- Salty Ginger Talk Newsletter
- Posts
- Salty Ginger Talk Newsletter
New book shows Covid response ignored known data; containment measures made little to no difference
Our take: In 2020, the world was changed forever by the Covid-19 pandemic. In response to news of a deadly virus expected to spread around the world, governments everywhere took heavy-handed measures to “protect” citizens.
Locking down cities, arresting people who did not wear masks or stay 6 feet from others, and shutting down schools and businesses for years were proclaimed necessary measures to keep civilization from collapsing. Many people bought the story, and we plunged into a years-long battle between people who feared for their lives and people who wanted more evidence before complying with these Orwellian government actions.
5 years later, a new book is out, making those who silently complied and turned on their fellow citizens look pretty bad. Here are some excerpts from an interview the co-authors did with PBS:
William Brangham: One of the main themes of this book, as it seems to me, is that, in the early, crazy days of this pandemic, as our leaders were debating lockdowns and how to respond, any dissent over or real debate about the costs and benefits of those actions was squelched.
Stephen Macedo, co-author of "In COVID's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us": Well, it's interesting.
In March 2020, as the lockdowns were being enacted in the United States and across many Western countries, there were dissenters who spoke up in March. Some very well-known people warned that these measures were unlikely to be successful and would be very costly.
And then consensus seemed to develop in April and May that these kinds of strategies enacted by the Chinese and that had been implemented in Italy, national lockdown, and across much of the United States, that that was the correct strategy, that everyone needed to be on board for it, that there needed to be a sense of vital unity, that government, the academy, science, and journalism all needed to pull together, and that this was what we were going to do and that this is what we needed to do.
And, indeed, at that point, voices of dissent became scarce. Social media companies began removing some postings that were at odds with government messaging, and dissent dwindled over the summer and into the fall.
The interview (and the book) goes on to expose that there is little to no evidence that any of these measures made any measurable difference to the spread of the virus or the health outcome of citizens. The book compares countries that took different approaches and states that took different approaches and gives statistical data that supports the claim that none of these measures that were forced on the world by power-hungry elected officials and bureaucrats had any impact on the outcomes.
From the start, we were against almost all actions forced on the public by the government. There was no scientific evidence given to show that they were necessary or would actually deliver the outcome they claimed they would.
No matter your politics, you should read this article (we bought the book tonight to read the whole thing) and ask yourself how hundreds of millions of people were so willing to fall in line and turn on their friends, family, and neighbors in the name of “the greater good.” The further we get from the pandemic, the worse the actions of those “in charge” appear. Censoring opposing views, as governments, public companies, and legacy media outlets did, looks the worst of all.
COURTESY: PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS
US freezes $2 billion to Harvard after university refuses to make policy changes around anti-semitism
Our take: Harvard has long been viewed as a bastion of higher learning. The reputation of the university and esteemed alumni network have enabled it to build an endowment of over $40 billion, all of which is tax-free.
In spite of being a private institution, Harvard receives billions of dollars in financial support from the US government (as do thousands of universities).
Harvard has experienced unrest around the Israel/Palestine conflict since it escalated following the October 7th attacks on Israelis. While many support Israel and their right to defend themselves, many think the Israeli response has been far too aggressive, even calling them war crimes.
This fervent support for both sides has led to some heated exchanges. Some of these exchanges have led to charges of allowing antisemitism on campuses. The university has defended itself against these charges. In light of these accusations, the US government decided to insert itself into the mix.
A Department of Education task force on combating antisemitism said in a statement that it was freezing $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and $60 million in multi-year contract value to Harvard University.
Harvard on Monday rejected Trump administration demands that to receive federal funding, it end diversity efforts and take other steps that the university said would stifle intellectual freedoms of faculty and students.
Harvard President Alan Garber wrote in a public letter that demands made on Friday by the federal Department of Education would allow the federal government "to control the Harvard community" and threaten the school's "values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge."
"No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue," he added.
The Department of Education said in a written statement that the letter from Garber "reinforces the troubling entitlement mindset that is endemic in our nation's most prestigious universities and colleges—that federal investment does not come with the responsibility to uphold civil rights laws."
We have no clue who is in the right here. There is a balance between protecting people’s First Amendment rights and protecting people’s safety and the right not to be persecuted for their religious beliefs. We think both sides have valid arguments that need to be considered to ensure no one is getting the short end of the stick.
COURTESY: MSN
Lawmaker warns Real ID requirement is about control, not safety
Our take: In 2005, Congress passed a law that anyone traveling on a domestic flight would be required to show a “Real ID.” Implementation of the law has been repeatedly delayed but is now set to take effect on May 7th of this year.
Thomas Massie, a Republican representative from Kentucky who leans hard towards a libertarian bent, is warning that the Real ID law has little to do with safety and much more to do with government control.
In a thread of messages on X, formerly Twitter, the congressman wrote on Saturday, "Real ID isn't needed and won't stop terrorists from hijacking planes. Most of the 9/11 hijackers held Saudi, UAE, Egyptian, or Lebanese passports. Real ID is a national standard and database of IDs that is primarily a tool for control of Americans. Trump shouldn't enforce it."
Then on Monday, Massie warned in another X post that the "Real ID isn't a database. It's proof that your physical person matches an entry in the digital database. Its power & purpose will be realized when everyone complies, but not before. This is responsive to 'I didn't give them much information; I've had one for years, why worry?'"
He added, "As long as the pilot's door is locked and no one has weapons, why do you care that someone who flies has government permission? Real ID provides no benefit, yet presents a serious risk to freedom. If a person can't be trusted to fly without weapons, why are they roaming free?"
The REAL ID system has also sparked backlash, as married women who may have changed their names may run into difficulties acquiring one, as official documentation like a court order or marriage certificate is needed.
We don’t know much about the Real ID law but tend to give Massie’s view a lot of credence. Anytime the government wants the ability to gather information on hundreds of millions of Americans without a valid, demonstrable reason that can be easily articulated, people should be wary.
If you doubt us, re-read the entry above about the continued fallout from the Covid-19 response by our elected officials and bureaucrats. That was all done in the name of public safety as well, without much, if any, evidence these measures would work.
COURTESY: NEWSWEEK
Tip of the day
Creative outlets like drawing, painting, writing and playing music can stimulate the brain and help promote logical thinking. Creative thinking naturally develops problem-solving abilities that can help you become a better performer at work.Learning a new instrument, for example, requires deep thought and concentration. The logical thinking skills you’ll gain from this process can help you approach your work more intently, developing your ability to solve more problems with flexibility and ease.
Quote of the day
“Marriage has no guarantees. If that’s what you’re looking for, go live with a car battery.” — Erma Bombeck