Here is another “behind a ‘pay-wall'” article I heard discussed this morning by theWALL STREET JOURNAL.
PECKFORD 42 has the article from which I will grab portions of:
…Current estimates about the Covid-19 fatality rate may be too high by orders of magnitude….
…The best (albeit very weak) evidence in the U.S. comes from the National Basketball Association. Between March 11 and 19, a substantial number of NBA players and teams received testing. By March 19, 10 out of 450 rostered players were positive. Since not everyone was tested, that represents a lower bound on the prevalence of 2.2%. The NBA isn’t a representative population, and contact among players might have facilitated transmission. But if we extend that lower-bound assumption to cities with NBA teams (population 45 million), we get at least 990,000 infections in the U.S. The number of cases reported on March 19 in the U.S. was 13,677, more than 72-fold lower. These numbers imply a fatality rate from Covid-19 orders of magnitude smaller than it appears.
How can we reconcile these estimates with the epidemiological models? First, the test used to identify cases doesn’t catch people who were infected and recovered. Second, testing rates were woefully low for a long time and typically reserved for the severely ill. Together, these facts imply that the confirmed cases are likely orders of magnitude less than the true number of infections. Epidemiological modelers haven’t adequately adapted their estimates to account for these factors.
The epidemic started in China sometime in November or December. The first confirmed U.S. cases included a person who traveled from Wuhan on Jan. 15, and it is likely that the virus entered before that: Tens of thousands of people traveled from Wuhan to the U.S. in December. Existing evidence suggests that the virus is highly transmissible and that the number of infections doubles roughly every three days. An epidemic seed on Jan. 1 implies that by March 9 about six million people in the U.S. would have been infected. As of March 23, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 499 Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. If our surmise of six million cases is accurate, that’s a mortality rate of 0.01%, assuming a two week lag between infection and death. This is one-tenth of the flu mortality rate of 0.1%. Such a low death rate would be cause for optimism.
This does not make Covid-19 a nonissue. The daily reports from Italy and across the U.S. show real struggles and overwhelmed health systems. But a 20,000- or 40,000-death epidemic is a far less severe problem than one that kills two million. Given the enormous consequences of decisions around Covid-19 response, getting clear data to guide decisions now is critical. We don’t know the true infection rate in the U.S. Antibody testing of representative samples to measure disease prevalence (including the recovered) is crucial. Nearly every day a new lab gets approval for antibody testing, so population testing using this technology is now feasible.
If we’re right about the limited scale of the epidemic, then measures focused on older populations and hospitals are sensible. Elective procedures will need to be rescheduled. Hospital resources will need to be reallocated to care for critically ill patients. Triage will need to improve. And policy makers will need to focus on reducing risks for older adults and people with underlying medical conditions.
A universal quarantine may not be worth the costs it imposes on the economy, community and individual mental and physical health. We should undertake immediate steps to evaluate the empirical basis of the current lockdowns.
Dr. Bendavid and Dr. Bhattacharya are professors of medicine at Stanford. Neeraj Sood contributed to this article.
Dr. Fauci reacts to claims Trump is not following the science on COVID-19
Dr. Fauci calls coordinated response to COVID-19 ‘impressive’
This is where Dr. Fauci is wrong however, the morbidity rate.
Dr. Fauci on why it’s important for everyone to take precautions on COVID-19
The entire Hugh Hewitt interview with Dr. Fauci can be found HERE. The entire Mark Levin interview can be found here.
THE NUMBERS
I will note this graph that started a large conversation about stats (and medicines that are helping right now, at the end). I will only excerpt a small portion of the debate to make the point people are using logically guessed at total numbers versus KNOWN CASES. The “guesstaments” of total infections for the flu — is used against known cases based on parts of the world that in no-way reflect the healthcare system of the numbers we are experiencing. We could have, however, even kept those lower if we followed the South Korean model, who got it under control without carpet bombing their economy.
Coronavirus Cases Have Dropped Sharply In South Korea. What’s The Secret To Its Success? (SCIENCE MAGAZINE)
Europe is now the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic. Case counts and deaths are soaring in Italy, Spain, France, and Germany, and many countries have imposed lockdowns and closed borders. Meanwhile, the United States, hampered by a fiasco with delayed and faulty test kits, is just guessing at its COVID-19 burden, though experts believe it is on the same trajectory as countries in Europe.
Amid these dire trends, South Korea has emerged as a sign of hope and a model to emulate. The country of 50 million appears to have greatly slowed its epidemic; it reported only 74 new cases today, down from 909 at its peak on 29 February. And it has done so without locking down entire cities or taking some of the other authoritarian measures that helped China bring its epidemic under control. “South Korea is a democratic republic, we feel a lockdown is not a reasonable choice,” says Kim Woo-Joo, an infectious disease specialist at Korea University. South Korea’s success may hold lessons for other countries—and also a warning: Even after driving case numbers down, the country is braced for a resurgence….
And in Italy we find the following helpful information:
More than 99% of Italy’s coronavirus fatalities were people who suffered from previous medical conditions, according to a study by the country’s national health authority. (BLOOMBERG)
In Italy, a country with one of the world’s oldest populations, a March 4 analysis by the national health institute found that of the 105 patients who died from the virus, the average age was 81. This put a 20-year gap between the average age of people who tested positive for the virus and the deceased, the institute said. On Friday, an ICU physician in Lombardy — the epicenter of Italy’s outbreak — told JAMA there have been only two deaths of people under the age of 50. (VOX)
(The full interview is here) Victor Davis Hanson drives the point home that Italy is a special case nothing like America. Wuhan China is not something to model a shutdown of the the American Economy over as well. See more here: “Shutting Down America – Is It Worth It?“
So in the course of discussing some of the issue noted above, persons continually tell me (like Dr. Fuaci just did) the following. This next graphic was posted tin response to me by CHRIS L. as a response to my saying so far the flu has been, and will most likely be more deadly. Throughout the argument he was using ESTIMATED numbers of those with the flu by the CDC for United States totals… mathematically figured out to the actual deaths KNOWN to be from the flu. He then compares the world’s KNOWN cases (not ESTIMATED) of the Wuhan Virus (Covid-19) to KNOWN cases of deaths from Wuhan. In the discussion he keeps making this mistake, and even in what he thought was graphic to help me understand.
The flu row is all ESTIMATIONS. All. The Covid-19 row is mainly from KNOWN cases. While CHRIS L. thought he was making a strong point, he ended up proving mine. Here is an example that took place this morning during the composure of this post. BUT first, ROSS T.is responding to my posting this initial graphic (updating my previous 2019-2020 numbers of KNOWN flu infections compared to KNOWN death rates):
I snipped that from the CDC’s website. This is a bad flu season… as of late February CNN said the death of children because of the flu was a record breaking 105. The CDC a couple of days ago notes the number is 150. As of two days ago, the KNOWN morbidity to KNOWN flu patients (influenza a. and b.) was 7.1% — ROSS T. was not getting what I was saying so I posted some of these to make the point (these are as of March 22nd) — I use various counters as they all dial in a bit differently:
1.31% Morbidity
1.03% Morbidity
1.30% Morbidity
1.27% Morbidity
Here how the discussion took place thereafter (BTW, I do not attribute to (or claim to know Dr. Fauci’s motivation. People think “scientists” are more moral than a plumber, florist, attorney, DMV worker, etc. They are not. NOR are agendas in such people less than a politicians. While I respect JOHN H.’s opinion, and there have recent revelations to a “love” of Hillary Clinton and her agenda… so it is in the realm of possibility he is assisting in the torpedoing of Trump’s economy which the Democrats would love before 2020… but in actuality, I have no insight into the Dr.’s motivation. I do know however he has been proven wrong on almost every “national emergency since the heterosexual AIDS scare: “Heterosexual AIDS, Ebola repeatedly, the H1N1 swine flu that was actually vastly milder than the regular flu and, especially, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003” — Dr. Fauci has been on the wrong side of the issue regarding his concern and estimated alarm.
…CONVO with ROSS T….
Take note I mention to ROSS T. three times that the stats for the flu come from the CDC before he asks where I got the stats:
Do you — the reader — get it now? Numbers are being switched… you are being baited-n-switched to get an emotional (not factual, non-statistical) outcome. AGAIN, I have a myriad of must read articles (linked) in a post for ease of access. They deal with a myriad of issues: “Some Must Read Article Regarding the Wuhan Virus“
I wish only to add some conversation regarding the “false positive” aspect of this issue. First, CHRISTY MAC makes a good point:
It’s hard to know how accurate these numbers are. Bc I know we aren’t testing everyone. In fact most ppl aren’t even allowed to be tested
Here is the portion I wish to note… my input was useless, but I include it anyways:
Here are some numbers via the CDC regarding similar testing… these high numbers are alarming!
ONE LAST EXAMPLE
via CHRIS L.
CHRIS L. said wryly the following to make an emotional point:
I guess the little thinking guys makes his point stronger. So I respond with an equally emotive way (again, to make a point that he probably does not get):
Here are the stories:
Mysterious Flu Strain Nearly Wipes Out Family As Two Siblings Die Taking Care Of Sickened Mother… And The Third Sibling Remains Deathly Ill (DAILY MAIL)
A mysterious flu strain nearly wiped out a family, killing an 81-year-old woman and two of her children who were taking care of her. A third sibling remains deathly ill.
Lou Ruth Blake took sick with a respiratory infection February 23 and her son and two daughters rushed to her home in rural Lusby, Maryland.
Five days later, her children all came down with similar symptoms, likely tied to a particularly virulent bout of the flu.
But there were further complications. When Ms Blake’s three children went to the hospital, they were coughing up blood and showed signs of a staph bacterial infections, as well, the Washington Post reported.
Ms Blake died March 1 at MedStar Washington Hospital Center after being treated for Influenza A and underlying medical conditions.
Her son Lowell, 58, and her daughter Vanessa, 56, died Monday — five days after their mother — after they were hospitalized with the same virulent flu strain, as well.
Ms Blake’s second daughter, age 51, is currently in critical condition with the same collection of symptoms — a deadly respiratory infection caused by Influenza A and a staph infection.
On Tuesday, officials from the Maryland Department of Health and the federal Centers for Disease Control wearing full containment suits — complete with air tanks so they wouldn’t breathe the air — searched the house for clues about what might have made the flu so potent….
Why the Flu Kills Young, Otherwise Healthy People (GIZMODO)
As one of the worst flu seasons in years continues to sicken people across the U.S., one of its most striking aspects are the untimely deaths it’s caused: A 21-year-old bodybuilder; a 12-year-old boy; a 40-year-old marathoner. Infants, the elderly, and immunocompromised people are always at higher risk of dying from the flu, but how exactly does the flu kill an otherwise healthy person?
“The truth is, there’s still quite a bit of science that isn’t clear, but in general, when we talk about deaths related to influenza, there’s a couple of main mechanisms,” Dr. Daniel Eiras, an infectious disease and immunology expert at New York University, told me.
When doctors like Eiras talk about “flu-related deaths,” they’re lumping in more than one kind of cause. Broadly, there are deaths caused by the flu itself, and deaths caused or aided by the bacteria that take advantage of the opening in the immune system’s defenses created by the flu.
When the flu virus successfully sets up shop in our body, usually infecting our nose and throat cells, the body tries to fight back with a whole array of weapons, such as causing inflammation and launching T-cells and macrophages that turn the foreign invaders into goo. The flu’s symptoms—phlegmy cough, body aches, sore throat, and a fever—are the external result of this defense. It’s annoying for us, yes, but it generally works to eventually flush the virus out.
However, when the flu turns deadly, it’s often because the virus, the bacteria that proliferated in its wake, or both have found their way to the air sacs of our lungs, causing an infection we call pneumonia. There, the microscopic battle can overwhelm our body. The lungs become inflamed, while our air sacs become flooded with fluid and pus. That makes it hard for us to get enough oxygen, and without and sometimes even despite supportive care, we essentially drown to death…..
Mark Levin asks just how much our economy can take… why aren’t we attacking this thing like South Korea did? Tactfully.
Mark Levin reads from or touches on at least four articles linked below:
Horowitz: The Key Bad Assumption in The Bipartisan Panic Pander Bill (CONSERVATIVE REVIEW)
Prevention Expert: Data Shows Our Fight Against Coronavirus May Be Worse Than The Disease (DAILY WIRE)
A Fiasco in The Making? As the Coronavirus Pandemic Takes Hold, We Are Making Decisions Without Reliable Data (STAT NEWS)
Truckers Appeal To US To Keep Rest Stops, Gas Stations Open (MERCURY NEWS)
America should have followed the South Korea model, per, SCIENCE MAGAZINE:
…Amid these dire trends, South Korea has emerged as a sign of hope and a model to emulate. The country of 50 million appears to have greatly slowed its epidemic; it reported only 74 new cases today, down from 909 at its peak on 29 February. And it has done so without locking down entire cities or taking some of the other authoritarian measures that helped China bring its epidemic under control. “South Korea is a democratic republic, we feel a lockdown is not a reasonable choice,” says Kim Woo-Joo, an infectious disease specialist at Korea University. South Korea’s success may hold lessons for other countries—and also a warning: Even after driving case numbers down, the country is braced for a resurgence….
EXTRA CREDIT
ARTICLES
NEW: Coronavirus Cases Have Dropped Sharply In South Korea. What’S The Secret To Its Success? (SCIENCE MAGAZINE)
Horowitz: The Key Bad Assumption in The Bipartisan Panic Pander Bill (CONSERVATIVE REVIEW)
Prevention Expert: Data Shows Our Fight Against Coronavirus May Be Worse Than The Disease (DAILY WIRE)
A Fiasco in The Making? As the Coronavirus Pandemic Takes Hold, We Are Making Decisions Without Reliable Data (STAT NEWS)
Truckers Appeal To US To Keep Rest Stops, Gas Stations Open(MERCURY NEWS)
Taiwan Says It Warned WHO About Coronavirus In December, But Its Warnings Were Ignored (DAILY CALLER)
Why the Remedy May Be Worse Than the Disease (DENNIS PRAGER)
I grabbed this from my phone, because it is behind a WALL STREET JOURNAL paywall otherwise (for whatever reason my phone got the text?). Enjoy Art Laffer and Stephen Moore:
Obama’s Bad Stimulus Example: Democrats want to repeat the 2009 strategy of paying Americans not to work.
President Trump is negotiating with Congress over a massive stimulus plan to combat the severe economic and financial fallout from the coronavirus. One idea that seems to be catching on is a check of up to $1,200 to be mailed to every American, while Democrats in Congress want paid-leave policies and expanded welfare benefits. These may provide some needed temporary relief for families but are unlikely to help lift the economy. Keynesian stimulus almost always fails, and often makes the downturn worse and the eventual recovery weaker.
Mr. Trump would be wise to learn the lessons from Barack Obama’s $830 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. In the wake of the housing meltdown and financial crisis, Congress passed the largest stimulus-spending package in American history. The economic spark and job creation were supposed to appear almost immediately, as money flowed into “shovel ready” construction projects. Vice President Joe Biden barnstormed around the country in 2010 promising a “Summer of Recovery” that never came.
One problem apparent from the start was that only about 15% of the money was used for roads, bridges and other infrastructure projects. More than twice as much went to income-redistribution programs such as Medicaid, food stamps and extended unemployment insurance, or to green-energy projects. Remember the federally subsidized “cash for clunkers” auto trade-in program? That sop to the auto industry did little to shore up employment—or even the auto industry. University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan calls the postcrisis downturn the “redistribution recession.”
The left is now trumpeting the redistributive stimulus as a wondrous success. Mr. Obama even tweeted earlier this year that his stimulus plan laid the groundwork for “more than a decade of economic growth.” But the facts point in the opposite direction. When his stimulus plan passed, Mr. Obama’s economic team predicted above 4% growth each year from 2011 through 2013.
Fortune tellers with tarot cards and Ouija boards might have gotten closer to the mark. On average, growth from 2009 to 2012 was a mere 2%. Two years after the stimulus the unemployment rate was still 9%, and it would have been much higher if not for the millions of Americans who dropped out of the labor force because jobs were so scarce. The plan was designed to help the middle class, but median household income fell through 2011.
In 2015 the Joint Economic Committee of Congress compared the Obama recovery with the previous eight recessions and found that per capita income growth after 2009 was thousands of dollars below the average. The JEC’s conclusion summarizes the legacy of the Obama stimulus: “On economic growth the Obama recovery ranks dead last.”
To paint a rosy picture, Democrats have had to argue that the economy would have been even worse, bordering on a second Great Depression, without all of the spending. Yet their outlook before passing the stimulus exposes that argument as a mere shifting of goal posts. Actual job growth after 2009 was lower than what Mr. Obama’s economic team predicted it would have been without the hundreds of billions in spending. That’s some “investment.”
Then as now, Nancy Pelosi was speaker of the House. Her strategy was, as Mr. Obama’s chief of staff put it, not to let a crisis “go to waste.” The 2009 stimulus morphed into a giant welfare bill—by design. Mrs. Pelosi said back then that spending money on food stamps and unemployment insurance was “fast acting” and “fiscally possible,” and that these programs could deliver a surplus of economic activity for every dollar spent. Magically, paying people not to work was supposed to get more people to work.
Now she is peddling the same economic non sequiturs, hoping to salvage employment while passing two weeks of paid leave for employers with fewer than 500 workers, beefed-up unemployment insurance, and other redistribution programs at a price tag of hundreds of billions of dollars. Democrats even tried to make the paid-leave provision permanent. All this spending will decrease the number of Americans who return quickly to work after the crisis.
Given the current public-health strategy of social distancing, providing cash and in-kind benefits to tens of millions of stranded workers may be a prudent and compassionate approach. But no one should pretend these programs will stimulate recovery. They are likelier to prolong a slump, as the Obama strategy did. President Trump should beware: Another redistribution recession might even ensure that Joe Biden takes his job in November.
A much simpler and more effective stimulus would be a pro-growth tax cut, such as a suspension of the payroll tax. In addition to boosting take-home pay, it would give 27 million small businesses an incentive to hire rather than fire.
Mr. Laffer is chairman of Laffer Associates. Mr. Moore is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation. They are authors of “Trumponomics: Inside the America First Plan to Revive Our Economy.”
This is an excerpt of the longer interview below… but this is the money quote[s]… also, I was under the impression Italy had more hospital rooms for their population… this is not the case!
More than 99% of Italy’s coronavirus fatalities were people who suffered from previous medical conditions, according to a study by the country’s national health authority. (BLOOMBERG)
In Italy, a country with one of the world’s oldest populations, a March 4 analysis by the national health institute found that of the 105 patients who died from the virus, the average age was 81. This put a 20-year gap between the average age of people who tested positive for the virus and the deceased, the institute said. On Friday, an ICU physician in Lombardy — the epicenter of Italy’s outbreak — told JAMA there have been only two deaths of people under the age of 50. (VOX)
CRITICAL CARE BEDS PER-CAPITA (USA #1)
…In order to show where that pressure could be highest, the following infographic pulls together data from three different sources to show the number of critical care beds per 100,000 inhabitants in different countries. According to a paper published in the Intensive Care Medicine journal utilizing 2012 data, Italy had 12.5 ICU beds per 100,000 of its population that year while Germany had 29.2 ICU beds per 100,000 inhabitants. A different paper published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information in 2015 states that capacity in the United States is even higher at 34.2 ICU beds per 100,000 people.
In South Korea where a major testing push has led to a reduction in the rate of daily new infections, ICU bed capacity stood at 10.6 beds per 100,000 of the population in 2017. That’s according to an analysis published in the Critical Care Medicine journal in January of this year. It also found that the situation is worse in China and India where the number of critical care beds per 100,000 people stands at just 3.6 and 2.3 respectively….
Dennis Prager interviewed Victor Davis Hanson regarding his article[s] discussing the nations response to the Coronavirus. [Editor’s note: I swear, we are a nation of pussies!] Below are some articles that I think are must reads, Hanson’s articles included:
Dennis Prager discusses his article entitled “Why the Remedy May Be Worse Than the Disease” (https://tinyurl.com/v3u542j). In the process he merely asks some thought provoking questions, discusses the inability of people to allow for opinions that differ with theirs in discussion.
…Do Electric Vehicles really give off zero emissions?
While electric vehicles (EVs) do not emit CO2 like traditional combustion engine cars, they actually do still have particulate emissions that pose a substantial threat to clean air.
Batteries required to power cars with no assistance from a traditional engine are quite heavy and place a much larger burden on tires than traditional cars.
As the EVs rack up miles, particulates from tires, brake dust, and re-agitated roadway pollutants are all mixed into the environment, creating potentially harmful air quality.
As the increased workload on braking systems of EVs became a known problem, however, some electric cars have developed regenerative braking systems to curb the increase of air pollutants.
Where does all that recharging power come from?
While there are public charging stations scattered all over the world that tout a variety of renewable energy sources, the majority of EV charging is done at home by the vehicle owner.
A single overnight charge for the car can equate to running a large appliance for over a month, depending on the size of the vehicle and the intended battery range.
While renewable energy sources have increased in recent years, solar power still accounts for less than 2% of the total U.S. energy production.
Wind and hydropower account for about 14% of total energy output and nuclear power represents just under 20%.
But it is fossil fuels like coal and natural gas that power the majority of American homes and businesses with nearly 63% of all energy generation in the United States.
This means that the overnight charge for your environmentally friendly car is actually very likely dependent on fossil fuels, increasing emissions as the battery “fills up,” even though no fuel is going into a gas tank.
Producing and disposing of large, powerful batteries for EVs has a huge environmental impact
While the tailpipe emissions from EVs are non-existent, the effort to achieve the green-friendly ride requires a much heftier CO2 output than traditional cars.
In fact, a battery-only (nonhybrid) vehicle uses 8.8 CO2 tons on average to produce which is over 2 tons greater that of a traditional fuel or diesel-consuming vehicle.
Forty-six percent of all emissions generated by a battery-operated vehicle occurs at the time of production before the EV has even traveled to the dealership.
According to a report by Ricardo, this emissions-heavy production process poses a significant threat to the climate.
Batteries for EVs also have a limited life, which poses another set of problems for the future of clean energy cars.
For larger vehicles like vans and buses, batteries are estimated to need replacement every few years. Smaller cars may use their batteries for 7-10 years, depending on a variety of factors.
But disposing of old batteries is no simple task and is one that most countries are ill-prepared to deal with.
As they cannot be taken to landfills because of their toxic acid components, they must be recycled, which is an expensive, labor-intensive process.
Currently, regulations are being considered by the United States and the European Union for battery disposal. China places the burden of disposal on the car manufacturers….
Is it fair to say that atheism is simply a lack of a belief? Or is there some positive content to this alleged non-belief? Andy Bannister in episode 18 of SHORT/ANSWERS encourages our atheist friends to think a little more deeply about the need to test and defend what it is that they do believe.
Below is an excerpt from Frank Turek’s recent book, Stealing from God which deals well with the oddly new definition of atheism, which simply stated is a “lack of belief.”
This excerpt from the recommended book is preceded by William Lane Craig explaining how this definition merely is a statement of an immediate psychological state, and is not a position on anything. If this is a definition, then Dr. Craig’s cat is an atheist. Enjoy:
Don’t Atheists Just Lack a Belief in God?
It’s been fashionable lately for atheists to claim that they merely “lack a belief in God.” So when a theist comes along and says that atheists can’t support their worldview, some atheists will say something like, “Oh, we really don’t have a worldview. We just lack a belief in God. Since we’re not making any positive claims about the world, we don’t have any burden of proof to support atheism. We just find the arguments for God to be lacking.”
What’s lacking are good reasons to believe this new definition.
First, if atheism is merely a lack of belief in God, then atheism is just a claim about the atheist’s state of mind, not a claim about God’s existence. The “atheist” is simply saying, “I’m not psychologically convinced that God exists.” So what? That offers no evidence for or against God. Most people lack a belief in unguided evolution, yet no atheist would say that shows evolution is false.
Second, if atheism is merely a lack of belief in God, then rocks, trees, and outhouses are all “atheists” because they, too, lack a belief in God. It doesn’t take any brains to “lack a belief” in something. A true atheist believes that there is no God.
Third, if atheists merely “lacked a belief in God,” they wouldn’t be constantly trying to explain the world by offering supposed alternatives to God. As we’ll see, atheists write book after book insisting that God is out of a job because of quantum theory, multiple universes, and evolution. While none of those atheistic arguments succeed in proving there is no God, they do prove that atheists don’t merely lack a belief in God—they believe in certain theories to explain reality without God.
They believe in those theories because atheism is a worldview with beliefs just as much as theism is a worldview with beliefs. (A “worldview” is a set of beliefs about the big questions in life, such as: What is ultimate reality? Who are we? What’s the meaning of life? How should we live? What’s our destiny? etc.) To claim that atheism is not a worldview is like saying anarchy is not really a political position. As Bo Jinn observes, “An anarchist might say that he simply ‘rejects politics,’ but he is still confronted with the inescapable problem of how human society is to organize itself, whether he likes the idea of someone being in charge or not.”
Likewise, atheists can say they just “reject God,” but they are still confronted with the inescapable problem of how to explain ultimate reality. Just as anarchists affirm the positive belief that anarchy is the best way to organize society, atheists affirm the positive belief that atheistic materialism is the best way to explain ultimate reality. Materialism is the dominant view among atheists today and the view this book is addressing.
In other words, atheists don’t “lack a belief” in materialism. They are not skeptical of materialism—they think it’s true! As Phillip Johnson said, “He who is a skeptic in one set of beliefs is a true believer in another set of beliefs.” Lacking a belief in God doesn’t automatically establish materialism any more than lacking a belief in atheism automatically establishes Christianity. No atheist would say that a Christian has made a good case because he “lacks a belief” in materialism!
Frank Turek, Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God To Make Their Case (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2014), xxii-xxiv.
Dr. William Lane Craig answers the typical charge by atheists (like Dan Barker, George H. Smith, Michael Martin, Gordon Stein, etc. who define atheism as a “lack of belief in God”) who say literally everybody is an atheist.
LOLZ | UPDATE – My whole conversation was removed.
I cannot believe the level of bias at a site that is suppose to be representative of Santa Clarita’s Community. In fact, this Facebook page isn’t representing the SCV at all, it is the John F. Facebook Page. During a discussion about Coronavirus [for a laugh, see my Contagiously Funny Cartoons] I linked to my post answering a friend of the family’s query regarding the “worry level” of this seasonal “flu” (I link below and here to the difference via the CDC. It is less deadly that SARS, MERS, and the regular flu in the case of COVID-19. More below):
The above was taken down with the following note from JOHN EFFE.
To which I simply ask:
JOHN EFFE — please explain to me the falsehoods John… I would be curious if you’re even able to state them ably
This kicked off some fun. You see… when I was responding to the strain I was driving and using hands free “talk-to-text” in slow traffic (I drive for a living). So I was not able to fully respond to my detractors, however — you can see how the conversation ends when I get behind my keyboard at home and trounce JOHN EFFE’s “fact-checking ability.” The sub-par (BIASED) admin input at this Facebook Page speaks volumes.
Here is JOHN EFFE’s response:
I will forego the some of the back-n-forth… but I merely wanted to get on the record just how bad the thinking is by lefties today. For instance, here is another reason JOHN EFFE gave for removing my post:
He is “technically correct.” It is known as a “novel influenza,” and in this case of the Wuhan Virus (Covid-19) is less deadly than plain influenza, SARS, or MERS. China — because of their family units mostly living under one roof with very communal activities — are the bulk of the stats:
The CDC is expecting the percentage of deaths in KNOWN CASES to get as low as .7. MUCH LESS than common influenza:
These numbers will change a bit, obviously, but we can glean non-hysterical information from peeps like Dr. Drew Pinsky:
In other words, relax and do the exact same routine that influenza seasons make us do:
BACK TO MY TROUNCING:
JOHN EFFE finally stepped up and brought something to the table. He said:
I do not know what he means by plagiarism… the site I linked was mine. But I was grateful he dug in. here is my response:
MARCH 4th
China Deaths: 2,981
World Deaths: 3,200
Mainland China had 119 new confirmed cases as of Tuesday, down slightly from 125 on the previous day. The total number of cases on the mainland touched 80,270, while the death toll rose by 38 to 2,981 by March 3. (REUTERS: March 4th)
“We believe this decline is real,” WHO outbreak expert Maria Van Kerkhove said of China. The country has reported 80,270 infections and 2,981 fatalities. It has about 85% of the world’s cases and 95% of deaths from the COVID-19 illness. (SNOPES: March 4th)
“We believe this decline is real,” WHO outbreak expert Maria Van Kerkhove said of China. The country has reported 80,270 infections and 2,981 fatalities. It has about 85 percent of the world’s cases and 95 perent of deaths from the COVID-19 illness. (FIRST POST: March 4th)
Deaths spiked in Iran and Italy, which along with South Korea account for 80% of the new virus cases outside China, according to the World Health Organization. In all, more than 94,000 people have contracted the virus worldwide, with more than 3,200 deaths. (NBC BOSTON 10-NEWS: March 4th)
FEBRUARY 18th
China has suffered the most from the virus, which is now known as COVID-19, with the country having 99 percent of the cases. (FOX: Feb 18th)
China’s official death toll neared 1,900 on Tuesday. (JAPAN TIMES: Feb 18th)
Less deadly but more transmissible than SARS, MERS (Univ of Minnesota: Feb 24th)
Meanwhile, the World Health Organization (WHO) on Monday warned against “blanket measures” over the coronavirus outbreak. The organisation pointed out that the epidemic outside of China was only affecting a “tiny” proportion of the population. It also said that the infection has mortality rate of around 2 %, which is less deadly than other coronaviruses such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) or Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS). (HEALTH SITE: Feb 18th)
KNOWN CASES COMPARED
The W.H.O. thinks in the end the death rate will be .7… but since over 80% get the sniffles, it will be much less in the guessing arena
There is some hilarious irony in the strain where JOHN EFFE is merely admining his own views onto people and not representing Santa Clarita, it is that he posted a story about how many people in our Valley are infected so far:
The irony is this… using JOHN EFFE’sown criteria, when a fourth person has the Wuhan Virus in our Valley, all that EFFE attributed to my link would now be applicable to his. His wanting current info, old info being corrupt somehow. His info won’t age well either. Etc. You see, typically the Left uses one standard to apply to those they just find a visceral disagreement with (for instance, he probably saw Greg Gutfeld and Ben Shapiro’s names… and without reading or watching them just said in mind: conservatives bad, like orange man bad).
As you have seen, EFFE’s biased admining is a shining example of what are Valley really deals with. Bad thinking.
RUSH: I’m always interested in people’s reaction to this program. I think I have a lot of empathy, and I think one of the reasons why the relationship you and I have is good is ’cause I know how you hear this show. That, I think, is a key ingredient. It’s called empathy. I know how you hear it.
So, when I check emails and get questions from people, usually I’m not surprised, and I’m not surprised that I got beaucoup number of questions: “Rush, you don’t sound panicked over any of this. The last two days, you don’t sound panicked, and yet everybody’s panicked. I’m panicked,” people say in their email. “I’m scared to death. I mean, I’ve looked, the stock market was pulling up to 30,000. Now it’s down to 21,000. The Democrat Party, every move they’re making is designed to grow government, make government bigger, and you don’t seem alarmed.”
Folks, panic is… I don’t know. I’m not panicked. I am ticked off like you cannot believe, and I am really having a conversation with myself about how far to go in explaining why I’m mad, ’cause I’m mad about the politics of this. For example, let me give you some statistics. How many of you even remember the swine flu 2009, 2010? I don’t remember it. I mean, I remember we had it. But I don’t remember any panic about it. I don’t remember a thing about the swine flu.
I went back and looked at the stats and I was stunned. Are you ready for this? The swine flu outbreak in this country in 2009 and 2010, 60 million Americans were infected. Do you remember that? Sixty million were infected. Dr. Siegel, one of the Fox doctors was on TV explaining this last night. He was not my primary source for it, but he ended up confirming it. Sixty million people were infected.
Do you know how many people were hospitalized in 2009-2010 with the swine flu? Three hundred thousand were hospitalized. So 60 million people infected, 300,000 hospitalized. And nobody even remembers it. And why? Well, because we had a different president. We had a Democrat president by the name of Barack Obama, and the news then was how wonderfully well Obama was handling it, how expertly well Obama was dealing with it.
There wasn’t any media panic. The Republican Party did not politicize it at all. They made not one single effort that anybody can find or remember to try to make political hay out of it. It was treated as a health issue from top to bottom. Sixty million Americans infected, 300,000 hospitalized. I don’t know what the death toll was. The numbers with the coronavirus are not even close. They are barely a fraction of a percentage compared to the swine flu.
And then we also had Ebola. And I do remember a little bit more about Ebola, and once again, the Drive-By Media was praising the skills and the composure and the brilliance of Barack Obama in dealing with it. And I remember being kind of ticked off about that because there wasn’t anything anybody can do about Ebola. Ebola is like any of these other viruses. There’s nothing we can do to contain them.
See, the reason I’m not panicked is I don’t have enough emotion left for panic ’cause I’m too mad. I’m too ticked off at this. We’re watching the U.S. economy be wrecked here. There’s some people enjoying it. And it makes me mad. There’s some people’s lives here that are being seriously damaged over this. And you know what’s gonna happen? It’s gonna end. We are going to overcome it. It’s going to fizzle out like all of these do.
There’s some real positives if you want to find ’em here, and I, of course, have, and I’ll share them with you in a minute. The point is we’re gonna rebound from this, and when we do, you had better get ready and hold on tight, because this market’s gonna rebound. The people who are selling right now and getting out of it are panicking, and they don’t want to be selling. Everybody’s doing this from a very defensive posture and point of view….
I have had this article thrown in my face too many times… and with a YUGE thanks to ACE OF SPADES for this. Here is the typical Facebook link to the Washington Post article (which is behind a paywall):
To say this article is a fav of Dems and #NeverTrumpers is an understatement. Here is an archived (not behind a pay wall) Washington Post opinion piece by a named source — the author of the piece.
Tim Morrison is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and former senior director for counterproliferation and biodefense on the National Security Council.
President Trump gets his share of criticism — some warranted, much not. But recently the president’s critics have chosen curious ground to question his response to the coronavirus outbreak since it began spreading from Wuhan, China, in December.
It has been alleged by multiple officials of the Obama administration, including in The Post, that the president and his then-national security adviser, John Bolton, “dissolved the office” at the White House in charge of pandemic preparedness. Because I led the very directorate assigned that mission, the counterproliferation and biodefense office, for a year and then handed it off to another official who still holds the post, I know the charge is specious.
Now, I’m not naive. This is Washington. It’s an election year. Officials out of power want back into power after November. But the middle of a worldwide health emergency is not the time to be making tendentious accusations.
It is true that the Trump administration has seen fit to shrink the NSC staff. But the bloat that occurred under the previous administration clearly needed a correction. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, congressional oversight committees and members of the Obama administration itself all agreed the NSC was too large and too operationally focused (a departure from its traditional role coordinating executive branch activity). As The Post reported in 2015, from the Clinton administration to the Obama administration’s second term, the NSC’s staff “had quadrupled in size, to nearly 400 people.” That is why Trump began streamlining the NSC staff in 2017.
ACE OF SPADES excerpts a portion after this commentary:
He notes that Trump did shrink the NSC — because Obama had bloated it from 100 persons to 400 in just a few years.
But the NSC retained its epidemic personnel — just merged with biodefense and counterprolifereation.
Here is that portion (plus some):
One such move at the NSC was to create the counterproliferation and biodefense directorate, which was the result of consolidating three directorates into one, given the obvious overlap between arms control and nonproliferation, weapons of mass destruction terrorism, and global health and biodefense. It is this reorganization that critics have misconstrued or intentionally misrepresented. If anything, the combined directorate was stronger because related expertise could be commingled.
The reduction of force in the NSC has continued since I departed the White House. But it has left the biodefense staff unaffected — perhaps a recognition of the importance of that mission to the president, who, after all, in 2018 issued a presidential memorandum to finally create real accountability in the federal government’s expansive biodefense system…..
Now ACE switches gears to note who is reTweeting the story:
So you can see how the media eagerly misleads the public — yes, an “office” was dissolved. But most of the personnel making up that office were retained, and added to a new, merged office.
So they say “the office” was dissolved and intend you to take that to mean that the epidemic unit was disbanded.
That’s a lie, but that’s what they want you to believe.
They are the enemy of the people and a reckoning is coming.
Via Tami, John Bolton is now tweeting out the article quoted above:
What does it mean to be tolerant? The dictionary defines tolerance as respect for opinions, beliefs, and practices that differ from your own. But in our polarized cultural climate, it has come to mean something else entirely. Greg Koukl, president of Stand to Reason and author of Tactics, sorts it all out.
Are you tolerant? You probably think so. But who is tolerant in America today? Is it those on the left, or those on the right? In this video, Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report analyzes this question and shares his experience.
BONUS MATERIAL
(HOTAIR) “….’Liberals think they are tolerant but often they aren’t,’ Zakaria said. He then cited a 2016 PEW survey which found 70% of Democrats said Republicans were close-minded as compared to 52% of Republicans who said the same of Democrats. ‘But each side scores about the same in terms of close-mindedness and hostility to hearing contrarian views,’ Zakaria said….” (More at NEWSBUSTERS)
One of the few times I agree with him. But asHOTAIR notes, he bungles his commencement speech a bit.
The above is an example of relativism run-amock with young people in downtown Durham after the Pride Festival at Duke University Sept 28th 2013. Another interview HERE.
(This post is updated, as the video from the “Thrive Apologetics Conference” was deleted. New information was substituted in its place.) Posted below are three presentations. The first presentation (audio) is Dr. Beckwith’s classic presentation where high school and college kids get a 2-week crash course in the Christian worldview.
The following two presentations are by Gregory Koukle. The first is a UCLA presentation, the second is an excellent presentation ay Biola University entitled “The Intolerance of Tolerance.” Enjoy this updated post.
Here is — firstly — a classic presentation by Greg Koukl of STAND TO REASON.
Below this will be another presentation that is one of Koukl’s best yet, and really is a video update to the excellent book, Relativism: Feet Planted Firmly in Mid-Air… a phrase common to Francis Schaeffer, “feet planted firmly in mid-air.”
Since present day Humanism vilifies Judeo-Christianity as backward, its goal to assure progress through education necessitates an effort to keep all mention of theism out of the classroom. Here we have the irony of twentieth century Humanism, a belief system recognized by the Supreme Court as a non-theistic religion, foisting upon society the unconstitutional prospect of establishment of a state-sanctioned non-theistic religion which legislates against the expression of a theistic one by arguing separation of church & state. To dwell here in more detail is beyond the scope of this article, but to close, here are some other considerations:
“We should note this curious mark of our own age: the only absolute allowed is the absolute insistence that there is no absolute” (Schaeffer)
In the earlier spirit of cooperation with the Christian church the ethics or values of the faith were “borrowed” by the humanists. In their secular framework, however, denying the transcendent, they negated the theocentric foundation of those values, (the character of God), while attempting to retain the ethics. So it can be said that the Humanist, then, lives on “borrowed capital”. In describing this situation, Francis Schaeffer observed that: “…the Humanist has both feet firmly planted in mid-air.” His meaning here is that while the Humanist may have noble ideals, there is no rational foundation for them. An anthropocentric view says that mankind is a “cosmic accident”; he comes from nothing, he goes to nothing, but in between he’s a being of supreme dignity. What the Humanist fails to face is that with no ultimate basis, his ideals, virtues and values are mere preferences, not principles. Judging by this standard of “no ultimate standard”, who is to say whose preferences are to be “dignified”, ultimately?
I was asked the following question on Facebook by a friend of the family (my oldest son’s friend to be exact,). She asked:
Alright Sean, what do you think of this whole virus deal? I’m personally not really worried about it, pretty sure I already had the dang thing, just curious!
The short answer is “I am not worried.” Democrats are twice as likely to freak-out about this than are Republicans. (I assume #NeverTrumpers are in the same “Democrat boat.”) HOWEVER, I will say this is the best argument for what the nation is doing writ large (even if I still disagree with it somewhat) — from my Facebook:
Okay. So the best argument I’ve heard so far came from Ben Shapiro for the course of action that we are taking as a country towards the Coronavirus (the Wuhan Virus). And it’s simple, unlike past flues you could have this for a few days and not realize you have it before the symptoms kick in. During this time you are highly contagious. Brand new studies show that it can be in the air from you breathing for up to 3 hours in a confined space (say, a room or elevator etc); and it can stay on surfaces for up to 3 days. Now, Italy has more beds per thousand people in hospitals and healthcare systems than does America. Since our Baby Boomer population can be more prone for serious complications in reaction to this, we stand a chance at burdening our emergency rooms/hospitals to well past it’s limits (Italy is at 200% plus capacity and are sending people home essentially to die). So all these precautions are not to “stop” Coronavirus, but to “slow” it’s spreadto help alleviate the impact on our health care network. And by slowing it we are allowing a chance for a vaccine to hit the shelves in time to mitigate this flu as it gets worse.
It’s called “drama,” which is badly needed, because there appears to be nothing very special about this outbreak of the 2019-nCoV or Wuhan virus. It should actually be called the DvV, or Déjà vu Virus, because we have been through these hysterias before. Over and over. Heterosexual AIDS, Ebola repeatedly, the H1N1 swine flu that was actually vastly milder than the regular flu and, especially, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003.
[snip]
Wuhan is repeatedly labeled “deadly” — but so is every other virus most people know about.
(UPDATE… this article was published the 8th of March, and probably uses information from March 4th)
…China is the origin of the virus and still accounts for over 80 percent of cases and deaths. But its cases peaked and began declining more than a month ago, according to data presented by the Canadian epidemiologist who spearheaded the World Health Organization’s coronavirus mission to China. Fewer than 200 new cases are reported daily, down from a peak of 4,000.
Subsequent countries will follow this same pattern, in what’s called Farr’s Law. First formulated in 1840 and ignored in every epidemic hysteria since, the law states that epidemics tend to rise and fall in a roughly symmetrical pattern or bell-shaped curve. AIDS, SARS, Ebola — they all followed that pattern. So does seasonal flu each year.
Clearly, flu is vastly more contagious than the new coronavirus, as the WHO has noted. Consider that the first known coronavirus cases date back to early December, and since then, the virus has afflicted fewer people in total than flu does in a few days. Oh, and why are there no flu quarantines? Because it’s so contagious, it would be impossible.
As for death rates, as I first noted in these pages on Jan. 24, you can’t employ simple math — as everyone is doing — and look at deaths versus cases because those are reported cases. With both flu and assuredly with coronavirus, the great majority of those infected have symptoms so mild — if any — that they don’t seek medical attention and don’t get counted in the caseload.
Furthermore, those calculating rates ignore the importance of good health care. Given that the vast majority of cases have occurred in a country with poor health care, that’s going to dramatically exaggerate the death rate….
BEFORE posting audio of Michael Medved and Dennis Prager discussing the above article with Michael Fumento… I wish to post the latest audio by Dr. Drew Pinsky discussing the issue. (See two previous posted videos from Doc Drew, HERE.) . And he says listen to Dr. Anthony Fauci, whereas Michael Fumento notes in the Medved audio that Fauci has been wrong on every case since the heterosexual AIDS scare. Even with this note, Doc Drew is waay better in his reporting than the Washington Post or CNN:
Celebrity doctor Dr. Drew slams the media for “reprehensible” coverage of the coronavirus spread in the US and tells Americans to “stop listening to journalists” and instead focus only on information provided by the CDC and other health entities.
Okay, here are the two partial audio interviews with Michael Fumento:
Michael Medved interviews Michael Fumento (March 12th) regarding his NEW YORK POST article entitled, “Coronavirus going to hit its peak and start falling sooner than you think“. I include this article because Medved adeptly notes Dr. Anthony Fauci’s assessment to get Fumento’s reaction. And these two have been “locking horns” since the “heterosexual AIDS” scare… Fumento being the hands down winner since the 80’s.
(Warning, horrible audio connection with Fumento) Dennis Prager interviews Michael Fumento (March 10th) regarding his NEW YORK POST article entitled, “Coronavirus going to hit its peak and start falling sooner than you think“. Prager has been a long time fan of Fumento’s (as have I since before listening to the Prager Show). Fumento discusses one of the tolls in how he comes to his conclusions, and it is by using Farr’s Law or Rule (ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA).
I think much of this is hysteria. I think also Trump knowing the media well and how Democrats would weaponize this issue, got a jump on this disease/flu season, and against his cabinet’s advice — withing three weeks after this strain was identified… put into action the most aggressive controls yet. (See my post on this HERE.) All while the media and Democrats called him racist for his actions:
Could you imagine the reaction if Trump had just blown this off? HoooBoy!
