Showing posts with label misinformation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label misinformation. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 27, 2024

Some of my thoughts during Coronavirus/Covid19 times, leading up to “The Great Barrington Declaration”

March 22, 2020
In February, I visited Churchill War Rooms in London Reading UK’s plans of building up herd immunity against coronavirus, I have a feeling Winston would have agreed with such stiff upper lip policy: “I have nothing to offer but fever, coughing, chills and shortness of breath”

March 22, 2020
The politicization of coronavirus is shameless 
Last year, in polarized Britain, I heard a child ask her mother “What’s worse Brexit or murder?” 
Any moment now, in polarized USA, I expect to hear a child asking “What’s worse coronavirus or Trump?”

https://x.com/PerKurowski/status/1241872388901527573


April 11, 2020
Q. Who will bear more and for a far longer time all economic costs derived from quarantines?
A. Those under 40 years and who, in Italy, only represent 0.25% (a quarter of one percent) of all coronavirus deaths.
Q. Is all really as it should be?
https://x.com/PerKurowski/status/1249050404547149824

April 29, 2020
How many years have I left to live with the economic costs of coronavirus? 10-20, God willing
How many years have my grandchildren left to live with these? 80-90, God willing 
Take loving care of us older, but let us not mortgage the future of the younger :-(

May 12, 2020
Surrealistic... Congress hearings on testing and not hearing about the costs of tests... how much is it by test?
https://x.com/PerKurowski/status/1260251211879645185

June 24, 2020
Since the death rate from Coronavirus/ COVID-19 varies so dramatically with age, reporting on cases of Coronavirus/ COVID-19, without giving the breakdown by age, is such an incomplete information, that it borders on misinformation.
https://x.com/PerKurowski/status/1275858633692241922

July 18, 2020
In Sweden, until July 17, out of 5,619 total COVID-19 deaths only 71, 1.26%, were under 50 years of age, only 26 under 40 years. Giving Coronavirus data without discriminating by age, amounts to serious misinformation. That age difference is not reflected in current lockdowns
https://x.com/PerKurowski/status/1284531142717210627

August 2, 2020
In this information age, why is there not in America a real time data based on Covid hospitalizations/deaths, discriminated by group and race?
Then each person would be able to take his own informed decisions about what to do. But then there would be no one to blame. :-(

August 3, 2020.
Parents of children in 9th grade are almost always less than 50 years of age. In Sweden, as of July 24, out of 5,687 Coronavirus deaths 71, 1.2%, were younger than 50 years; only 26, 0.5%, younger than 40; only 10, 0.2%, younger than 30.

August 3, 2020.
Based on that data the logical conclusion should be to keep schools open, keep older teachers at home and refrain grandparents from hugging their grandchildren. Frankly, disseminating data on Coronavirus without discriminating by age, is in essence misinformation.

August 16, 2020
Data on deaths from Covid-19 by age group shows those over 60 years represent more than 90%. 
So, if it is too much hassle, why not limit the right to vote by mail to that age group?

October 2-5, 2020
The Great Barrington Declaration


October 21, 2020 A letter in the Washington Post
Equally roughly 90 percent of the virus’s social and economic consequences will be paid by those younger than 60. 
That presents us with an intergenerational conflict of monstrous proportions.


Now November 2024, Donald Trump nominates Dr. Jay Bhattacharya as Director of the National Institutes of Health.
Great! But, never forget:

March 22, 2021
Georges Clemenceau’s “War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men” could be updated to: “A Covid-19 response ‘is too serious a matter to entrust’ to epidemiologist”


November 28, 2021
Have your national health authorities identified without preconditions citizens willing to keep on being unvaccinated (placebo), and thereby serve science as a control group for Covid vaccines? If not, why? Is such research not a question of national security?



Full disclosure: Few have been as critical of the official responses given to the Coronavirus pandemic as I.
Yet, on my CDC Covid-19 Vaccination Record Card since 03/08/21 until 10/25/24, eight doses of PFIZER vaccines appear. Why?
I'm over 70 years of age and, much more relevant, I never thought I could convince my wife with some Anti-Vax arguments, so I never tried (dared) to do so. C'est la vie! :-)



Wednesday, July 29, 2020

On schools in COVID-19 times

Sweden kept all schools until 9th grade open. 

Parents of children in 9th grade are almost always less than 50 years of age. 


Based on that data the logical conclusion should be to keep schools open, keep older teachers at home and refrain grandparents from hugging their grandchildren.

 
In Sweden, 2020, up to 9th grade, including preschool, there were around 1.2 million students. On January 2022, two years with Covid, that results in 2 under 50 years of age Covid-19 deaths per 100.000 students. Compared to the many costs of keeping the youngest out of school, is that not significantly insignificant?


Disseminating data on new Covid-19 cases without data on hospitalizations / deaths or other serious consequences, discriminated by age, gender, race, location or other significant factors amounts to serious misinformation. That impedes citizens to cooperate with their own informed decisions.

Trust! In 2016 Swedish authorities issued my mother a driver license that would expire when she was 103 years of age. Asking about the wisdom of it, I was told Swedes were supposed to know when they were fit to drive or not. Does that not go for Covid-19 behavior/response too?

P.S. Some look to keep the elderly safe, but open up schools and the economy for the rest, so as to perhaps pursuit herd immunity. Other seem to want to impose even stricter lock downs. Could they instead be pursuing herd docility?

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Discrimination based on the financial profiling and risk-based pricing

Risk-based pricing actually requires creating the misinformation that allows for making borrowers who should get lower rates agree to pay the higher rates that cover the losses of those that should not have been given credit… at least not at these high impossible rates.

Risk based pricing, which is similar to placing persons that after some doubtful genetic test are presumed to be especially exposed to an illness in a separate insurance pool, could be causing much of the growing social inequality that is currently attributed by some to globalization. Risk profiling, for a discriminatory purpose, is prohibited in most spheres of our social relations, except in lending where it is very much cheered, by most.

John, Paul and Peter, because of FICO have to pay high interest. John, though he might have been able to do so at lower rates, is not able to service the debt and loses. Paul, utterly responsible, services it, barely, and Peter who is in this group because no ones no why meets the payments with ease. Question: Any winners?

John should for a starter not have been given the credit, at least not at the high rate, and both Paul and Peter, having been able to service the debt at high rates evidenced de facto they merited lower rates. Answer: No winners! Except of course those who are not to be named!

How libertarians can shut up about the financial information cartels that chain the markets to neo-non-transparent-regulations, I have never understood.

How developed countries’ progressives can shut up about the discrimination implicit in risk based pricing and that could be introducing more inequality in the societies than what they sometimes attribute to globalization, I have never understood.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)