Covid-19, and the Weird World of Ron Unz

Ron Unz, publisher of the Unz Review, a web-based collection of articles -- many by odd-ball Hitler admirers, anti-Semites, and advocates of Communism -- has run a series of posts concerning Covid-19 in which it is asserted (a) that Covid-19 is a biowarfare agent directed by the US at China, and (b) that Covid-19 is a truly terrifying disease, and that those who compare it with the seasonal flu are hoaxers. Furthermore, comments of said hoaxers are mostly, if not always, deleted from Ron's Review.

Thus, on finding a statement in an article at Zero Hedge asserting, on reliable authority, that the Covid-19 death toll has been comparable to that of the seasonal flu, I was overcome by an irresistible impulse to post it at the Unz Review, as a comment on an article by Ron himself:

Here's a quote that Ron Unz will have to delete, unless, that is, he's an honest man: "... researchers at the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford University estimate Covid-19 to have an infection fatality rate (IFR) of between 0.1% and 0.36%. Similar to seasonal flu. Source

Did Ron approve it?

Nah!

Here's another comment I attempted to make at Ron's Review, in response to a comment referring to a WHO tweet that was subsequently deleted:

"There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from #COVID19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection." First, to say that there is no evidence of X is no evidence of of not X. But in any case the tweet [by the WHO] was deleted, so it would appear that their claim (the WHO's claim, that is) was either unsupported by evidence or known to be false. Second, to claim, as you do, that antibodies for Covid19 are short-lived is not the same as saying they are non-existent. Third, if antibodies to Covid19 exist -- as they must or immunological tests for the disease would be impossible -- and as even the WHO now acknowledges, that implies a degree of immunity in those who have been infected. And remember, without an immune system response, every case of Covid19 would be fatal. The fact is, Covid19, like the flu, a virus of the same family*, is a relatively mild disease except in a minority of cases (chiefly the elderly afflicted by one or several other serious diseases). The usual mildness of the disease is evident from the fact that although a substantial proportion of the population where serological surveys have been conducted have been shown to have been infected, the death rate as a proportion of those with antibodies is low, in the order of no more than about 0.3%. However, the antibody tests are not known to be highly reliable and the actual death rate is likely much lower. So far, the reported US death toll is just over 60,000 of 328 million Americans, and with the daily totals trending down, the total is thus unlikely to exceed 120,000. If so, the disease will prove considerably less lethal than both the Asian flu of 1957/58 that killed 70,000 of 149 million Americans, or the 1968 Hong Kong flu (H3N2 virus) that killed about 100,000 out of 200 million Americans.

Does that sound like the comment of a hoaxer, or does it sound like the sort of comment that a hoaxer might delete in order to suppress the truth?

 Yes, the Unz Review is a weird world, which deserves further scrutiny.

Related:
Vox Popoli: Facebook bans The Unz Review

Ron Unz, has said he believes the reason for his being banned on Facebook is " 

Facebook’s plans to crack down on misinformation related to our ongoing Covid-19 epidemic."

Having been banned by Ron Unz for what I assume he considered to be "misinformation related to our ongoing Covid-19 epidemic," I am inclined to think that justice has in some way been served -- not that I would consider Facebook a reliable guide to what I personally should or should not read.

Covid-19: Are You Scared Yet?

"Canada Warns Against the Folly of Herd Immunity," blares the top story at Bourque.org, with a link to an article on, where else, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's website.

The CBC article, titled more informatively: "Canada's top doctor warns against relying on herd immunity to reopen economy," suggests that the powers that be in Canada want the population to remain cowed and fearful over the novel Corona virus for a while yet.

The CBC article quotes, Dr. Theresa Tam, Canada's Chief Public Health Officer saying: "The idea of ... generating natural immunity is actually not something that should be undertaken," which leaves little room for confidence in the scientific competence of Canada's top public health official. 

The CBC article does helpfully -- sort of, explain the concept of "herd immunity," saying:

Herd immunity is conferred when enough people in a given population have been infected with a virus, marking them immune to reinfection and slowing down the rate at which the virus spreads on its own.

which is almost right, but not quite, making it quite wrong. Herd immunity is achieved when enough people have immunity that the average number of people each infected person infects is less than one. It's at that point that the number of new infections begins to fall, and to fall at an accelerating rate until it reaches zero, at which point the epidemic is over. 

Europe's Covid-19 death toll as of April 26, 2020.
Image source: Zero Hedge

In most jurisdictions in Europe and North America, infection rates are declining, indicating that herd immunity has been achieved. However, the proportion of the population with immunity that is required to achieve herd immunity depends on social dynamics. That is, it depends on the number of people each infected person comes into contact with and may, therefore, infect. Furthermore, social dynamics in most countries have been radically modified by quarantines, lock-downs, school and business shut-downs and other social distancing measures. 

What that means is that a return to normality will increase the number of people without immunity that each infected person contacts. In turn, that means that a return to normality will reverse the achievement of herd immunity that obtained under the conditions of controlled social interaction. As a consequence, the rate of new infections will increase until the number of people with immunity rises to the point at which herd immunity is regained.

 So, yes, attainment of herd immunity under near universal house arrest does not mean everything can return to normal without a cost in terms of an increased rate of new infections. But herd immunity must be reached or the disease will rage on until everyone has been infected. 

And, yes, there are different ways of getting to herd immunity, not all of which have the same outcome. If you "take it on the chin," to use Boris Johnson's term for the idea of going for herd immunity without modifying social arrangements, hospitals will be overloaded with severe cases, mortuaries will be unable to deal with the piles of bodies that accumulate, and there will be general panic and despair. 

But if you delay the achievement of herd immunity by shutting the economy for too long, there will be many bad consequences too, including the loss of economic output, the loss of schooling, and for some people, probably, the loss of their sanity.

The best course, therefore, now that declining new infection rates indicate that herd immunity has been achieved, is a progressive return to normality. Schools opening first, perhaps, then a staged return to work by other sectors, with massive Covid-19 testing being conducted to ensure that the return to work does not drive the rate of new infections to the point of creating chaos.

Meantime, creating panic and fear seems to be the mandate of the global medical establishment. Thus, on Friday, the World health Organization (WHO) announced that there is "currently no evidence" that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.

Well anything is possible and perhaps we are all doomed to get Covid19 over and over again until civilization collapses and Greta Thunberg is fulfilled, as the smog abates and carbon dioxide concentrations subside to pre-human levels. But what the WHOOO-HOOOO said is bunk as confirmed when it later issued a clarification to the effect that most people infected would end up with "some level of protection."

So, yes, Covid19 is a nasty disease that, in New York City, one of the worst hit places, is killing around 0.35% of those infected, but it won't kill us all. What's more, if you are under 65, your risk of death from Covid19 is probably less than that of being killed driving to the office, or so it has been calculated by the distinguished epidemiologist, John Ioannides of Standford University's Medical Faculty.

Related: 
Off Guardian: Why are so many healthcare workers dying from Covid-19? Answer: They're not.
Zero Hedge: WHO Deletes Tweet About Reinfection As 'Immunity Passports' Being Debated
The Hill: Chinese scientists predict coronavirus won't be eradicated
TechStartUps: UV technology developed by Columbia University to fight the spread of coronavirus
WSJ: The Bats Behind the Pandemic
Great Game India: Dutch Virologist Ron Fouchier – Another Key To COVID-19 Investigation
Great Game India: How China Stole Coronavirus From Canada And Weaponized It
Great Game India: Dr Fauci Funded Wuhan Virus Experiments – Former NY Mayor
Great Game India: Secret US Cable That Saw Coronavirus Crisis Coming