Folks, this tinfoil garbage just won't quit.

Look, I get it -- people love to find something to blame, and "oh, it was a bioweapon" is one of the common ones going around, along with "it's triggered by 5g!" (which is just flat-out horsecrap.)

The problem with bioweapons is that they're doomsday devices in that they have a 100% chance of scoring an "own goal."  To prevent this you must first have a vaccine with 100% coverage on your side so your people don't get the bug, and that vaccine must have permanent immunity.

Let me repeat this for you just in case your IQ is smaller than your shoe size: There has never been a successful attempt to prevent the spread of a virus beyond some arbitrary line on a map.  Ever.  Even in the days of old before international commerce and easy air travel it never worked.

Second, if you were going to create a viral weapon the last thing you'd use is a coronavirus.  Why?  Because despite decades of trying there has never been a successful, durable vaccine for a coronavirus either, so the odds of scoring such an "own goal" are in fact 100%.

Coronaviruses not only infect people they infect animals.  We have tried to create vaccines for animal husbandry and pet purposes on multiple occasions, and have failed every time to obtain permanent immunity.  We have also wound up creating amplification effects by accident too; the poster child for this one was a feline "vaccine" that actually wound up amplifying the effects of the virus instead of attenuating or preventing infections!  This is why, by the way, that there is no reason whatsoever to believe we will ever have a permanent vaccine; despite attempts in both animals and humans we've never succeeded before with this particular type of virus.

Now is it entirely possible -- even probable -- that this specific virus was an accidental release?  Yep.  In fact I'd say it's more likely than not.  That's the "civil standard of proof", and it's present.  Why?  Because this virus behaves like an attenuated live virus, but not attenuated enough.  For those who think that sort of idea is crazy I remind you that we've used that exact concept for decades with oral polio, and it works.  So the theory that this was an accidental release from Wuhan's lab and they were working on a vaccine for SARS, for example, is not crazy.  The only crazy part is that their odds of success were near zero in the first instance, but scientists try to find breakthroughs in things that appear to have a near-zero probability of success all the time.

But a bioweapon?  Nope.  There are plenty of candidate virus families to use for that sort of thing, if you're into attempting it. 

Coronavirus isn't one of them.

The data continues to come in and is clear.

Not only are the hospitalization requirements from nursing home and other "skilled care" institutions for elderly people ridiculously over-represented (in every state where I have found detailed information by forty to fifty times or more their percentage of the population at-large) but they are also ridiculously over-represented when it comes to deaths, usually by the same percentages.

Without these deaths and hospitalizations and deaths, in fact this disease would be of no special concern at all.  Oh certainly, it would kill some people -- but by no means would it rate as a serious public health threat worthy of closing the entire economy and causing an economic depression.

It wasn't originally either, by the way -- this hasn't changed.  "Mitigations" will not change if you will get the virus; that has been admitted since this began.  They only change when you get the virus.  If it's going to kill you, it's going to kill you.

So the plan should have been, and we the people should accept nothing other, than the following on an immediate basis -- under pain of whatever we have to do to enforce it.

1. All skilled nursing home and other similar facilities are locked in.  This includes staff; if there is insufficient housing then rent some RVs or other trailers, stick them in the parking lot, and there you go.  Nobody comes in or leaves unless they have a positive antibody test and a negative PCR test, demonstrating they cannot transmit the virus.  Any staff member who refuses is summarily fired and, if they are a licensed individual, their license is revoked.  Deliveries are made to the curb of the facility with zero contact between such persons and the staff.  Period.

2. Any person who can demonstrate immunity may enter upon and leave said facility as they wish; this includes visitors, workmen and others.  No other person, except in the case of documented emergency (e.g. plumbing malfunction,  emergency transport of a resident to a hospital, etc) may do so and any person who must for emergency reasons must be screened on-site for the virus before being allowed in the building.  If this is impractical (e.g. EMS workers) then the entire path on which they travel and any location where they or any of their equipment goes must be immediately sanitized upon their departure by a person who is antibody-positive.

3. A person (e.g. resident) who leaves may not return until and unless there is a 14-day quarantine facility on site with completely separate airhandling and no physical interconnection or they test positive for antibodies, documenting that they do not have a latent infection that can become transmissible.

Everyone else goes back to work and all constraints otherwise are dropped.

If we had done this at the outset we would have saved roughly half the lives lost thus far and more than half the hospitalizations.  There would have been zero justification for locking down anything.  Likewise, there is no justification for doing so now.

People in this circumstance account for approximately 1/2% of the population of the nation.  We are being collectively punished to "protect" these people and not only are we failing to do so, as they're dying at ridiculously outsized rates, in addition collective punishment when one has committed no offense is both blatantly unconstitutional and a proper casus belli.

Again, there is no particular problem with hospital capacity absent these individuals and, in addition the mitigation measures not only cannot prevent you from getting the virus they were never claimed to be able to either; the entire justification for them was to avoid overloading the hospitals.

Well, that's how you accomplish that -- and any politician who is empowered to drop the constraints and doesn't must be immediately ejected from their office and our economy restarted now.

Sigh....

Yeah, they say, it's all angry white men doing all the murdering.

Uh, no.

75% of the American population is white by last count, ~12.5% Hispanic, ~12.3% black and 3.6% Asian, roughly.  Those are the major represented groups.

So it lines up like this:

75% of the population committed 3,308 murders.

12.5% of the population committed 1,576 murders.

And finally, 12.3% of the population committed 6,318 murders.

Adjusting for population the absolute murder ratios (lower is less-likely to murder) were 4,410.67, 12,608 and 51,365.

Taking the lowest likelihood to murder as the "baseline" (white people) as "1" if you're Hispanic you're 2.86 times more likely to murder and if you're black you're 11.65 times more-likely to do so.

This ignores the "unknown" (unsolved) murders, of which there are many.  But it is a pretty good bet that the division doesn't change much in that regard.

For sex you're 7.14 times more likely to murder if you're male than female. Big shock.

Cut the crap folks -- right now -- when it comes to the "nasty white dude" nonsense.

It simply is not true -- not even close.

Then there's weapons.

6,603 murders by pistol, 297 by rifle, 235 by shotgun and 3,130 by gun but type not specified.

However, 1,515 were by knife and 672 by hands, feet, and other human instruments (e.g. pushed off bridge)

In other words before you ban "nasty black rifles" you need to ban both knives and fists.

Incidentally you'd think that if you don't want to be murdered stay out of the cities.  All but 3,268 murders were committed in one.  If you stay out of non-suburban cities as well then there are only 684 murders left.  Roughly 16.4 million people live there however -- and when you adjust for population the risk isn't that much lower.

In other words "diversity" matters much more than location.  Another inconvenient truth.

None of this fits the narrative, of course..... so you can expect the slime to ignore it.

But facts just are, and since it's your ass maybe you shouldn't ignore it.

You have to give Andrew Yang credit for being willing to put forward "UBI" -- a $1,000 a month "stipend" that he foolishly calls a "Freedom Dividend" -- with of course a boat-load of fraudulent claims of how he's going to pay for it.

Chief among these is a 10% VAT -- which sounds good, but it's problematic for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is that it won't raise enough money.

Remember that a VAT exempts government spending, since that's just taxing yourself.  Yang recognizes this and pegs the revenue from a VAT at $800 billion as he also removes groceries, clothing and apparently some other things from it.

He also says he's going to "consolidate" (get rid of) many other welfare programs.  The problem is that the only ones that matter from a budget perspective are health care related.

At the same time Yang wants to expand Medicare to everyone.  The problem is that these two programs are in direct opposition to each other.  He says he'll be able to bring costs under control but Medicare and Medicaid have utterly failed to do so.

In other words Yang is a pie-in-the-sky Democrat protecting and in fact expanding the medical monopolists.

Look folks -- CMS -- Medicare and Medicaid Services, have spent $1.465 trillion through August which is 35% of the federal spending all-in.  The federal budget deficit during that time was $1.067 trillion.

In other words that spending was 137% of the deficit.

If you killed all the medical monopolists and took the "low hanging fruit" as I described in that post you would erase the entire federal deficit, plus some and not one person would be denied medical care.

Further, you'd take roughly another trillion and a half off private forced spending on this alleged "service" since the "service" is 500% overpriced.

This would instantly resolve both the federal debt and all the state and local pension problems -- at once.  It would also eliminate the destruction of personal purchasing power and that of saved funds.

20% of the people in the country -- those who are involved in and require this scheme to make a living -- would hate you.

EVERYONE ELSE WOULD VOTE FOR YOU.

In short this is one of those nearly-impossible to find 80% issues among the electorate.  That's exactly what Trump exploited (a claimed 80% issue that he never actually addressed) to get elected himself -- illegal immigration and displacement of American workers.

He was lying, as we now all know in that instead of resolving any of these problems he has dripped out half-measures where, as the head of the Executive he could have resolved several of them immediately but that sales job is why he's President today.

Yang seems to think that socialism will somehow "work" in health care.  It never has -- in health care or anywhere else.  NHS in Britain is falling apart.  So are the other socialist health care systems.  They're falling apart even though they exist almost-entirely on the back of the 500% overcharge Americans pay in that we effectively fund the R&D and in many cases the reproduction cost of everything they use.  Even with that sort of outrageous transfer and theft they're still fiscally underwater.

Yang could have -- and perhaps, for a very short period of time forward still can -- become a credible candidate.  He needs an 80% issue -- indeed, anyone who intends to try to take on Warren, Bernie or Biden does, just as I've argued for decades that if you want to try to run as a third-party candidate you need to as well.

Remember Ross Perot?  He took up an 80% issue -- the giant sucking sound of "tariff free" trade with Mexico.  Had he not folded his tent he would have likely won too.

There are so many other crackpot ideas on Yang's plate that frankly, I can't take him seriously.  The "vote at 16" idea is one of them.  Representation comes with responsibility, or at least it's supposed to.  Yang is nothing more than pandering with this bullshit -- if my kid can vote at 16 I can eject him or her at 16 and they can go fend for themselves.

There are acts that should define you as an adult in all respects.  Reproduction and Felonious conduct are two of them.  Voting is a third.  Today we refuse to recognize that exercising the most-profound power a human can have -- to reproduce or not -- does not come with the responsibility commensurate with that power.  This must change and since slavery is immoral (never mind illegal) there's only one direction it can that is consistent: Pregnancy, for both sexes, is an automatic and irrevocably emancipating event.  So is a felony conviction.

Further, Andrew is a pie-in-the-sky economic bullshitter.  "Saving for retirement", which is one of his planks, is impossible in a nation where the federal government runs a 25%+ fiscal deficit and thus destroys the value of all saved capital.  This has to be stopped -- or those who both promote policies that allow and expand that practice must be removed from the public square by any means necessary.

Fortunately for Andrew there is a way to stop the deficit spending and get the 80% issue and greatly improve health care delivery while slashing cost by 80% or more.

But he hasn't taken it -- just like the rest haven't either.

That's because he doesn't really believe in any of it, just as neither do the others -- including our current President.

Sadly they're all bullshitters and con artists.