Zum Seitenende Übersicht Artikel Home & Impressum
First the link to this week’s complete list as HTML and as PDF.
***
I wonder when if ever Cole et al. will be taken up in practical politics. This study is one more case in a very long list of unintended consequences hitting just those whom the measures are meant to protect.
***
Mallapaty’s question is synonymous to “will Covid become endemic?” All endemic diseases are children’s diseases. The chance of eradicating the disease like SARS and like New Zealand has succeeded is long gone, so the obvious answer has to be yes. The numbers are only showing something that could be confidently predicted in March 2020.
***
Shimabukuro et al. has been severely misquoted in denialist circles. Their observation period was less than three months and they only included completed pregnancies in their analysis. Naturally for all those inoculated in the first two trimesters this only included the lost pregnancies and still births. 97.7 % of all participants were still pregnant at the end of the study. Only looking at the small subgroup of competed pregnancies the claim is touted, that “over 80 % of pregnant women inoculated in the first two trimesters lose their child.”
(Actually, including abortions it’s nearly 100 % in this study.)
***
Reaspiration of exhaled carbon dioxide requires a dead volume such as in a long snorkel. There is no mechanism imaginable how masks could conceivably yield this result. (Raised blood levels are a different question but not examined here.) What kind of reviewer does JAMA employ, if Walach et al.’s letter was accepted? (And if it was a non-reviewed letter to the editor, what does retraction against the authors’ wishes even mean?)
***
There doesn’t seem to be anything obviously wrong with Bieker. That said the yearly mileages he bases his calculations on do seen a bit high. They’re quite obviously averages not medians and the sales rep outliers pulling them up can’t be covered on a battery’s range. At the kind of daily distances reliably covered even in winter fuel plays a much lower part of the life-cycle emissions. Correcting for that case the difference and its sign will persist, it will only become much smaller. One question remains unanswered though: if manufacturing input for the electric car plus battery is only about the same as for a diesel one, why are they twice as expensive?
***
Contrary to what Gatti et al. and Denning claim in their titles, the Amazonian rain forest has been a net carbon source for many years. The effects of fire and deforestation strongly dwarf that of net biome exchange so that changes and even a sign reversal of the latter don’t amount to much.
***
What is Petersen et al. all about? The obvious precondition here is, that the truth is bad news from a political, regulatory point of view. Holding back that truth will be perceived as evasive and shifty by the population who’ll draw their own conclusion. The main result of the study is downplayed in the published abstract. The thing to do for politicians in this situation is boldly to lie and not to show any hesitancy or doubt whatsoever. As the thirteen thousand participants in this study were not locked away and shielded from other sources of information, the study is realistic proof that this approach works.
This is just one more of the recent spate of science being abused for the optimization of mass mind control. That tendency is just as bad or worse than the scientific development of biological warfare and weapons of mass destruction, but for some reason seems to go completely unnoticed. Is it that natural scientists have a conscience while others lack it, or what else lies behind this noticeable difference?
Zum Anfang Übersicht Artikel Home & Impressum