhile, the collateral damage continues to mount, and will do so for many years to come. 

If only we had stuck to the wisdom of the ages that prevailed before March 2020, instead of throwing it all out the window like so much garbage.

STOP PRESS:  Be sure to also check out the ever-insightful Toby Young's excellent rebuttal to turncoat Christopher Snowdon's pro-lockdown piece, and Young's second rebuttal to Snowdon's rejoinder as well.  He debunks, debones, slices, dices, and juliennes the perpetually flimsy case for lockdowns, and pretty much lays waste to its remains.

Oh and by the way, Sweden, who famously eschewed lockdowns and barely even wore any masks, had a lower excess death rate for 2020 than most of Europe did.  Their COVID death rate was about average for Europe while their excess all-cause mortality was in fact better than average.  Kinda like how wide-open Florida did better than the USA average.

We Condemn Trump And His Deplorable Fan Club's Insurrection

Today, soon-to-be-ex-president Trump sank to a new low even for him.  He egged on a group of sore-loser stochastic domestic terrorists among his deplorable fan club to storm the U.S. Capitol in a desperate attempt to overturn the legitimate 2020 presidential election results by force.  They rioted, looted, attacked law enforcement and even shot at people, killing at least one.  And Donald even had the GALL to call them "patriots"!  Seriously, I believe there is another word that comes to mind instead--TRAITORS.  Or perhaps BROWNSHIRTS, as in early 1930s Germany.

Unprecedented, or as Donald himself would like to say, "UNPRESIDENTED".  Even his own party has now turned on him.  What them took so long, though?

We wholeheartedly condemn Trump and anyone who participated or encouraged such lawless and reckless behavior.  It was literally terrorism what they did, as well as sedition and insurrection.  All of which are very serious federal felonies, one more thing to add to the ever-growing rap sheet of the Trump Crime Family.  And he needs to be removed via the 25th Amendment yesterday and prosecuted for ALL of his misdeeds.  It will happen in two weeks anyway.

Meanwhile, the Democrats now officially control BOTH houses of Congress thanks to the Georgia runoff election, as well as the presidency starting January 20, 2021.  President-Elect Biden and Vice-President-Elect Kamala Harris will be sworn in, regardless.

As you like to say, Donald, "YOU'RE FIRED!"  Now go clean out your desk and GTFO.  Don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out, loser.  And your new jumpsuit will match your orange complexion nicely.

Best Explanation Yet Of The Oligarchs' And Technocrats' "Great Reset"

In case you didn't know the real reasons behind the oligarchs'/technocrats' so-called "Great Reset", please see this eye-opening video by the ever-insightful Catherine Austin Fitts.  Spoiler alert:  it isn't really about a virus, so much as about power and control.

A cashless society in which currency as we know it is replaced entirely by digital central bank "currency" that can be turned on and off at will by the oligarchs in charge, to totally control the masses, and ultimately usher in their necrotechnocratic dream of slavery and transhumanism?  What could possibly go wrong?  (As per Murphy's Law...)

It can be described as the ultimate triumph of wetiko.  That is, the virus of the mind and cancer of the soul, far worse than any physical virus, that is also known as EVIL.  One that unfortunately too many people accept as the banality of evil.

All the more reason for We the People to demand a return to normalcy and a halt to these Machiavellian machinations.  And yesterday is not soon enough!

Of course, it is not enough to simply oppose the Great Reset, lockdowns, and all that jazz.  The forces of good must present alternatives that pre-empt any perceived need for such machinations.  We must unveil the treatments and prophylaxis that we have noted would bring the actual COVID-19 pandemic to a halt almost overnight.  We must expose and reform the sketchy statistics and testing used to create it the massive casedemic superimposed on it.  And we must implement without delay the progressive priorities such as UBI, single-payer Medicare For All, debt jubilee, free college, and so on before the evil oligarchs and technocracy beat us to it and pervert and weaponize these otherwise beneficial ideas.  Conservatives may disagree with that last point, but this battle cannot be won by conservatives alone, as it transcends the whole left-right political spectrum.

UPDATE:  Apparently, the Canadian province of Ontario is possibly planning to eventually put some restrictions on people who choose not to get the COVID vaccine, and perhaps require proof of vaccination to enter some places.  This is how it starts, people, and we must oppose this kind of coercion 100%, full stop.  Fortunately, in the USA we have at least some governors like Ron DeSantis of Florida who have already ruled out any such mandates in their own states, throwing a major monkey wrench in the Machiavellian machinations of the necrotechnocracy.

And finally, it should be crystal clear by now that We the People are in an abusive relationship with our government, and have been since the pandemic was first declared (if not even earlier, albeit to a lesser degree).  All of the red flags are there, even if they may be disguised to appear green at first.  Lockdowns and related restrictions and propaganda essentially perfectly match the Duluth Model Power And Control Wheel as well as the Biderman's Chart of Coercion.  Let that sink in, folks.  Really makes you think.

UPDATE:  Looks like the YouTube censors took down the video, unfortunately.

We Need A Debt Jubilee Yesterday

Forget a mere "stimulus", that is far too stingy to get America out of the hole we are in now.  We need a massive DEBT JUBILEE like the ancient Israelites used to do every 49 years (and frankly never should have stopped doing!), and not just for student loans (though certainly for that too). And the forgiven/cancelled debt amounts must be 100% non-taxable since we do not want to defeat the purpose of the jubilee.  So how can we do this without zeroing out everyone's bank account?  Easy, just print (or more accurately, electronically keystroke) the money.  The federal government is Monetarily Sovereign, and money is simply an accounting entry ever since we got off the gold standard on August 15, 1971.  So make the entry and be done with it.  And it wouldn't even be inflationary, since striking debt by the same amount as the amount of money creates has a net effect of zero on the money supply.  Meanwhile, removing this massive debt burden would be a massive B-12 shot for economic growth.  So even people who have zero debt and feel they have no dog in the fight would benefit from a stronger economy that is no longer weighed down by a massive collective debt overhang.

Additionally, we would also need a permanent Universal Basic Income (UBI) of at least $1000/month for adults and $500/month for people under 18 (and double those amounts for the first three months), single-payer Medicare For All, free public college for all, and things like that as well if we are to truly transcend the crisis America is in.  Again, for a fraction of the amount that the FERAL Reserve creates every year to give/lend to the big banks, we could do it without raising taxes or inflation.

As for putting Americans back to work, there are three words:  Green New Deal.  The infrastructure upgrades and changes that need to be made will create lots of new jobs. And since goods and services would by definition increase in tandem with the new money created to fund them, the net effect on inflation would also be effectively zero as well.

(Hat tip to the brilliant and wonderful Ellen Brown for pointing so many of these things out.)

That said, what we will NOT advocate is shutting down the economy again and hoping to print our way out of it.  Because deliberately shrinking the goods and services in the economy via shuttering the economy by fiat, while simultaneously printing money to paper over the hole, WILL be VERY inflationary if maintained for more than a few weeks at most.  Just ask Argentina how well their world's longest lockdown is working, with 40% inflation and a COVID death rate higher than wide-open Brazil.

So what are we waiting for?

The TSAP's New Updated Position On Face Mask Mandates

NOTE:  The following shall fully supersede any positions taken or advice given prior to December 1, 2020, and shall remain in effect until further notice.

With the CDC doubling down on universal face mask use 11 months into the pandemic, and President-Elect Joe Biden wanting Americans to wear masks during his first 100 days in office (which will not even start until January 20, 2021, thus lasting until April 30, 2021), it is time for a fresh review of the TSAP's position on face masks and any mandates thereof.

From April/May until August 2020, the TSAP had enthusiastically supported broad but nuanced, relatively short-term mask mandates, primarily as a safe pathway out of lockdown.  Since then, in light of recent evidence, our position has gradually shifted.

A cursory review of the empirical evidence so far reveals that while masks may very well be marginally effective at the micro level, they apparently are practically insignificant at the macro level, at least in the long run.  To wit, as the charts here so clearly show, broad mask mandates do not appear to have had any noticeable impact on the course of a country, state, or locality's epidemic curve.  To name a few, Hawaii, Illinois, LA, Miami, Kansas, Wisconsin, Israel, Japan, Spain, Argentina, and most notoriously Peru all have seen no beneficial long-run impact on cases (which actually increased at some point after implementation, even in conjunction with strict lockdowns in some cases), and the same was ultimately true for deaths and hospitalizations as well, except for Hawaii and Japan whose death rates remain unusually low for reasons not yet fully understood.  As for Czechia, the crown jewel of early mask mandates, it appears to have only worked the first time in conjunction with their early suppression strategy in the spring, but not the second time around when the virus came roaring back in the fall.  Ditto for Slovenia, a fortiori in fact.  France and Italy's second waves were also a milder version of this phenomenon.  Meanwhile, mandate-free Sweden, Denmark, Norway, North and South Dakota, Georgia, and the parts of Florida without local mandates don't seem to have had worse trends overall compared to many places that have such mandates.  And until very recently, The Netherlands as well, having gone until December without a broad mask mandate.

And we certainly do NOT support any federal mask mandates in the USA at all, period.  They are not only constitutionally dubious at best, but as noted above there is simply not nearly enough evidence in their favor to justify such unprecedented federal government overreach even temporarily.  Fortunately, even Joe Biden himself has largely walked back his initially strong support for such federal mandates.

Furthermore, on November 18, 2020, the much awaited Danish mask RCT study was finally released and published three months late in the Annals of Internal Medicine.  And the results were, shall we say, rather underwhelming, and not statistically significant (i.e. not statistically different from null).  Not necessarily the final word, but hardly a ringing endorsement for the effectiveness of general mask use in the community at the macro level.

A recent Cochrane review of the literature is not exactly reassuring either, to put it mildly.

But what about source control, you say?  That is, protection of people around the wearer, which most studies were not designed to look at?  Again, a cursory look at the data in the weeks and months following the implementation of mask mandates doesn't really support that either, at least not at a general population level.  Thus any such community benefit is likely either very small, very transient, or both.

Thus, we can conclude that even if there is some overarching benefit to wearing masks in some situations, universal community masking (or lack thereof) is nowhere near the game-changer it was originally sold as.  If it were, the pandemic would have been effectively over in a given locality, state, or country (even as it raged elsewhere) within two or three weeks following the implementation of a broad mask mandate.  And that has not happened anywhere in the world, even in places with very high (90%+) compliance, and even when combined with a ban on indoor restaurant dining (a behavior which might vitiate the results).  And as of November, the TSAP believes going forward that mask wearing (outside of a healthcare setting) should be largely (if not entirely) voluntary, and that businesses of any kind should be free to decide whether or not to require employees and/or customers to wear them.  And they certainly should not be government-mandated in private residences, as that is a truly massive and unprecedented overreach, not to mention unenforceable.

What consenting adults do in their own private residences with each other or their guests is none of the government's business, period.  Alas, the progressive left seems to have regrettably forgotten that in the fog of pandemic.  Let people of reasonably sound mind choose to take the risks they feel comfortable with when in private, at the very least.  As for the supposed externalities when a guest or host of a private gathering or visit inadvertently and unknowingly infects someone who then infects someone who infects someone (and so on) who dies or becomes severely ill, there are enough degrees of separation that unless it was at the very beginning of the pandemic (nearly a year ago globally, and at least nine months ago in the USA), the virus would already be so widespread that in the grand scheme of things such unfortunate people would likely have caught it regardless.  Thus, it would still be well within the realm of what modern civilized and free societies tolerate as acceptable risks, for better or worse.

And while we shouldn't have to dignify this with a response, we will note that the idea that people should wear masks during sexual activity is just plain silly because if you're getting that close to someone for that long, presumably indoors (or in a vehicle), it's more like the mask is wearing YOU for protection, not the other way around.  Even if it's the vaunted N95 or KN95, in fact.  It's like wearing a helmet while skydiving, as the old Seinfeld joke goes.  Thus you might wanna just simply take a rain check on such activities for now if you are that concerned about the virus, at least with people outside your "bubble".

Riddle me this:  if masks work so well, why is six-foot distancing still needed?  If six-foot distancing works so well, why are masks still needed?  If both work so well, why are lockdowns and closures still supposedly needed?  And if lockdowns worked so well the first time, why do we need to do it again?  If they did not work the first time, why are we doing it again?  Why still nearly a whole year into the pandemic when the curve was clearly flattened many months ago? And of course no measure can logically be both "Swiss cheese" and the "most effective tool we have" at the same time, unless one were to tacitly admit that all such measures are largely ineffective in practice, meaning that even the "most effective tool" would be largely useless.  Give the zealots enough rope...

(Oh, and masks are not exactly eco-friendly in the long run either, by the way.  The very same folks who want to quickly phase out plastic bags, containers, straws, etc. seem to have a real blind spot here.)

Thus our current position is that mask mandates from any level of government should only be imposed on bona fide local red zones, with nuance, and even then only for two or three weeks at a time.  That's it, full stop.  Children under the age of 12 should be exempt in any case, both in school and otherwise.  And after January 1, 2021 at the latest, all existing mask mandates in green zones ought to be rescinded or allowed to expire, though voluntary recommendations can still remain in effect.

Our best advice?  "Use masks judiciously, NOT superstitiously", pretty much sums it up.

2021 UPDATE:  The much-ballyhooed CDC mask mandate study has now been utterly debunked as of March 4, 2021.  And just a few days later, another one bit the dust as well.  And this debunking is basically Strike Three after 1) the underwhelming Danish mask study even after it was clearly "nerfed" to get it past the censors, and 2) a cursory comparison of states, localities and countries that had vs. did not have mask mandates before and during this past fall and winter.  Spoiler alert:  the mandates were a big nothing in terms of effectiveness.  From the looks of it at face value, Fauci may have indeed been largely right the first time when he initially pooh-poohed masks and actually told us not to touch our faces, and we're certainly old enough to remember that.  And it's not like mask mandates have actually led to faster reopenings or averted lockdowns either.  So whatever merits there are to individual mask wearing in whatever circumstances, there is no valid reason for any government to force them on anyone (outside of a healthcare setting), period, and it should be left to individuals and businesses to decide for themselves. 

By the same token, it looks like the WHO was also right the first time in that regard as well.  Even as recently as July 2020, believe it or not.

Kinda like when they let it slip in June 2020 that truly asymptomatic spread, while possible, is a lot rarer than most people think, a mere 0.7% even in that very closest and riskiest setting of all, within households.  Only to be forced to walk it back the very next day, of course.  And outdoor spread?  A vanishingly low 0.1% of cases.  And fomites (surfaces)?  An even lower still < 0.01%, and probably even less than that if people wash their hands and don't touch their faces or keep fiddling with their masks!  All for a disease with an infection fatality rate within the ballpark of a nasty flu season for most people, and that we know now how to treat effectively.  This is what the actual science says.  And it utterly demolishes the need for lockdowns, closures, mask mandates, or any other New Abnormal restrictions at this juncture, period.

See also here as well for a good explanation of the crucial difference between large droplets (that masks do seem to work for) and much smaller aerosols (which basically go right through and/or around essentially ALL masks other than properly fit-tested N95s).  It is the latter that seem to be a bigger driver of transmission, unfortunately, and worse, since they tend to penetrate deeper into the lungs, they also tend to make you sicker too.  Thus, we should not be at all surprised by the null effects of universal community masking at the macro level.  In fact, even the "variolation" theory is basically turned on its head as well--larger droplets would probably provide better "variolation" than aerosols would, ironically.

As for children, see here for a good and thorough debunking of the notion that forcing them to wear masks in school and elsewhere is somehow necessary, effective, or benign.  Even the WHO says that children under 5 years of age should not wear masks at all, children ages 6-11 should only wear them in certain circumstances, and children of any age with various kinds of disabilities or health conditions should not be required to wear them at all.  The CDC, on the other hand, apparently prefers to steamroll over anything even remotely resembling nuance in that regard.

See also here as well for an excellent article about how continued universal masking may even be harmful in the long run for all ages.  All the more reason NOT to make this practice permanent in any sense, and to phase it out completely in nearly all circumstances. We ignore actual science at our peril.