Remember when Sweden was going to be a COVID killing field? Sweden had no lockdowns and no mandates, including no vaccine mandate. In the first year of the pandemic, the trolls who lurk around this blog like ghouls used to send me death reports from Sweden.

Strangely I don’t get those anymore. What could be the reason?

Well, it turns out that Sweden has the virus under control, and much of the rest of Europe does not. Here are confirmed cases:

Here are confirmed deaths:

Let me posit something that might make sense: Sweden was the only country in Europe that approached the COVID pandemic the same way we have approached all pandemics for decades (until the COVID cult took over in 2020): ie, health authorities urged the most at-risk to stay home but encouraged everybody else to go about their business. This led to a large increase in cases and deaths in the short run, but the population developed herd immunity, which is playing out now in very low case and death rates.

It turns out that when it comes to COVID there really is no school like the old school.

Continue reading →

This recent study from the Lancet ends with the following summary:

Community immunity to control the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic can be reached with the acquired immunity due to either previous infection or vaccination. Acquired immunity from vaccination is certainly much safer and preferred. Given the evidence of immunity from previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, however, policy makers should consider recovery from previous SARS-CoV-2 infection equal to immunity from vaccination for purposes related to entry to public events, businesses, and the workplace, or travel requirements.

Isn’t it strange that very few public health officials are talking about this obvious point, ie, that there is no need to institute vaccine mandates that don’t consider the role of natural immunity?

The statement by the LDS First Presidency actually DOES consider prior infection when it points out that “we want to do all we can to limit the spread of these viruses. And we know that protection from the diseases they cause can only be achieved by immunizing a very high percentage of the population.” Note the use of the word “immunizing,” not “vaccinating.” Immunizing includes natural immunity, which the Lancet study clearly shows to be an important factor.

The Lancet study is actually a study of many different papers that have been released.

We reviewed studies published in PubMed from inception to Sept 28, 2021, and found well conducted biological studies showing protective immunity after infection (panel). Furthermore, multiple epidemiological and clinical studies, including studies during the recent period of predominantly delta (B.1.617.2) variant transmission, found that the risk of repeat SARS-CoV-2 infection decreased by 80·5–100% among those who had had COVID-19 previously (panel). The reported studies were large and conducted throughout the world. Another laboratory-based study that analysed the test results of 9119 people with previous COVID-19 from Dec 1, 2019, to Nov 13, 2020, found that only 0·7% became reinfected.¹¹ In a study conducted at the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, OH, USA, those who had not previously been infected had a COVID-19 incidence rate of 4·3 per 100 people, whereas those who had previously been infected had a COVID-19 incidence rate of 0 per 100 people.⁶ Furthermore, a study conducted in Austria found that the frequency of hospitalisation due to a repeated infection was five per 14 840 (0·03%) people and the frequency of death due to a repeated infection was one per 14 840 (0·01%) people.

The Lancet report continues:

Although those studies show that protection from reinfection is strong and persists for more than 10 months of follow-up,³ it is unknown how long protective immunity will truly last. Many systemic viral infections, such as measles, confer long-term, if not lifelong, immunity, whereas others, such as influenza, do not (due to changes in viral genetics).⁴ We are limited by the length of current reported follow-up data to know with certainty the expected duration that previous infection will protect against COVID-19. Encouragingly, authors of a study conducted among recovered individuals who had experienced mild SARS-CoV-2 infection reported that mild infection induced a robust antigen-specific, long-lived humoral immune memory in humans.

So, to sum up: natural immunity exists and is an important factor in creating societal protection. Yet none of the COVID cultists are mentioning it. Why are they ignoring the science?

I would love to hear from people in British Colombia who can provide first-hand reports as to how western Canadians are dealing with the strange situation that Vancouver, BC is completely cut off from the rest of Canada.

Here is what the media are reporting:

There is currently no way to drive between Vancouver and the rest of Canada.

The Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley are now completely cut off from the rest of British Columbia and the country by road.

Flooding and mudslides had closed most routes between the coast and BC Interior over the past 24 hours, but the back route through Whistler on Hwy 99 remained open this morning.

That changed shortly after 11 am, when DriveBC reported that a mudslide 42 kilometres south of Lillooet had shut down Hwy 99 as well.

The only way to drive between the coast and the rest of Canada at this time is through the United States.

However, Washington is also seeing highway closures due to the inclement weather and residents would need a COVID-19 test to re-enter Canada.

When I made a comment on Facebook a few years back in favor of food storage, a snarky former friend from high school sneered: “oh, you’re a prepper now!” No, I’m not a prepper, but definitely more prepared than I was in my youth. Given supply chain disruptions and other concerns in our post-modern world, perhaps just some practical food storage would be a good idea?

One of the greatest lies you will hear from public health authorities, the media and some politicians is that the people who have not taken one of the COVID vaccines are the cause of the continuation of the pandemic.

There is simply no evidence of this, and in fact when you look at the numbers in depth it turns out that many of the most vaccinated countries and states are suffering the most from the pandemic. The be fair, there is also some evidence that certain highly vaccinated countries, like Israel for example, appear to be improving, but the majority of highly vaccinated countries and states are suffering through a new phase in the pandemic.

Why is it that the most vaccinated geographical areas appear to be so affected by the virus? If the COVID vaccines are so effective, shouldn’t the evidence show the opposite?

If we are to believe the official narrative — the unvaccinated are the problem — we should see a direct and clear correlation between low vaccination rates and high case and death rates for COVID. But in fact there is not such correlation.

If anything, SARS-CoV2 appears to be affected most of all by the weather. When people go inside, like in the summer in the southern US states or in the fall and winter in the northern US states, the virus appears to thrive. And when people go outside more, the virus seems to die off.

You can see this when comparing these two maps. Red areas mean more cases of the virus.

Continue reading →

This article in the American Conservative is the best analysis I have seen on the 2021 elections in Virginia, in which traditional conservative candidates won big in a very blue state. Glenn Youngkin, a conservative Christian, won in an environment in which all kinds of forces claim conservative Christians are no longer electable.

Here are key excerpts from the article:

Youngkin, at least on the campaign trail, was able to unite disparate voters in a way no other Republican has for quite some time. After a late dinner in Old Town Alexandria, I ran into a brigade of moms passing out pink “I voted for Youngkin” wristbands on King Street. Once, pulling over to a farmers market west of the Shenandoah, I bought fresh apples from a lady in a “Farmers for Youngkin” hat. Youngkin signs adorned yards, medians, businesses, and cars everywhere I went in Virginia over the past few months. Next to Beto O’ Rourke’s campaign for Texas Senate in 2018, it was the rawest grassroots energy I have ever seen. 

Youngkin’s election will be over-analyzed until rendered meaningless like some bizarre racialist poem a Virginia high school assigns to its students. The Republican establishment, never ones to let good deeds go unpunished, have already attempted to worm their way into credit. I’m sure Frank Luntz will have an incomprehensible assortment of data sent to the RNC by the end of the week. Before history is rewritten, however, I’d like to highlight a few encouraging factors for the conservatives who made Youngkin’s victory possible. 

Youngkin campaigned heavily on the rights of parents to have a say in their children’s education, a potent message in the aftermath of the drama in Loudoun County, Terry McAuliffe’s gaffes, and the rise of critical race theory. Education was a mobilizer and a winner. 

Democrats have concluded that education was a code for white supremacy. They’re a party that finds white supremacy in food products, children’s toys, and sporting events. Hysteria will blind them to the obvious lessons. Education, however, was indeed a code. In an era where Black Lives Matter has declared the nuclear family to be a white supremacist relic, Youngkin’s campaign addressed families as citizen stakeholders.

The principle at stake in the election was not Virginia’s K-12 curriculum but family as an institution itself. Terry McAuliffe doesn’t believe in family; he believes in the state. Placing education decisions in the hands of public-sector unions rather than parents is only an outgrowth of that fundamental belief. Typical Youngkin stumps mentioned CRT once or twice but addressed families and parents dozens of times. CRT was a potent message, but only when linked to the left’s broader war on the family unit. 

Due to the work of the aforementioned genius Frank Luntz and other consultants over the years, Republicans have long believed that capitulation on critical social issues is the only path to victory in blueing regions of the country. Youngkin’s campaign built on the seemingly counterintuitive gains of the Trump years and proved these narratives wrong. Youngkin stood firm on traditional social issues. He opposed same-sex marriage, supported the pro-life movement, and fought against gender ideology run amuck in Loudoun County.

He didn’t make same-sex marriage or abortion the focus of his campaign, but he also didn’t betray his conservative base in a desperate gambit for liberal votes. As a result, he was rewarded with sky-high turnout among evangelicals and overwhelming margins of support. Exit polls indicate that 88 percent of white evangelicals supported Youngkin, securing his tight victory. Rather than follow the disappointing model of other Republicans and depress this critical voting mass via compromise with progressive social narratives, Youngkin stood firm and turned them out to vote. In addition to family-first messaging, these same factors likely contributed to his consolidation of the rapidly realigning and socially conservative Hispanic vote as well. 

Finally, voters in Virginia soundly rejected the cultural implications of the progressive racialization of politics. It turns out that Americans support police and will not tolerate a party that actively degrades safety and quality of life. Youngkin leaned into the issue, boldly declaring his support for law enforcement and promising to sack the Virginia Parole Board on his first day in office. Amid a historic crime wave, the message struck a chord with voters. The election of Virginia’s first black woman to a statewide office, Lt. Governor-Elect Winsome Sears, further broke the absurd Black Lives Matter racial narrative.

Is there still hope for traditional conservatives? Yes, it appears there is.