INTERVENTION REPORT #2
Friday May 16th, 2020
SO MUCH WRONGNESS TO REPORT - SO LITTLE TIME! Following up on yesterday's revelations regarding just one 2nd order effect vector outpacing all deaths caused by Wuhan-virus, the new intervention impact data just keeps pouring in faster than I can analyze and report on it. Much of this I have direct and personal insights into due to my work in world-wide logistics since 1989 (on-boarding Walmart vendors - first in the world for just in time delivery; innovative multi-modal transportation systems for CSX; and key backend logistics for the largest e-Commerce players in Asia) and also consulting for, architecting and building core data collection and analysis systems for big organizations in the Americas and Asia, including the World Food Program. I've personally seen how breakages at one end of the logistics chain spread with multiplying effects on the others. My personal experience results in immediate glaring red flags that are so apparent and obvious to me that it's clear these policy makers and political representatives (elected or otherwise) have never encountered or considered.
I will be providing some more insights based on these specific experiences in later posts. Today I want to follow up on details from yesterday's critical paper as it makes some really compelling points that need to be considered when we try to model the other 2nd and 3rd order effect vectors that manifest themselves as a result of poorly considered government interventions. The most striking and glaringly obvious point that cannot be repeated often enough - ALL of humanity's core services and infrastructure - EVERY ESSENTIAL ASPECT NECESSARY FOR CIVILIZATION - is being taken apart and locked down by government fiat with no due process or consideration of its impact. This is happening world wide. It is being done by an elite class that has never created a single new job or generated a single dollar of new wealth, who has a monopoly on the use of force, do not share any negative consequences as a result of bad policy decisions, and have received their paychecks without fail the entire time. Yet they sequester somewhere between 30% and 60% of all newly generated wealth! How can they be described as anything but parasites?
How do they keep this control? By creating as much of the core currency that drives everything thing that they do - F.U.D - Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. That shameless promulgation is what drove my very first post about the Wuhan-virus because it was so clear that what the media was saying did not reflect ANY of the reality that I was seeing.
So let's quickly update what the data is telling us about the Wuhan-virus pandemic which is the current fulcrum by which these parasites engage their leverage against those who create the actual wealth in the world that allows civilization to continue. All stats, despite even the ones being manipulation to keep the FUD highest, clearly demonstrate it's in decline:
Effective May 15th, the new total for incidents is 1,433,696 (+26,189), an increase of 1.86% over the previous day (+0.04% from yesterday). Deaths have totaled 81,729 (+1,645) which is an increase of 2.05% (-0.17%) over the previous day. Since the peak in Mar 19, rates of growth for incidents has fallen by 49.78% and for deaths has fallen by 40.80%. There were 378,194 tests completed with a 6.92% positive rate.
USA Wuhan-virus Stats - 7 Day Averages
This crisis opportunity, the biggest there's ever been in the history of civilization, is running out of steam. You can see that they know it by the increase in vitriol and moving of goals designed to discredit any reopenings and punish all who refuse to go along with the narrative. More over, in America, 90% of the country has seen no statistical direct impact from the virus whatsoever. This site, the source for the above chart, will show you down to the individual county level what incidents and deaths have been reported thus far. Wuhan-virus is almost as old news as Russia collusion - and pretty much as trustworthy.
I've been reporting how the numbers of incidents are somewhere between 6x to 50x too low and the number of actual Wuhan-deaths are likely 20% to 50% over reported. The incident low count is impossible to even question - so no one does. The death count is more debatable if only because, in America at least, it's hard to miss a dead body. Well here are two graphs that demonstrate how the data tells us death counts are clearly inflated:
State Sitrep Trend in Fatalities & Hospital Occupants
Note that the number of people in the hospital who are considered exposed to Wuhan-virus has been dropping at a rate nearly twice as fast as the attributed death rate. Frankly there just aren't enough patients to provide enough dead bodies for these to be caused by Wuhan-virus. They have to be counting non-Wuhan deaths as Wuhan-deaths. This became such an issue early on that the CDC created a special classification because, despite all efforts, hospital administrators weren't able to qualify their deaths as attributable to Wuhan-virus. So the CDC created code 7.2 - Unconfirmed COVID-2 Deaths, to make it easier for people to give credit to Wuhan-virus without evidence.
This started in late March and the chart below shows these 7.2 coded deaths popping up as the vast majority of Wuhan-virus deaths immediately afterwards as the GREEN BARS whereas deaths that met the original 7.1 criteria (which still allows comorbidities so even these aren't clearly attributable as deaths due primarily to Wuhan-virus) are the ORANGE BARS. See the giant "truing up" green bar in the middle hitting 6000 deaths in a single day. That was back dating a lot of deaths that had no evidence of being caused by Wuhan-virus. Again look at the rapid fall of new cases (BLUE BARS). Without new cases how were these high death rates sustained unless they were actually caused by something other than Wuhan-virus?
Coding of Unconfirmed Deaths Disappears - Treated As Confirmed Deaths
And then suddenly, at the end of April, the 7.2 codes went away! What happened? Well states just stopped bothering to make the distinction and started coding everything as 7.1. Now some states have been called out for doing this. Colorado just had to revise their policies and now reports the numbers separate again as of May 8th. We see now that approximately 24% of their reported deaths are not clearly attributable to Wuhan-virus at all. One wonders over how long this confusion was mixed in to "real" Wuhan-deaths. This might well explain why Colorado has been unique in their high death rates for its region out West. Answer: Government Intervention.
So let's dig into this paper we revealed yesterday. You did your homework and read through it, right?
Here are the findings from the paper itself:
Findings: Reductions in coverage of around 15% for 6 months would result in 253,500 additional child deaths and 12,190 additional maternal deaths, while reductions of around 45% for 6 months would result in 1,157,000 additional child deaths and 56,700 additional maternal deaths. This would represent a 9·8% to 44·7% increase in under-five child deaths per month, and an 8·3% to 38·6% increase in maternal deaths per month, across the 118 countries.
These numbers are derived from two key indicators. 1) the Lives Saved Tool (LiST), ; and 2) actual results seen from the 2003 SARS and 2014 Ebola incidents as described here:
Notably, the 2014 Ebola epidemic resulted in a 27·6 percentage point (pp) decrease in service utilization and 44·3pp decrease in inpatient services in high incidence areas of West Africa. During the 2003 SARS epidemic, a 23·9% reduction in ambulatory and 35·2% reduction in inpatient care was observed in Taiwan. Similar indirect impacts are plausible as a result of COVID-19 outbreak and control efforts.
Added value of this study: We examined the potential indirect effect of the COVID-19 outbreak and control efforts on RMNCH in 118 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) using the Lives Saved Tool (LiST). We modelled the maternal and under-five mortality impact of three outbreak scenarios and attributed the excess mortality to reductions in specific interventions or increases in risk factors. Our analysis shows that if the coronavirus pandemic results in widespread disruption to health systems, LMICs can expect to see substantial increases in maternal and child deaths. Reductions in coverage of labor and delivery and sick child care accounted for the greatest impact on increased maternal and child deaths.
This is frightening because the impact on access to health services as a result of our massive lockdown policies for Wuhan-virus make those earlier responses look like nothing. This makes the likelihood for worst case outcomes for infant and young mother mortalities all the more probable. Understand that this paper doesn't even address deaths due to the top 20 causes of death which also suffer the same lack of access to health care.
Now step back and realize that the primary excuse for the government intervention and strict lockdown was precisely to prevent health care systems from being overwhelmed - "flattening the curve". What was the result of the intervention? Health care providers have empty hospitals and have radically reduced staff and availability of health care - due 100% to LACK OF PATIENTS!
Remember how I mentioned that my experience in logistics was relevant to this problem? Well here's some insights from the paper again...
COVID-19 has also disrupted the global pharmaceutical and medical supply chain while drastically increasing demand for personal protective equipment (PPE) and commodities for managing COVID-19 patients. 21,22 LMICs’ low buying power and lack of infrastructure for domestic production are disadvantageous in ensuring a steady supply chain, which can already be seen in the scramble for COVID-19-related equipment and supplies. 23 Global reserves and international procurement mechanisms for essential medicines could mitigate the impacts of global supply chain disruption on RMNCH; 24 however, interruptions in global transport may affect these supply channels. The absence of PPE will increase the COVID-19 exposure risk of both patients and health workers during routine service delivery.
Supply chain == Logistics. Due to our "just in time" (JIT) inventory management and focus on keeping inventory levels low, our supply chains are more fragile than ever. No company is able to meet their service level agreements (SLAs) for getting goods where they're needed on a timely basis. The more modern the economy, the more efficient our logistics processes, the more globalized our supply chain so we get the best prices - the more fragile we are and the more disruption will be felt. That's why Thailand isn't really hurting for low shelf life foods such as meat, fresh vegetables, or milk and eggs - but parts of the United States will be. That's why we're seeing food herds, chickens culled and milked poured out and wasted.
The problems are radically exacerbated by government regulations which make it impossible for original producers to get their products directly to the market. FHDA and other federal and state regulations, put in place to "protect us", have multiplied the negative impacts of our supply chain disruption which not only cause immediate shortages but also will result in the permanent destruction of many of these core businesses - especially the smaller ones without access to easy capital. The result will be even more consolidation in these industries into a few big companies which will make us all the more fragile and the next crisis will have an even larger and more immediate impact! Solution? ELIMINATE ALL FEDERAL REGULATIONS NOW AND PERMANENTLY. Let local businesses do business locally without restriction.
So what is this Lives Saved Tool (LiST) that was used to create the model? It's a model that has been used for about 15 years to judge the potential outcome of interventions from health organizations to ensure money is being used to its best effect. Quote: "The Lives Saved Tool – on which all authors work – is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (JHU Grant 90076234, Award Number OPP1172551), with additional support from Global Affairs Canada (JHU Grant 90067950). We thank colleagues at the World Health Organization, UNICEF Headquarters (Programme Division and Data, Analytics, Planning and Monitoring Division), the Global Financing Facility, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for their comments on a draft version of this manuscript."
So it's as politically neutral as possible. In fact, the efforts my company, Proteus Technologies, did for the World Food Program were in fact significantly funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation and the system I designed and my team implemented actually modeled many of these very indicators to make it easy to collect data out in the field and get meaningful statistics without having to be a statistician.
The paper notes that the LiST model is focused on direct aspects of the intervention for specific scenarios. That means it's limited in terms of predictions of impact. Unfortunately, as the paper notes, these are strictly lower bound limits as deaths resulting for 2nd and 3rd order indirect effects can only add to the overall mortality.
LiST does not capture individual infectious disease dynamics and therefore does not reflect the potential impact of secondary outbreaks in the absence of preventative interventions (e.g., localized measles outbreaks due to a gap in measles vaccination). A recent analysis found that reductions in routine immunization due to the outbreak, in the absence of herd protection or catch-up campaigns, would result in more than 800,000 under-five deaths primarily due to measles and pertussis.49 In general, we expect the pandemic to affect the health of women and children in more ways than we have captured, not fewer, including through causal pathways unknown to us now. Our inability to capture these effects does not negate the value of our analysis. If our estimates are overly conservative, they still highlight the need to consider maternal and child health amid the pandemic and the consequences at stake.
The only question that remains is not whether there will be more deaths from the government intervention versus deaths from Wuhan-virus, but whether it will be "only" one order of magnitude higher (10x) or two (100x)? What's even more disturbing is that these women and children are also absolutely the least likely to be impacted by the Wuhan-virus directly. Yet we know we will lose over a million of them due to the results of our immoral policies reacting to the virus. Meanwhile those very policy makers and advisers haven't lost a single days' pay. Plus they received government subsidy checks like everyone else as a bonus.
It's time to correct this immoral inversion where the wealth creators are sacrificed while the parasites grow fatter. You have to fight against them and make it clear what your expectations are and what the consequences of their resistance will be. Leave no doubt because they sure as hell aren't questioning their intent.