Wuhan Coronavirus: Megathread - Got too big

[Hollywood Hitler]

I don't think we're far off from people that work for Pfizer calling the families of the deceased, and yelling at them because their loved one's death contributes to "medical misinformation".

 

[borsabil]

So today 36 deaths in Australia, 13 in Victoria and 20 in New South Wales, 3 in Queensland.

What's interesting about this, besides the extraordinarily low case fatality rate, is that deaths seem to be tracking case numbers in a near perfect way.

The first thing to notice about these two graphs is the laughably low mortality rate with Omicron.

Note the numbers from July and August 2020, 60 deaths a day from a few hundred cases. Case numbers so low that it can't register on the graph given the upscale.

Second thing to note is that the recent uptick in deaths perfectly matches the case numbers. There is no lag or delay in reporting, as cases go up so do deaths immediately.

This is impossible if people were actually dying from Covid. It takes 4-6 weeks for people to die from Covid, Omicron cases started ramping up in late December, around 3 weeks ago and yet we've already passed the peak in deaths.

So what's actually happening? It's the difference between died with Covid and died of Covid. It's clear that most deaths, perhaps all of them, are very much WITH Covid. I suspect the same for hospitalisations.

 

[Justa Grata Honoria]

I wonder if the covidians will ever own up to all the people they condemned to death at the altar of sCiEnCe through their retarded take on horse paste? These gigantic fucking faggots are so smug and condescending and so laughably wrong.

Never . Have you ever been with a narcissist ? Like friends , relationship or God forbid parents or siblings. It's like talking in circles . There has been a research that narcissistic behaviors have quadrupled during the past 4-5 decades . They will when faced with undeniable facts about what have they done play the narcissistic prayer over and over.

That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.


Literally every single normies right now questions the narrative except the narcissistic ones and those are almost all branch covidians with few exceptions. They will deny, gaslight and outright lie to people over this.

 

[Titos]

Can any medikiwis explain why I hate paracetamol/acetaminophen so much? It never makes my pain go away and it just makes me feel hotcold and stupid.

Were you born with red hair? If so that may be why. I have the same problem with any kind of shit that is supposed to quell pain. Shit is apparently less effective due to some genetic bullshit. I have to get like 9 shots of novacaine at the dentist because of it and most normal pain meds do jack shit. When I was a kid even like 2 vicodin did jack shit.

 

[SCSI]

We actually have quite a bit of data on myocarditis not just in non-elderly non-deathfat people, but specifically in kids:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6352488/

archive

<snip!>

So that seems grim...

oh yeah and if you don't die, you have decent odds of needing transplant:

God damn, so it really is as bad as it looks on the surface. That's horrifying. Thank you for the writeup and the nightmare fuel.

---

A few bits of stuff while I'm working on the OSHA ETS Sperganalysis eXtreme, both related to that subject. One is a short "now what" article from the National Law Review that has some info pertinent to the question of whether you could sue the hell out of your boss if the company mandates CoVax on their own and you get sick/crippled from it. (Archive) Their answer is: not really, but you can go for worker's comp. The immediate thought springs to mind though that this is probably going off the practices from mandating something that has gone through the full, normal clinical trial and approval processes. There might be an angle of attack based on the bizarre trajectory the existing vaccines have taken through the system, if enough lawyers were sufficiently bored and angry enough to pursue. I'd sure give it a shot at any rate.

Could employers be liable if they mandate or encourage their employees to get the vaccine and someone has an allergic or other adverse reaction? In that event, the employer’s liability would most likely be limited to a workers’ compensation claim. The biggest myth is the concern that an employer can get sued if they mandate the vaccine and something goes wrong. It is pretty well established that workers compensation would be the exclusive remedy for employees.

One other especially interesting bit was actually acknowledging at least some side effects, rather than the earlier maximum shill "THEY ARE PERFECT YOU CONSPIRATARD" presentation that used to be the norm.

Because the vaccine can have side effects, employers should consider staggering their staff’s vaccinations if they are concerned about staffing issues. Wisconsin’s Department of Health Services has an excellent website (www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/covid-19) where employers and employees can go for information.

The other thing I have is an editorial from a law prof and former clerk for Sotomayor that, if you can wade through the insufferable tone, does raise a possible tactic the Biden admin could attempt to rescue the OSHA ETS mandate. (Archive) I don't have a strong opinion yet as to whether it'd likely fly or not, but it's worth watching out for as the circus clowns on, especially as states start setting up their own mandates -- some may try structuring them this way in the hopes of making them more likely to survive challenge.

In other words, OSHA should rewrite its rule in reverse order. Rather than requiring employers to adopt a mandatory vaccination policy with an exception for employers that instead require unvaccinated workers to test and mask, OSHA’s new regulation would make employers mandate worker testing and masking first, with an exception allowing employers to waive this rule only for the vaccinated.
You may think merely flipping the order of these requirements is too clever by half. But if it seems that way, it’s only because the court’s opinion on Thursday was itself too clever. There is, after all, nothing in relevant statutes that prohibits OSHA from protecting against workplace dangers through requirements that have the incidental effect of protecting against similar dangers outside of work too.

Indeed, reenacting OSHA’s COVID workplace safety rule as a mask-or-vax mandate would comport precisely with the conservative justices’ majority opinion. They admitted, for example, that “targeted regulations” that “account for [the] crucial distinction” between “occupational risk and risk more generally” would be “plainly permissible.” That is exactly what a rule requiring workers to mask only while at work would do.

 

[Yuri_]

No idea if this has already been posted, but it's clownworld kino. This professor wears a special HEPA filter space helmet, and berates his students whenever they ask to have lectures in person.

If I pulled that off, would he die?

 

[Mr Bunny]

If I pulled that off, would he die?

 

[SCSI]

Awright, I'm back and ready to walk @Kujo Jotaro and the rest of you fine flightless birds through the Supreme Court's Thursday ruling on the OSHA ETS case (if you missed my walkthrough for the CMS healthcare workers mandate and want to read that one too, it's back HERE). Grab a drink (it's 5 o'clock somewhere!) and settle in, it's time for...

Legal Sperganalysis eXtreme -- National Federation Of Independent Business v. DOL, OSHA/Ohio v. DOL, OSHA (OSHA ETS Mandate) -- You Have No Power Here! Edition

Speedy recap -- this was decided 6-3 in favor of reinstating the injunctions against enforcement of the OSHA ETS mandate (affects all private employers with 100+ workers, vax or mask/weekly testing, medical and religious exemptions are an option). Majority was Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, while the dissent was only Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The immediate tangible results are the feds once again cannot enforce this mandate (though private employers can choose to implement their own mandates still!), and it goes back to the 5th and 6th Circuit courts for the final round of federal appeals, before potentially returning to the USSC for final disposition. Do note that this decision has no effect whatsoever on state and local mandates, nor does it impact the CMS healthcare worker, federal contractor, Head Start, or military mandates.

The Majority Opinion -- Get Your Hand Out Of The Cookie Jar, OSHA!

Another per curiam opinion without any specific justice taking credit for writing the lion's share of it. The Court opens with a brief restatement of the purported purpose of the OSHA ETS. This is actually passive-aggressive judge sass -- remember that OSHA's authority is to regulate workplace hazards, not general public health. The court repeatedly picked at this little accidental reveal of impermissible motives all through oral arguments. (I attached a copy of that for this case here, if you'd like to pop that open alongside the court opinion for funsies. Sorry I didn't get around to walking through orals for OSHA like I did for CMS, but I just ran out of time before the USSC actually made a ruling. That shit was 153 pages!) So them sticking that exact line right at the very beginning of the majority opinion is very... pointed.

The purpose of the rule was to increase vaccination rates at “businesses all across America.” Ibid.In tandem with other planned regulations, the administra-tion’s goal was to impose “vaccine requirements” on “about 100 million Americans, two-thirds of all workers.” Id., at 3.

Spoiler: The Sperging Continues

The Court wastes no time in tearing into the problems of the rule. Immediately they focus on how incredibly broad it is, and how the exceptions it has on paper are meaningless in practice. Technically, this doesn't apply to fully-remote employees, or employees who work outside -- but in practice, that's so strict it applies to virtually no one. Come into the office one day a month for a team meeting? Nope, you're not fully-remote for purposes of this mandate, you've got to get the shot or mask and test every week... from your home.

Spoiler: Snippet

After a 2-month delay, the Secretary of Labor issued the promised emergency standard. 86 Fed. Reg. 61402 (2021). Consistent with President Biden’s announcement, the rule applies to all who work for employers with 100 or more em-ployees. There are narrow exemptions for employees who work remotely “100 percent of the time” or who “work exclusively outdoors,” but those exemptions are largely il -lusory. Id., at 61460. The Secretary has estimated, for ex-ample, that only nine percent of landscapers and groundskeepers qualify as working exclusively outside. Id.,at 61461. The regulation otherwise operates as a blunt in-strument. It draws no distinctions based on industry or risk of exposure to COVID–19. Thus, most lifeguards and linemen face the same regulations as do medics and meat-packers. OSHA estimates that 84.2 million employees are subject to its mandate. Id., at 61467.

The Court lays out what's required of the employers, and points out that the non-vax option (mask and test) is actually an option that companies are not required to even offer to all employees. They could choose to require vaccination, period, and only give mask and test to employees with medical or religious exemptions. In other words, the choice is mostly an illusion.

Spoiler: Snippet

Covered employers must “develop, implement, and en-force a mandatory COVID–19 vaccination policy.” Id., at61402. The employer must verify the vaccination status of each employee and maintain proof of it. Id., at 61552. The mandate does contain an “exception” for employers that re-quire unvaccinated workers to “undergo [weekly] COVID–19 testing and wear a face covering at work in lieu of vac-cination.” Id., at 61402. But employers are not required to offer this option, and the emergency regulation purports to pre-empt state laws to the contrary. Id., at 61437. Unvac-cinated employees who do not comply with OSHA’s rule must be “removed from the workplace.” Id., at 61532. And employers who commit violations face hefty fines: up to $13,653 for a standard violation, and up to $136,532 for a willful one. 29 CFR §1903.15(d) (2021).

The Court states that its restoring the injunctions because it thinks its likely that OSHA will be found to not have the authority it argues it does. The majority is sticking to precedent here in keeping a firm grip on the agency's leash when it tries to reach for more power. As in oral arguments, the court repeats that if Congress actually intended OSHA to have this particular, extreme power, it's going to have to "speak clearly" in granting it to the agency it spawned. No inferring it allowed.

Spoiler: Snippet

Applicants are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Secretary lacked authority to impose the mandate. Administrative agencies are creatures of statute.They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided. The Secretary has ordered 84 million Amer-icans to either obtain a COVID–19 vaccine or undergo weekly medical testing at their own expense. This is no “everyday exercise of federal power.” In re MCP No. 165 , 20 F. 4th, at 272 (Sutton, C. J., dissenting). It is instead a significant encroachment into the lives—and health—of a vast number of employees. “We expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agen cy to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance.” Alabama Assn. of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Servs. , 594 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (per curiam) (slip op., at 6) (internal quotation marks omitted). There can be little doubt that OSHA’s mandate qualifies as an exercise of such authority.

I picked out "and health" above in orange because it's where the court goes next. They characterize this mandate as one of trying to regulate public health, rather than workplace safety. And that's not a power OSHA has -- it's our old friend the "police power", which normally belongs only to the state and local governments. That makes this also an issue of federalism, and if that's going to get screwed with, Congress really has to speak plainly and have a damn good reason.

Spoiler: Snippet

The question, then, is whether the Act plainly authorizes the Secretary’s mandate. It does not. The Act empowers the Secretary to set workplace safety standards, not broad public health measures. See 29 U. S. C. §655(b) (directing the Secretary to set “occupational safety and health stand-ards” (emphasis added)); §655(c)(1) (authorizing the Secre-tary to impose emergency temporary standards necessary to protect “employees” from grave danger in the workplace). Confirming the point, the Act’s provisions typically speak to hazards that employees face at work. See, e.g., §§651,653, 657. And no provision of the Act addresses public health more generally, which falls outside of OSHA’s sphere of expertise.

The Court concedes that Covid is a hazard that can be found in the workplace, but states that while it can be found in the workplace, its nature is not of the workplace. Its presence is incidental and by chance, not some inherent property of the general jobsite. (Unlike the CMS case, which was focused on workplaces of a medical nature, where disease is inherent to the setting.) Since its not a hazard that's uniquely tied to the workplace, OSHA doesn't already have the authority to regulate it, and it must have a clear grant from Congress expanding its power.

Spoiler: Snippet

The Solicitor General does not dispute that OSHA is lim-ited to regulating “work-rela ted dangers.” Response Brief for OSHA in No. 21A244 etc., p. 45 (OSHA Response). She instead argues that the risk of contracting COVID–19 qual-ifies as such a danger. We cannot agree. Although COVID–19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an oc-cupational hazard in most. COVID–19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable dis-eases. Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life—simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock—would significantly ex-pand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congres-sional authorization.

The Court anticipates the argument that there are workplaces where Covid might be a unique hazard that's specifically tied to the job, and concedes that OSHA could regulate those situations. This does open the door to a narrow OSHA mandate down the road that's limited to these kinds of jobs, and that might cover more types of employment than one would immediately think -- for example, I wouldn't be surprised to see schoolteachers covered by this, as they're often crammed into rooms with 20-30 kids at a time.

Spoiler: Snippet

That is not to say OSHA lacks authority to regulate occu-pation-specific risks related to COVID–19. Where the virus poses a special danger because of the particular features of an employee’s job or workplace, targeted regulations are plainly permissible. We do not doubt, for example, that OSHA could regulate researchers who work with the COVID–19 virus. So too could OSHA regulate risks associ-ated with working in particularly crowded or cramped en-vironments. But the danger present in such workplaces differs in both degree and kind from the everyday risk of contracting COVID–19 that all face. OSHA’s indiscrimi-nate approach fails to account for this crucial distinction—between occupational risk and risk more generally—and ac-cordingly the mandate takes on the character of a general public health measure, rather than an “occupational safety or health standard.” 29 U. S. C. §655(b) (emphasis added).

The Court moves on to looking for a statutory source of this massive increase in power for OSHA. They don't find one. In fact, they find hints of the opposite in recent actions by Congress. They also examine the history of the agency's behavior and its customary habits to search for any traces of this power existing in the original statute that created OSHA 50 years ago, and find only an unbroken pattern of behavior that the agency has never acted this way in 50 years. Hard to say you've always had a certain power when you've used it until half a century after you were created.

Spoiler: Snippet

In looking for legislative support for the vaccine mandate, the dissent turns to the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, Pub. L. 117–2, 135 Stat. 4. See post, at 8. That legislation,signed into law on March 11, 2021, of course said nothing about OSHA’s vaccine mandate, which was not announced until six months later. In fact, the most noteworthy action concerning the vaccine mandate by either House of Con-gress has been a majority vote of the Senate disapproving the regulation on December 8, 2021. S. J. Res. 29, 117th Cong., 1st Sess. (2021). It is telling that OSHA, in it s half century of existence, has never before adopted a broad public health regulation of this kind—addressing a threat that is untethered, in any causal sense, from the workplace. This “lack of historical precedent,” coupled with the breadth of authority that the Secretary now claims, is a “telling indication” that the man-date extends beyond the agency’s legitimate reach. Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U. S. 477, 505 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).*

Having examined all that, the Court shakes its head and decides this isn't worth blowing up federalism and the separation of powers for. If Congress wanted different, they should've clearly given their pet the power to issue this mandate.

The equities do not justify withholding interim relief. We are told by the States and the employers that OSHA’s man-date will force them to incur billions of dollars in unrecov-
erable compliance costs and will cause hundreds of thou-sands of employees to leave their jobs. See Application in No. 21A244, pp. 25–32; Application in No. 21A247, pp. 32–
33; see also 86 Fed. Reg. 61475. For its part, the Federal Government says that the mandate will save over 6,500 lives and prevent hundreds of thousands of hospitaliza-
tions. OSHA Response 83; see also 86 Fed. Reg. 61408. It is not our role to weigh such tradeoffs. In our system of government, that is the responsibility of those chosen by
the people through democratic processes. Although Con -gress has indisputably given OSHA the power to regulate occupational dangers, it has not given that agency the
power to regulate public health more broadly. Requiring the vaccination of 84 million Americans, selected simply be-cause they work for employers with more than 100 employ-ees, certainly falls in the latter category.

Outcome: the injunctions are back on the menu, boys!

The applications for stays presented to JUSTICE KAVANAUGH and by him referred to the Court are granted. OSHA’s COVID–19 Vaccination and Testing; Emergency Temporary Standard, 86 Fed. Reg. 61402, is stayed pending disposition of the applicants’ petitions for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and disposition of the applicants’ petitions for writs of certiorari, if such writs are timely sought. Should the petitions for writs of certiorari be denied, this order shall terminate au-tomatically. In the event the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted, the order shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.

All in all, I'm pretty happy with this one. It's not shy about slapping down both Congress and OSHA for sloppily making a massive power grab without having the balls to legislate it properly (and be accountable to the assuredly very pissed-off electorate), and resists getting into the emotional weeds about case counts and all that. The only thing I don't like is that it does leave the door open a crack for a future, narrower mandate that could still affect a broad variety of non-medical jobs that have a lot of public contact. But still, I got most of what I wanted here, and that's good enough for now.

I'll speedrun the concurring and dissenting opinions real quick. Gorsuch's concurrence is around 5-6 pages and has some stylish writing as is usual for him which you might enjoy, and the Breyer/Sotomayor/Kagan dissent is full of salt to mine if you're so inclined.

Concurring Opinion -- Gorsuch, Joined By Thomas And Alito -- Federalism, Bitches!

Spoiler: Quicksperg

Before we dig in, note that Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Roberts did not join this! Silence can say as much as speaking.

Gorsuch focuses mainly on the federalism questions in this case, and takes some time to remind everyone that regulating health is and always has been a function of the police power, and that is something that belongs almost exclusively to the state and local government. The feds and OSHA are out of line touching this, especially when they try to weasel in a giant change in the balance of fed vs. state power via a shady, whispered workaround rather than declaring it loud and proud. "I see what you did there": The Opinion. He makes a special point of noting that OSHA itself has actually said it lacks the power to broadly regulate health a mere two years ago.

As the agency itself explained to a federal court less than two years ago, the statute does “not authorize OSHA to issue sweep-ing health standards” that affect workers’ lives outside the workplace. Brief for Department of Labor, In re: AFL–CIO,No. 20–1158, pp. 3, 33 (CADC 2020).

Dissenting Opinion -- Breyer, Sotomayor, And Kagan -- "UnPReCeDenTeD!"

Spoiler: Quicksperg

TL;DR -- Go back to the start of this post, and every point the majority and concurring opinions state, state the opposite. Really, it's that straightforward and without exception, even when the reasoning would give the federal government a blank check. They also conveniently shift focus to the mask and test part of the mandate and avert their gaze from the vaccine part of it when arguing that this mandate isn't unusual at all and OSHA has totally done stuff like this many times before -- shades of that LA Times article written by Sotomayor's former clerk I linked earlier. Otherwise, there's emotional fireworks and crappy stats galore in here... along with my favorite word:

The Standard responds to a workplace health emergency unprecedented in the agency’s history: an infectious disease that has already killed hundreds of thousands and sickened millions; that is most easily transmitted in the shared indoor spaces that are the hallmark of American working life; and that spreads mostly without regard to differences in occupation or industry. Over the past two years, COVID–19 has affected—indeed, transformed—virtually every workforce and workplace in the Nation.

 

[Super-Chevy454]

So today 36 deaths in Australia, 13 in Victoria and 20 in New South Wales, 3 in Queensland.

What's interesting about this, besides the extraordinarily low case fatality rate, is that deaths seem to be tracking case numbers in a near perfect way.

View attachment 2891514
View attachment 2891515

The first thing to notice about these two graphs is the laughably low mortality rate with Omicron.

Note the numbers from July and August 2020, 60 deaths a day from a few hundred cases. Case numbers so low that it can't register on the graph given the upscale.

Second thing to note is that the recent uptick in deaths perfectly matches the case numbers. There is no lag or delay in reporting, as cases go up so do deaths immediately.

This is impossible if people were actually dying from Covid. It takes 4-6 weeks for people to die from Covid, Omicron cases started ramping up in late December, around 3 weeks ago and yet we've already passed the peak in deaths.

So what's actually happening? It's the difference between died with Covid and died of Covid. It's clear that most deaths, perhaps all of them, are very much WITH Covid. I suspect the same for hospitalisations.

It could have been more interesting to see the age bracket. Doubtful then the majority of deaths are people aged below 60 years old.

Btw, here one more skeleton coming out from Fauci's closet.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/fauci-financials-expose-how-millionaire-doctor-profited-pandemic

Finally, after a handful of organizations tried suing Dr. Anthony Fauci in order to have them released, the good doctor's financials - along with those of his wife, who is the NIH's top bioethicist - have been disclosed in detail. And they were leaked by the same Senator who Fauci called a "moron" last week during a hot-mic moment.



We already knew that Dr. Fauci is the highest-paid federal government employee, earning an annual salary of more than $400K. His wife, Christine Grady, earns $176K as Chief of the Department of Bioethics at the NIH.


The records, published by Republican Roger Marshall, himself a doctor and also the junior US senator from Kansas, showed that the Faucis' have a combined net worth of more than $10MM. https://twitter.com/RogerMarshallMD/status/1482143444780859394

As the Daily Mail explains, Fauci, 80, has led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984 and, if he continues until the end of Biden's term in 2024, will have made roughly $2.5MM as the president's chief medical advisor. When he retires, Fauci's pension will be the largest in US history, exceeding $350,000 per year.

As a reminder, Dr. Fauci lied to Congress yet again by insisting that his financials were public, when they very much weren't (before being leaked by the Senator from Kansas, that is).

While the doctor has insisted he hasn't profited from the pandemic, his paperwork showed that he and his wife were paid $14,000 to "virtually" attend a series of galas directly related to his position as the nation's de facto COVID czar.



Perhaps the most entertaining disclosure from Dr. Fauci's financials is the revelation that the couple owns a restaurant in tony San Francisco. It's called Jackson Fillmore Trattoria. Unfortunately for them, the restaurant didn't make any money last year.

Sen. Marshall clashed with the 80-year-old doctor on Tuesday when Marshall wanted to see Fauci's financial information. Fauci replied that the documents were public, and appeared to take umbrage at even being asked. "Yes or no, would you be willing to submit to Congress and the public a financial disclosure that includes your past and current investments?" Marshall asked. "Our office cannot find them." Fauci replied: "I don't understand why you're asking me that question...my financial disclosure is public knowledge and has been so for the last 37 years or so."

According to the Center for Public Integrity, Fauci's financial statements were indeed publicly available, however, obtaining them was a lengthy procedure: they requested the document in May 2020 didn't receive it until three months later.

All told, Dr. Fauci has three accounts with Charles Schwab that have a total of $8,337,940.90. He has a contributory IRA with $638,519.70 in it, and a brokerage trust account with $2,403,522.28. Finally, the most valuable of the three disclosed was a Schwab One Trust containing $5,295,898.92.







Most of Dr. Fauci's wealth comes from his government salary, but he has also made a substantial portion from books and appearances. Sen. Marshall is pushing for a new law called the "FAUCI Act" that would require unelected bureaucrats like Dr. Fauci to produce more thorough financial disclosures so that they can be appropriately scrutinized by the American public.

Readers can find more disclosures on Sen. Marshall's website, which features a more comprehensive breakdown of the doctor's financials, along with copies of all the associated paperwork.

 

[DoubleD]

A reminder to fellow Britbongs that TalkRADIO is not your friend. I still find them a thousand times better than LBC, but keep in mind that anything they say could be controlled opposition.

They cater very heavily towards the right, especially with Mike Graham's daytime show, multiple presenters questioning the received wisdom around covid, and the results of every Youtube poll seeming to indicate that ~80% of their audience is anti-vaxx spergs like me. Nevertheless, the average view of their presenters just seems to be that the vaccines are wonderful and you should get one, even though enforcement via passports and mandates is bad.

But their weekend presenter Trisha "My Partner is Jewish" Goddard went full mask-off yesterday when she interviewed holocaust survivor (and step-sister of Anne Frank) Eva Schloss, and front-loaded the interview by telling listeners how "very distasteful" and "disgusting" it is that people compare covid mandates to the Holocaust.

(Timestamp is 26:41)

It's funny because Schloss actually begins her story by saying how, when the Nazis occupied Holland, their oppression began very slowly, with Jews not being allowed on public transport, not being allowed in public swimming pools, not being allowed to go out after a 6PM curfew, and so on. (Timestamp is 31:55 when she says this)

After a harrowing tale of how Schloss survived the camps, the smell of burning flesh, saying goodbye when her mother was chosen to die (and for the record, I think there are too many corroborating accounts for it not to have happened on a massive scale, even if the 6 Million figure is contested), punctuated by ad breaks for McDonalds and Burger King sadly omitted from the online broadcast.

Goddard plugs a Holocaust memorial event for the 75th anniversary of Anne Frank's diary, then goes straight into asking Schloss the million-pound vaxx question. (Timestamp is 52:30)

I wasn't sure if I'd get a half-hearted NPC response, but Schloss delivered nonetheless:

Well, I don't think you can compare that really, because the vaccine passport is to keep you safe and, um, the ID card which we had to have was really so that they know who was a Jew, because all the ID cards were marked, of Jewish people with a J. So if you were walking in the street and the SS didn't like your expression or whatever, and he looked at your ID, he saw that you were a Jew, they could just arrest you and take you away. So it has a completely different purpose.

And when Schloss finally begins to trip over her words (54:35), Goddard interrupts to deliver the next talking point, which is that unvaxxed people "have a choice about whether or not you have the vaccine".

Again, she emotes so much in that segment about how important it is to learn from history despite being herself doomed to repeat it.

But please don't get mad at the TalkRADIO presenters for this. They are just following orders.

EDIT: 23 likes to 27 dislikes, and Trisha Goddard's videos seem to be the only ones on the channel where comments are turned off. Hmm...

 

[Dog-O-Tron 5000v5.0]

He forgot the part where the body bag was Albert Einstein

"And then all the other dying ventilated COVID patients stood up and clapped."

Also Citibank is hoping to get some Good Boy Points from Brandon, maybe some sweet sweet corporate bailout stimmies when the economy goes tits up from inflation:

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/citigroup-vaccine-mandate-scotus-decision/2022/01/14/id/1052430/

CitiGroup is among the companies keeping its vaccine mandate voluntarily, as President Joe Biden will continue to push businesses to do after the Supreme Court shot down the constitutionality of imposing vaccine mandates on the U.S. private sector.

The move impacts just 1% of the CitiGroup workforce, as it has already announced 99% have already gotten vaccinated under the now-rejected Biden mandate on private businesses larger than 100 employees.

"This level of compliance helps us create a safer workplace, protect your families and our communities, and ensure continuity of our business operations," Sara Wechter, head of CitiGroup Human Resources wrote in a statement. "Going into the last day, we expect the number of employees who have not complied will decrease even further."

They were the ones who were so hardcore they went above and beyond the test out option: they are firing all the dirty dirty unvaxxed. Praise Science.

https://archive.fo/wip/SrREY

 

[Derka Derka]

So what's actually happening? It's the difference between died with Covid and died of Covid. It's clear that most deaths, perhaps all of them, are very much WITH Covid. I suspect the same for hospitalisations.

In Kiwiland (where nearly all deaths are still reported on) a couple recent deaths were positive post-mortem.

 

[The Ugly One]

And now the CDC will study ivermectin.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/cdc-to-study-ivermectin-treatment/

It is really shocking to me how fast the left, all the way to red-flag-wearing "fash-bashing" commies, went from rioting against the WTO to absolute, unfailing, unquestioning trust in pharmaceutical corporations. I know that was 20 years ago, but still, it wasn't that long ago when they were all, "Down with the corporations man!" Now it's, "Pfizer would never just...manipulate us for profit! That would be wrong!"

Maybe it was when they learned that Purdue Pharma murdered hundreds of thousands of Americans...but hey, those were mostly working class whites, so fuck them, right? Maybe it was earlier. Maybe putting rainbow flags on corporate logos really did work.

 

[Super-Chevy454]

Maybe it was when they learned that Purdue Pharma murdered hundreds of thousands of Americans...but hey, those were mostly working class whites, so fuck them, right? Maybe it was earlier. Maybe putting rainbow flags on corporate logos really did work.

I guess they don't care then Purdue pharma also killed a bunch of blacks as well. They only care when they're killed by cops.

 

[borsabil]

Super-Chevy454​

The majority of deaths with Covid are in the very old. That's because the majority of deaths are in the very old. There's now solid evidence that not a single human being on the planet has actually died of Omicron Covid. There may be a few AIDS patients and people with stage 4 cancer receiving high dose chemo who might have died from it. Maybe.

The routine here is for every dead body to be PCR swabbed. This has been going on since the beginning of the pandemic. During the last Sydney lockdown they were sticking swabs up the noses of suicides and drug OD's and calling them Covid deaths. Most people are either totally disinterested or functionally r.etarded. All they see are the headlines that 36 people died. They won't bother looking at the numbers of infections and realising that this is an insanely low number let alone that the lack of a time lag between cases and deaths means there can be no causal relationship between the two. They announced the tragic passing of a 102 year nursing home patient today. I imagine she was receiving end of life palliative care with high dose morphine, as is the way in aged care. But she returned a positive antigen test so none of that matters.

In Kiwiland (where nearly all deaths are still reported on) a couple recent deaths were positive post-mortem.

Exactly. Reporting that no one is dying is bad for the vaccination campaign.

We're obviously close to or past the peak of infections in Australia. Omicron runs through an area like wildfire. Pretty much anyone who can catch it gets infected almost right away. It's quick, I mean insane fast. 90% of people get mild to moderately bad colds, a minority end up with a mild flu. The only people I know that have been really knocked around by it have received the booster but even then the main symptom is a lingering dry cough that lasts for a week. Double vaxxed all get colds, although some of them experience excruciating back pain for a day or two, which is weird. Unvaxxed that I know either don't catch it at all or get a sore throat for a couple of days. I'm resigned to the fact that I can't catch it despite sleeping with someone who had it, having a child that had it and being in proximity to an insane number of people with active infections. Children seem pretty resistant to it, that may be because of cross immunity from previous Betacoronavirus exposure or not being vaccinated.

We'll see how the ground lies at the end of this week. Case numbers are about to collapse and with them deaths and hospitalisations. Overall hospital admissions are running about average for this time of the year and the missus tells me that her Covid ward is full of ambulant deathfats admitted because their blood sugars went ballistic after catching the coof, they're not being treated for respiratory issues and aren't on oxygen. Otherwise a few nursing home patients with bronchitis and secondary chest infections being treated with antibiotics and that's about it. The ward has been open for just over a week and they're already discussing closing it down.

Covid is over. I fully expect that certain politicians and pharmaceutical executives will do everything possible to deny this reality but over it is.

 

[The Ultimate Ramotith]

The Satanic Temple pushes masks at a Satani conevntion.

https://nttr.stream/satanic_temple_/status/1482040644210208772

https://archive.ph/K2Txg

https://tstsatancon.com

https://archive.fo/tQvaB

(I a mo reminding myself here, bu the relationship The Satanic Temple has wi the actual Church of Satan is roughly the same the Westboro Baptist Churc has with actual Baptist churches.)

 

[Clockwork_PurBle]

Rogue street art appears overnight in D.C., mocks Biden & Fauci's COVID regime
LINK

ETA: Changed the link from the Substack article to the twitter page that has most of the pictures.

(I a mo reminding myself here, bu the relationship The Satanic Temple has wi the actual Church of Satan is roughly the same the Westboro Baptist Churc has with actual Baptist churches.)

Doesn't matter because all "Satanism" is inherently exceptional. At best it's edgy atheism, but at worst you have retards taking it way too seriously and actually causing harm.

 

[Meriasek]

Germany all but eliminated the "recovered" status by reducing the time for its validity from 180 days to 90 days, further shortened by having it being valid only earliest 29 days after infection. After that, if you want to participate in life, you need to get vaccinated or a booster shot.

 

[Josterman]

Majid is cheering on the authoritarian state of Australia

 

[Super-Chevy454]

Majid is cheering on the authoritarian state of Australia View attachment 2892286

He should be careful for what he wished for because the authoritarian he love will throw him under the bus when they'll have no use for him anymore.