DebateGate

The Death Rate for Coronavirus for People Under 50 is Just 0.1%, or 1 Out of 1,000 Infections

Now that more data about the Wuhan Coronavirus is coming out from a reliable source, namely South Korea, irrational fears should subside. Of course, that likely won't be the case since so many Americans are being irrational about the manufactured terror stimulated by a mainstream media industrial complex that is bent on doing harm to America for the sake of November election considerations.

This is why good news out of South Korea is barely being reported by American mainstream media. The government there is adjusting their strategies now that they understand the severity of the disease has been overblown by the World Health Organization and others. Much of what was originally reported was based on data from China, but now that Italy and South Korea have enough cases for statistical significance, we can start getting a better picture of what we?re dealing with. Thankfully, the picture is looking better than most expected.

We can trust the data coming out of South Korea for two reasons. First, they are testing so many people that they're getting an accurate understanding of the scope of the infection. Second, they are not a nation known for propaganda; their government and press work hard to make the available truth known.

This is why it's so important to understand the motivations of American media outlets when they report on the coronavirus. Left-leaning Business Insider reported the same numbers we're getting, yet they spun them so badly to turn the legend of the coronavirus (as compared to the reality of it) into one of devastation. It was a display of Propaganda 101: Make good news seem bad by framing it unfairly.

Here's the reality based on data from South Korea:

Infected people age 50-59 are at a 0.4% death rate.

It drops dramatically to 0.09% for those 40-49 and 0.12% for those 30-39.

Currently, the death rate for those under 30 is at 0.00%; meaning no more than 1 or 2 young people have died out of nearly 8,000 infected.
To put it into perspective, that translates to one person dying out of 1000 infected among people under 50, and four deaths out of 1000 people between 50-59. The death rate for people under 50 is effectively the same whether they contract the coronavirus or the flu.

Does that mean shouldn't be concerned? Of course not. Once we add in older Americans, the death rate goes up dramatically. In South Korea, infected people 60-69 have a 1.44% death rate. 70-79 age range jumps to 4.83%. Those over 80-years-old who were infected died 8.23% of the time. The disease is clearly very dangerous to the elderly.

The elderly or those who come in contact with the elderly must take major precautions. The disease is exponentially more deadly to them than people under age 50. Everyone else needs to calm down. Catching it is very likely not the end of your world.

Former CIA Analyst to CBN News: 'An American Insurrection Is Underway'
11-22-2019


If you follow politics, you've heard people talking about the "deep state". But is there really some sort of coup going on at a deeper level among career bureaucrats in Washington, or is it just a fantasy?

At a recent Federalist Society dinner in our nation's capital, US Attorney General William Barr said an "avalanche of subpoenas" and constant attempts to derail Trump administration appointments only serve to 'incapacitate" the executive branch.

He stopped short of calling what is happening in Washington a political coup, but he suggested forces are engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly-elected government.

Referring to the "resistance" language used by Trump opponents, Barr said, "Now 'resistance' is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous and, indeed, incendiary notation to import into the politics of a democratic republic."
   
Appearing on this week's episode of the Global Lane, former CIA Analyst Michael Scheuer says he believes an American insurrection is now underway.

"The federal government, at least the executive branch, is being denied the ability to execute its responsibilities, whether it's here in Washington, or in places like Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles and San Francisco where, under the supremacy clause, Washington is very clearly responsible for immigration. There's much more disruption and much more insurrection in this country than Lincoln faced until the Confederates fired at Ft. Sumter. It's staggering to be in this position 160 years later," Scheuer said.

He says the only thing we've heard so far in the impeachment hearings is staffers saying they're very offended because the president didn't listen to their advice, contending it's more about sour grapes than evidence of a crime.

Scheuer also says there's clear ignorance about the Constitution on behalf of Congress. "When the Constitution says 'bribery', the Founders were talking about the President accepting bribes," not the president making a quid pro quo in exchange for foreign aid, he argues.

Scheuer says the bottom line is there's a deeper agenda at work here.

"What they're doing is, as Mr. Barr said, trying to tear down the institutions of this country. They're not the loyal opposition, they are an infestation of globalists who want to deny nationality to the United States and blend us in with the rest of the world," he contends.

November 20, 2019

Freedom Is on the March, and the Elites Can't Stand It

A glaring sign of our intelligentsia's decrepitude is their absolute lack of interest in understanding either the Brexit vote or the election of Donald Trump.  With a few notable exceptions, those who claim to spend their lives doing the public "thinking" that must surely require higher faculties than possessed by common people, have shown no intellectual curiosity for the social shifts of our day.  You would think people who do thinking for a living would find the events in the U.K. and the U.S. fascinating and historically compelling, if for no other reason than that neither outcome was expected by the public intellectuals themselves.

After decades of incremental movement toward a one-government Europe, the people of the U.K. pushed back.  After decades of uni-party leadership in D.C., Americans said, "No more."  Regardless of one's personal politics, these events should have at least seemed interesting to people who see themselves as reflective connoisseurs of the history of ideas.  Instead, they chose to see nothing at all.  It could all be explained away quite easily, they have assured, by detestable appeals to "populism" and "racism," with a little Russian propaganda sprinkled in for good measure. 

So when the public intellectuals convince the public to vote according to their worldview, this popular election is called "democracy in action."  When the public votes against the public intellectuals, this signifies that the public put the interests of the population ahead of the "thinkers" and must therefore be grounded in the old primordial goo of tribalism and hatred that afflicts the public, generally, but from which the public intellectuals can elevate us, should we simply heed their instructions. The public intellectuals can lead us to salvation, but we will always be racists weighed down by our ancient, sad evolutionary instincts. This is as far as most intellectuals have gotten for the last four years.  (Oh, and Russia is behind every bad thing said about the dominant governing paradigms in the U.K. and U.S. because, unlike the seventy years of communist and Cold War propaganda, there has never been anything more effective at winning hearts and minds than Putin's ability to post mean things on social media.) 

I think it is worth saying that if you fancy yourself an intellectual and yet believe almost everything believed and advocated by the permanent government and media institutions of your time, then you aren't thinking very creatively, or perhaps even thinking at all.  If you spend your mental energy invested in Marxist class consciousness and postmodern social constructs yet fail to see the irony of actively supporting the governing status quo, you might need to examine the mental prisons you've constructed for yourself.  Empathy is not only a virtue; it's also a valuable diagnostic tool for understanding social upheaval and change, yet our public intellectuals never seem interested in understanding us. They seem interested in getting us to understand that we must understand them.

Oh, we do.  There's a growing certainty among freedom-minded people of the West that our public intellectuals and governing institutions find more in common with the command-and-control leadership of the former Soviet Union than with the ideas of Lech Walesa or Vaclav Havel.  Whereas we see Poland's Solidarity uprising and Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution as fraternal moments to the signings of the Magna Carta and Declaration of Independence, modern public intellectuals see vulgar populism, motivated by tribal spirits (with a sprinkling of Russian propaganda thrown in). 

Everywhere we look, public intellectuals are advocating for restrictions on free speech and criminalization of free expression.  Being confronted with ideas that conflict with their own, public intellectuals see no choice but to silence the public.  If personal freedom should suffer as a result, then the public should have considered this repercussion before saying what they believe out loud.  Freedom of conscience, if kept securely in the private thoughts of the public, is allowed, but exercising freedom of conscience is dangerous to the public intellectuals and is therefore forbidden. 

For all their worry and hand-wringing about "populism", public intellectuals are missing a grand historical moment.  An Iron Curtain is once again descending on free peoples of the world, and they, themselves, are the ones pulling and yanking the ropes, hoping to quiet the rumblings of public dissatisfaction with the State or hunger for personal freedom before the public gains enough awareness of their predicament or strength to do something about it. 

Hmm.  Perhaps our public thinkers do understand what Brexit and Donald Trump signify.  Perhaps they realize that freedom is once again on the march, and they've taken up positions on the wrong side of the intellectual battlefield.  Perhaps they realize that, in the battle of ideas, they will inevitably lose, but if their ideas are the only ones allowed, then they win by default.

It is a sad irony that the U.S. and U.K. spent much of the post-WWII twentieth century working to help liberate the peoples of Eastern Europe from the Soviet shadow, while it is they who now beg us to open our eyes before it becomes too late for us to resist the shackles of State socialism.  The deepest cut, however, is that most of the rebellious intellectuals under the Iron Curtain fought for freedom, while most of our public intellectuals fight against it.