Social

At the end of the day, you’ve gotta trust someone, right?

And for me – I’m going all in and trusting the governments of this country to make all the best decisions for my life and yours. Even when they disagree – I’ll just trust them all. And if the government changes and all the decisions reverse themselves – I’m ok with that.

That’s why I think vaccine mandates aren’t going far enough (oh sorry I forgot – nobody is being forced to get a vaccine, you just can’t work or support your families unless you do).

I mean, why only entrust our immune system COVID-19 response to the government? Why not just entrust everything to them?

So personally I think that all our health choices should be made by the government, based on the advice of whoever happens to be in charge that day.

Think of how great it would be! The government could tell the grocery stores what they should sell me to eat that day, and I could just buy it. So many issues about deciding what meal to cook, where to get ingredients and personal dietry requirements could fade away. The government chefs could come up with a healthy, balanced diet that is best for everyone. We can then simply line up and get those meals provided to us.

Naturally people who are overweight could then be forced to get surgery and take appropriate medications to suppress their apetites. After all, if they are overweight they might not be contributing enough to the economy and could place a drain on our already over-run medical system. We’ll also need a list of other medical problems that cost the country too much, or are contagious – people with these should probably just be forcibly treated, isolated from others or euthanised, but I’ll go with whatever the government says on that one.

But health is just one part of our lives.

The government should also definitely tell me what to wear. I mean, if you’ve met me you probably know that my sense of style is a little lacking. I personally believe the only real solution is that somebody objective should dictate my clothing choices each day. So each day I can tune in to the government podcast and they can tell me and you what to wear.

This, in turn, will reduce bullying and discrimination. If we all wear the same thing as each other, nobody can be singled out or teased. Naturally this will also make the jobs of designers and textile manufacturers much more simple, and they can devote their energies to mass-production of government approved clothing.

Beyond that I’m confident the government should control what I spend my money on. I mean, not just taxes but everything. I might spend my money on bad things or make choices to buy things that aren’t good for others around me. To avoid this, I think the government should receive my pay cheque each week and supply me with the things I need. Which leads me to…

Wages. It’s quite unfair that my wages are determined by my training, talent and the value I bring to the market. It’s also unfair that my employers should have any say in what I get paid – I mean, what if they don’t like me or think that I’m not contributing? They might decide not to pay me the fair sums of money that I deserve. It’s also pretty unfair that I with my paltry 20 years of training and experience should be paid more than someone who hasn’t decided to work or study for themselves. They should be entitled to precisely the same as me and it’s quite unfair if they have to live with less means.

The solution is clear though – the government should set a single, universal income for everyone. They can tell us how many hours to work and when we should have a break to make sure we’re looking after ourselves. That should nearly completely eliminate discrimination of all kinds. It does create an issue though. While the government can supply our food and clothing, we still have different housing.

So obviously the government should supply identical housing for all families, irrespective of their size. Those with larger pieces of land will have to divide it into smaller pieces to accomodate those with no land, or smaller land.

Now these things are very practical and they will fix almost all of our problems, but there are a few things still to address.

Firstly I think it’s important the government tell me what I should believe at a spiritual level. After all, people having different beliefs about God is causing all sorts of friction and sometimes upsets others. If the government can tell us who God is and how we should practice our religions, I think that’s the only fair way to address these kinds of disagreements.

Next the government should definitely (keep) telling me what words are OK to use and which ones aren’t. There should probably just be a published list each day when I’m finding out what to wear so I can check how I should be speaking as well.

Finally I think there should be some kind of confession/re-education system for those who don’t embrace the system. Fines and jail time are OK, but really we just want to fix people so they function properly.

Most people can be re-trained by suitably qualified staff and appropriate resourcing. We can make a large facility where people can be taken until they have learned how to be better human beings and embrace the government program. That way if we hear someone say something wrong, get upset by somebody else or see someone who is breaking the rules, we can call a number and ensure they they are re-educated.

Drastic times call for drastic measures – and frankly this is the only way we can genuinely be a free and democratic society.

I read today in this News Dot Com article the assertion that:

Covid-19 has a mortality rate of 1.06 per cent in Australia. Around 1,400 Aussies are currently in hospital with the virus, including 288 people in Intensive Care Units across the country.

And since it seems that basically anyone can be a fact-checker these days, I thought I’d give it a crack.

My conclusion:

Misleading

Let’s dig in.

The Australian Health site here keeps fairly up to date statistics of COVID events, including “cases” and deaths.

Here is a snapshot of the total numbers around the country as I type this article on 20 October 2021:

So, with a little maths we can see that this does in fact demonstrate a total mortality rate of 1.06%.

Therefore we can give our newsy friends a big green tick, because technically speaking they managed to divide the correct numbers by the other correct numbers.

However – this isn’t the number we should be looking at, because it’s simply not granular enough.

First – How COVID Deaths are Reported in Australia

When COVID first popped up, each state had its own ways of reporting deaths.

The result is that the statistics were about as reliable as promises made in the lead up to an election. In some cases we had people dying in motorcycle accidents reported as COVID deaths, which is obviously stupid.

Have those numbers been removed from these? Who knows, since apparently we just decided to gloss over that bit.

What I can tell you though is that the health site currently says that it counts something as a COVID death:

As per the COVID-19 national guidelines, a COVID-19 death is defined for surveillance purposes as a death in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID19 (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death. Where a Coroner’s report is available, these findings are to be observed.

Let’s interpret this for a moment. A death counts as a COVID death if:

• the person had COVID19; and
• there is no clear alternative cause of death.

This is what I like to call a “low bar”.

Basically if we don’t bother trying to find out that something else killed a person, then it was COVID.

And since we don’t seem to bother actually running tests for anything else these days (like the flu, for example) the chances of us finding a clear alternative cause of death are pretty slim.

The result here is that attributing a death to COVID is the default position. The statistics, therefore, represent the highest possible death rate of COVID and not a considered reflection on the actual cause of death.

It’s also probably fun to point out here that the extreme difference between how easy it is for something to be declared a COVID death, and how hard it is for something to be identified as an adverse reaction to the COVID vaccine (don’t worry – I’ll fact check myself on that statement at some point).

Conclusion – the result is that declaring COVID to have a mortality rate of 1.06% based on these figures is inherently misleading. At best we can declarea COVID19 to have an absolute maximum mortality rate of 1.06% based on these figures – because on closer reflection and testing the number would only ever go down.

Next – Age Matters

Now the rubber really hits the road, because as a 40 (shock) year old man I’m not that interested in overall statistics – I’m more interested in whether I’m going to die or not (I know – pretty selfish).

I’m also interested in my kids, because of course we’re all freaking out about the health and safety of our kids at the moment.

So let’s look at the age breakup of cases and deaths.

For reasons that I shan’t speculate on, these aren’t actually in a helpful single table, but rather spread across two tables. Here are two pictures (the first cases, the second deaths – broken up by age and gender) as at 20 October 2021.

OK so now I grab my calculator and we find the following mortality rates by age:

• 0-9 age bracket – ZERO percent mortality rate
• 10-19 age bracket – 0.017% mortality
• 20-29 age bracket – 0.0287% mortality
• 30-39 age bracket – 0.0432% mortality
• 40-49 age bracket – 0.166% mortality
• 50-59 age bracket – 0.679% mortality
• 60-69 age bracket – 1.8% mortality
• 70-79 age bracket – 6.645% mortality
• 80-89 age bracket – 18.6% mortality
• 90+ age bracket – 30.77% mortality.

Phew! That was a lot of maths – I think I need a rest.

Now here’s the thing – the stats obviously go up right on the 60 age bracket – EVERYTHING under that is less than the 1.06% number being trotted out.

And where only around 15% of the population is over the age of 65, this is where it gets misleading.

MOST people reading that statistic of 1.06% do NOT have that mortality chance, even on these openly maxxed out death statistics.

Which leads to…

Outliers

In my view, including the 80+ age bracket statistics in the generally published figures is manifestly misleading. That data heavily skews the statistics on mortality.

I could do some maths to support this, but I did enough maths earlier.

It’s generally accepted that the elderly are more vulnerable to basically everything. We can add to that the fact that many elderly are in aged care, where spread of disease and generally poor nutrition, conditions and care amount to significantly different health factors than those NOT in aged care.

Let’s be clear: 766 out of 1558 deaths currently reported occured WITHIN RESIDENTIAL AGED CARE. That’s just a smidgen under 50% of the reported COVID deaths.

But we’re including those in data related to the general population, and using that as part of our decision making which impacts those not in aged care – despite it being a unique combination of factors not found anywhere else.

So telling me that I have a 1% chance of dying from something when that’s 8x what the actual data shows and includes those outlying figures, is frankly just an exercise in scaremongering.

And Lastly… Where are the Co-Morbidities?

By this point most people know that pre-existing conditions have a massive impact on how COVID affects people.

Have you noticed what’s happened though? We don’t even mention it anymore. The data isn’t that easy to find, and if it is it’s buried in a dense and nearly impossible to read piece of medical literature. Certainly politicians aren’t talking about it, and news outlets aren’t reporting on it.

Obesity is the obvious one which has a dramatic impact on outcomes, although apparently it’s not PC to mention that.

So here’s an interesting and different one for you – this paper here based on CDC data suggests that anxiety was (at the time at least) running a close second in terms of increasing bad outcomes from COVID.

So let’s be clear:

• Co-morbidities have a massive impact on COVID19 outcomes;
• Anxiety is a major co-morbidity that increases your chance of dying from COVID; and
• The news and politicians of the day are literally telling you you’re going to die every morning, locking down the states on a whim (unless it’s football) and crushing small business under their emergency-powered-boot.
• This increases your anxiety levels, because your life sucks (how about a 7-day snap lockdown that lasts for 77 days, anyone?)
• Which makes you more vulnerable to adverse consequences of COVID.

Happy days.

Wrapping Up.

I hope you enjoyed my first attempt at a fact check.

My conclusion is that the assertion of a 1.06% morbidity from COVID-19 is strictly correct but entirely misleading.

Have a nice day.

So on 3 October we allowed 39,000 people to go into a stadium to watch grown men throw a ball and tackle each other.

This was, of course, yet another straw on the poor old hypocritical camel’s back as it strains to keep itself moving from A to B.

It solidifies in our minds that our glorious leaders (may their hair never fall out) either:

• don’t actually believe COVID is dangerous;
• don’t care whether their constituents die; or
• are more stupid than we thought.

None of these is a particularly attractive situation.

There are a few staggering elements here.

First, that our chief medical officer in Queensland managed to keep a straight face while declaring that holding the event should probably be fine from a health perspective. This in itself deserves an award nomination of some kind.

What’s that you say? 39,000 people into a stadium is fine? But I can’t invite all my relatives to my wedding, let alone any friends – that’s not fine. Nor if I die from the sheer stupidity of the governments around the world will that many people be able to attend my funeral to laugh at my music selections. If I go to the office (lol) then I have to wear a mask, unless I seal myself in the room where I am unable to hear the news and feel compelled to write articles like this one.

But in NRL we trust, and we have absolute confidence that the sensible and law-abiding citizens will definitely use all necessary measures to protect themselves and others from the virus of doom*

*bearing in mind that COVID can only get you when you’re standing up, so you don’t need to wear a mask if you’re sitting down. And masks definitely work anyway.

But really, we’re confident that even though we can’t go to a hairdresser without wearing a mask nowadays, the enormous pile of complete strangers who drink beer a lot will definitely keep the social distancing rules at a rugby match, right?

Now for the last 18 months or more we’ve had a fascinating piece of government information pushed down our thoats, ears and eyes – that COVID is a death dealing crazy maniac of a virus that will definitely destroy life as we know it.

This has been used to justify insanely over-the-top reactions, rules, regulations and orders requiring us not to visit our elderly relatives, see each other, embrace one another at all, turn up to work, take our kids to school (ok – not me, but other people), and more recently it’s been seen as a justification to force millions of people into the position of having to inject a drug repeatedly into their bodies or lose their jobs.

And yet – this.

Let’s be honest – this was a national sport-induced sedative. Because Australia is… Australia – cancelling the NRL grand final would have tipped some sports-loving Aussies over the edge.

It’s the slightly more gentile equivalent of chucking a guilotine at the city gates – designed to pacify the people, minimise dissention, and ensure compliance.

There is no way of reconciling this with the rhetoric of the last 18 months.

Which can really only lead to this conclusion – the trumped up government fascade of being actually concerned for our wellbeing is a colossal lie.

Or, if you prefer another angle, perhaps COVID isn’t the doomsday device that the powers-that-be have been declaring it as all this time.

As someone who has a keen interest in knowing what the heck is actually true, you can probably imagine how hilarious the last few years have been.

Fortunately, though, I now understand that “true” is being actively redefined to mean “acceptable”. You see, using this handsome definition, what counts as “true” or #fakenews doesn’t need to depend on the absolute facts – it only needs to align with the opinion of people more important than us, so that they can tell us what is true today.

Does it matter if what they tell us is true today is different from what they told us was true yesterday? Nah.

What DOES matter though is that we absolutely embrace the narrative of the day, don’t discuss how that might possibly be incorrect, and definitely apply no independent thought to anything that might contradict what is “true” now. But if we slip up and do accidentally forget what the facts are today, it’s OK because the people who run the show will happily silence us and ensure that nothing we say could possibly be read by others.

History tells us, of course, that this kind of system absolutely works fine.

With this bold new appreciation in tow, I thought I’d demonstrate my commitment to this excellent cause and to our true-declaring overlords, and explain how we can learn to properly navigate just a few topics that have come up in recent times.*

* if you feel like these particular topics are one-sided, that’s because they are. Fear not, I can just as happily write a similar article from the other side of the political fence, I just didn’t do that on this occasion.

Herd Immunity

If you haven’t heard the phrase “herd immunity” recently, then the chances are you’re not reading this article either.

For this one we can reach out to our overlords at the World Health Organization, and whoever writes their website copy.

So, the facts between the invention of the phrase and very recently were that “herd immunity” means something like this:

But that’s old news now, and is no longer true. For reasons which I’m 100% sure have nothing to do with an agenda to push everyone to get vaccines, the definition was updated in the second half of 2020 (um… citations for why don’t matter, remember?) to be:

‘Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached. Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it.

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/question-and-answers-hub/q-a-detail/herd-immunity-lockdowns-and-covid-19

Don’t worry though, I’m sure a “Doctor” or an “Expert” will be able to confirm via an upcoming news cycle if you are concerned that this updated definition is completely appropriate and proven by science. Other “doctors” and “experts” might say different things, but don’t believe them because I didn’t capitalise their titles.

So just to be clear, the previous “fact” that was absolutely fine to believe was that herd immunity included those who gained immunity through exposure.

But that’s not the fact anymore – so don’t say that.

Trump Tear-Gassing People for a Photo Op

The orange man is bad, OK? So if we hear something bad about him, it’s almost certainly true.

In this case, in around June 2020 Trump cruelly directed park police to drive out peaceful protesters and throw tear-gas at them, so that he could get a photo-op outside a church holding an upside down bible. What a meany, amiright?

And that was completely, absolutely and unequivocally true…

…until about June 2021, when it became not true. From that point what became true is that in response to the “peaceful” protesters causing injury to multiple officers and damage to federal property, the US Park Police organised (without reference to Trump) to mobilize and clear the not-really-peaceful protesters from the area.

So if you voted against Trump because of that incident (which seems unlikely) then you were still 100% ok to do so without any cognitive dissonance, because at the time it was true.

The Wuhan Lab

COVID was absolutely, definitely and uneqvoically NOT something that was released (accidentally or otherwise) from a laboratory in Wuhan, China. Got it?

In fact, if you think that it was, then you are a crazy nut-job, a conspiracy theorist and you repeatedly sharing disinformation about this should get you banned from Twitter and Facebook. We also know it to be crazy because 27 scientists (count ’em – 27!) published a statement on February 19 2020 telling us it was crazy. It’s completely irrelevant that the statement was drafted by Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, which has a commercial relationship with the Wuhan Institute of Virology funded by US government grants.

Most notably, however, it’s important to remember that Orange Man Bad, and because Trump expressed a view that the virus came from a lab in Wuhan, it’s simple logic to know that must be a lie. That combined with the extremely extensive and amazing work of the WHO investigation should convince even the most stalwart of objectioners.

So it was clear and entirely proper for the US Government, Twitter and Facebook to completely shut down any suggestion of any kind that the virus came from a lab.

At least, until about June 2021, when it became entirely possible that the virus leaked from a lab in Wuhan. You see, what we need to understand is that while social media (based on WHO guidance) censored and banned people left, right and centre from expressing any view suggesting that Covid came from a lab, it was always (always) the case that all theories were still being investigated and they definitely did NOT say that the lab-leak theory was completely false.

So just to be clear:

• Before June 2021 it was completely false misinformation spread by lunatics that COVID might have leaked from a lab. Those people were rightly banned from social media, called various names quite appropriately and should be ashamed of themselves.
• From June 2021 and for the time being, it’s perfectly OK to speculate that perhaps COVID came from a lab, because the investigation is ongoing and we don’t have a definitive answer yet.
• Dr Fauci definitely did not know about gain-of-function research being conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology at the time he dismissively waived off suggestions the virus came from the lab. Or if he did it doesn’t matter and you just don’t understand things, OK?

Getting Sick from COVID

In a speech in March 2020, the Prime Minister said:

• “But the truth is that while many people will contract this virus that it’s clear, just as people get the flu each year, it is a more severe condition than the flu, but for the vast majority, as I said last week, for the majority, around 8 in 10 is our advice, it will be a mild illness and it will pass”

So, to demonstrate, my home state of Queensland has had 1752 cases of COVID reported, with 7 deaths representing around a 0.4% mortality rate.

NSW has had 6,618 reported cases with 56 deaths, representing a 0.85% mortality rate. It’s a bit higher, but don’t worry – we turned NSW off for a while so it should be OK.

Other states are similar, although in fairness Victoria does drag the mortality statistics up. However, this is a good opportunity to demonstrate how selectively presenting some facts but not others can be used to support a position.

So in order to avoid the obvious imminent death of everyone, it’s important that we tell 5.2million people in Queensland to wear masks (that definitely work to protect us – although the specifics depend on whether you ask the CDC or the WHO, and which historical date you ask them about it) when 3 cases are found to exist, compel everyone to stay home if we find any community transmission at all, and as a nation administer 22,388,993 tests to ensure that we don’t catch this most-of-the-time mild disease. It’s also important that nobody dances – dancing is out, OK?

On the up-side, apparently we have basically eradicated influenza type A from our lives. Isn’t that great? You see, in the No 12, 2019 edition of the Influenza Surveillance Report, the good people at the Department of Health noted that to date in that calendar year there had been 298,120 notifications of laboratory-confirmed influenza. Wow, lots right? But I’m happy to tell you that in 2021 in the year to date (bearing in mind we’re not at the end of the flu season yet) we have only reported 388 cases of the flu. Go us! I mean it’s like the flu just disappeared or something.

Now I have to admit that distilling what is true here did my head in a bit, but here’s my best crack at trying to believe what I’m told to believe:

• COVID-19, for most people, “is a mild illness and it will pass” according to the PM who, as you’d expect, was probably parroting some medical person; but
• COVID-19 is also so serious and dangerous that if there is any chance you might possibly have it you should get tested (if you don’t understand how this point marries with the last one, you’re not trying hard enough);
• It’s important that in response to a mild illess that will pass we, as a country, declare a state of emergency and hand power to a single non-elected medical official in each State who can then tell us all what we may or may not do each day, while the premiers provide us with a neverending stream of updated statistics with large numbers so that news outlets can cling desparately to the idea that they have something relevant to publish each day.
• It’s OK though, because politicians are renowned for giving back power quickly once they have had a taste of it. They are definitely not investigating opportunities to give themselves these powers indefinitely.

The best part is, if I’m made a mistake then I don’t have to worry – I’m confident the fact-checkers will point it out and I’ll know then what to believe. If not I can always check myself in to the ministry of truth for some re-education.

From my vantage point here in Australia, it’s interesting (albeit disturbing) to watch the rhetoric around the recent riots and violence at Capitol Hill.

This, it has been said, is the obvious and predictable culmination of a president like Donald Trump who is divisive and hate-filled, and of the political right’s narrative around the election results which has stoked the fires of insurrection.

While it’s possible – likely even – that those things added fuel to the fire I struggle to land on the conclusion that they were the primary cause.

In truth I think the recent (and, let’s be honest, ongoing) dissent is the by-product of a larger problem: people have no trust.

Specifically, people have no implicit trust in the institutions that used to command it. I use “institutions” deliberately broadly, to canvas both sides of the political spectrum and basically all organised media.

Most likely, of course, those institutions will continue their skewed approach to labelling and blaming others rather than introspectively pausing to consider whether their own behaviour, character and methods have played an important role along the way towards the recent chaos. No doubt they will consider themselves to be whiter than the driven snow, in pursuit of their virtuous objectives.

But why should I trust you, institutions?

Are the words from our politicians words that I can assume to be accurate, forthright, honest? Do we have candour? Do our politicians admit their mistakes? Can we really believe anything people in powerful positions say now? Perhaps more importantly: do we?

Does media boldly present the truth? Or does the media now devote its efforts towards willfully ignoring facts that don’t align with their narrative, and spinning the rest so that it does.

Why should I trust people who discarded a desire for the truth some time ago, and now seek only to promote a message? Why should I trust you when your approach to the people you agree with is so materially different from your approach to the people you don’t? Why should I trust you when your agenda takes priority over your humanity?

Generally what happens is fairly simple psychology: we believe that people who say things we already agree with are telling the truth. Whereas, things we don’t like or that we disagree with must be lies.

This is just another way of saying: we don’t trust anything.

Until trust exists, dissent will probably continue. It might not look like people climbing government walls, but it’ll be there.

Personally though, I have hope. Over time the problems will become apparent, things will shift, people will reflect, and change will occur. That is generally how it happens, after all.

I cannot recall a time in my life when people hated each other as much as they do now. Or, at least if they did, I didn’t have to hear about it quite as much.

Of course, to hear some talk about it they will blame the current state of things on Donald Trump – because they hate him.

Indeed, the Hate Trump Party has been in fine voice this week. Trump is, after all, the cause of all evil in the world and therefore it’s OK to hate him.

But just as important as hating Trump is ensuring that if others don’t hate Trump as much as they should, then those people should be hated too.

After all, if you don’t hate Trump then you’re a fascist. And because you’re a fascist, we can simultaneously ignore your opinions and feel vindicated about hating you all the more.

But it’s alright, because we can combat your evil fascim and create unity by implementing a system of laws and norms that require you to speak in a certain way, redirect your money in a certain way, tell you to act in a certain way, and we will silence you if you express different opinions than those which we deem to be OK.

Now some in the Trump Can Do No Wrong party will react badly to this. Trump is, after all, the President (for the moment) and TCDNWers should support him at every available opportunity. His words are taken out of context, and you virtue-signaling child murderers in the NewSpeak department haven’t a clue what you are talking about. You regularly lie and mislead the public, and with the helpful interference by their big tech and media puppeteers you get away with it.

You Trump Hater socialist psychopaths want to destroy freedom of speech and literally build monuments to a movement which rampaged through and set large parts of the USA on fire for 7 months under the guise of “peaceful protest”. Your goal is to systematically dismantle the foundation of the entire country with your crazy ideas and insane reinvention of obvious facts.

So you might hate us, but we gonna hate you right back.

And this is where we seem to find ourselves. The systems that exist for people now only exist for people we agree with – and everyone else can get stuffed. The politics and the politicians who are supposedly there to be a unifying force of checks and balances against each other, testing and weighing and presenting alternative views and solutions based on learned contemplation and wisdom – are now simply teaching us how to hate each other.

And, from the looks of it, we’re learning the lessons very well.