Lately, the world’s biggest threats have been microscopic in size.

From the global COVID-19 pandemic to wildfires ripping through the U.S. West Coast, it seems as though our lungs can’t catch a break, or more aptly, a breath.

But, as Visual Capitalist’s Carmen Ang asks, just how small are the particles we’re currently battling? And how does their size compare to other tiny molecules?

Specks Too Small to See

While the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 is relatively small in size, it isn’t the smallest virus particle out there.

Both the Zika virus and the T4 Bacteriophage – responsible for E. coli – are just a fraction of the size, although they have not nearly claimed as many lives as COVID-19 to date.

Coronavirus particles are smaller than both red or white blood cells, however, a single blood cell is still virtually invisible to the naked eye. For scale, we’ve also added in a single human hair as a benchmark on the upper end of the size range.

On the other end of the spectrum, pollen, salt, and sand are significantly larger than viruses or bacteria. Because of their higher relative sizes, our body is usually able to block them out—a particle needs to be smaller than 10 microns before it can be inhaled into your respiratory tract.

Because of this, pollen or sand typically get trapped in the nose and throat before they enter our lungs. The smaller particles particles, however, are able to slip through more easily.

Smoky Skies: Air Pollution and Wildfires

While the virus causing COVID-19 is certainly the most topical particle right now, it’s not the only speck that poses a health risk. Air pollution is one of the leading causes of death worldwide—it’s actually deadlier than smoking, malaria, or AIDS.

One major source of air pollution is particulate matter, which can contain dust, dirt, soot, and smoke particles. Averaging around 2.5 microns, these particles can often enter human lungs.

At just a fraction of the size between 0.4-0.7 microns, wildfire smoke poses even more of a health hazard. Research has also linked wildfire exposures to not just respiratory issues, but also cardiovascular and neurological issues.

Here’s an animated map by Flowing Data, showing how things heated up in peak wildfire season between August-September 2020:

What’s the main takeaway from all this?

There are many different kinds of specks that are smaller than the eye can see, and it’s worth knowing how they can impact human health.

 

Dr. Elke De Klerk: We do not have a medical pandemic

by Philip Wegmann

It’s not just that the guy is mainly right, but that he has spirit and a fight uncommon in an egghead

Dr. Scott W. Atlas joined the president’s coronavirus task force in August, but after two months, he has yet to sit for a photo shoot or throw out a first pitch or inspire a single artisanal cocktail. No one has impersonated him on “Saturday Night Live” either, and there certainly isn’t any grassroots campaign to get him nominated as People magazine’s “Sexiest Man Alive.”

Although he has a medical degree from the University of Chicago, Atlas is the other doctor, and he knows it. “I’m not here to make friends. Okay?” he tells RealClearPolitics in a rare interview. “I’m here to help the president save American lives. Period.”

Every other member of the commission would say the same. Combating the coronavirus is the whole point, and saving lives through disease mitigation and prevention remains their goal. But Atlas, a neuro-radiologist and senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, has different ideas about how to beat COVID-19. He says publicly that children do not frequently spread the virus. He questions the efficacy of mask mandates. He condemns lockdowns as not just ineffective but deeply destructive.

In short, Atlas is a walking/talking ambassador for Trump’s the-cure-can’t-be-worse-than-the-disease argument. Those views and his proximity to an impressionable president, critics argue, make Atlas a public health threat. Hence, his unpopularity in some circles.

“Everything he says is false,” Dr. Robert Redfield said during a recently overheard phone conversation. Asked who he meant, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed to NBC News he was talking about Atlas. Later, during a CNN interview, Dr. Anthony Fauci said that most of his colleagues were “working together.” But the more visible and most adored member of the task force added, “I think you know who the outlier is.”

That outlier happens to have the ear of the president for now, and he does not appreciate the-less than-collegial criticism. “I think a lot of people honestly have other motivations,” Atlas responds, “whether they feel their own stature is threatened by someone who challenges their opinions with data, whether they are simply used to groupthink and not to informed people who have a critical thought process, or whether they are interested in maintaining their own media connections. That’s not me.”

Another thing Atlas is not: an epidemiologist or an expert in the study of infectious diseases. He finds that fact, whispered by critics and oft-repeated in the press, both annoying and “absurd.”

Lockdowns were the early prescription in the spring when comparatively little was known about the virus. At the recommendation of the task force in March, the White House and the president issued aggressive guidance to combat COVID: “15 Days to Slow the Spread.” Stay home, Trump encouraged the country, and avoid groups of more than 10 people.

“If everyone makes this change, or these critical changes, and sacrifices now, we will rally together as one nation and we will defeat the virus,” the president said in the White House briefing room. Two weeks later, he announced that 15 days of social distancing had to become 45 days. “The better you do,” Trump promised a second time, “the faster this whole nightmare will end.” It didn’t.

And that approach is what Atlas thinks is absurd. He believes that the recommended lockdowns constitute “one of the biggest failures of the faces of public health in this country.” The experts, he believes, adopted “a unidimensional view of the pandemic” and focused on “stopping COVID cases at all costs,” a decision that “recklessly disregarded the harms the prolonged lockdowns have on society and average Americans.”

Sustained lockdowns, he believes, harm those already sick with other illnesses by discouraging treatment, harm the poor by keeping them from the workplace, and harm the mental development of children by shutting down the schools. “The lockdown,” he has concluded, “is a luxury of the rich.”

A better strategy, says the populist doctor who has the ear of the populist president, would be to focus on protecting those most at-risk for the illness — the elderly and those with weakened immune systems — while the rest of society takes precautions but proceeds with their lives as researchers race to develop a vaccine.

As an illustration, Atlas points to colleges and universities. Although infections have spiked on some campuses, significant numbers of hospitalization and deaths among students have not followed. Young people are simply less susceptible to the virus’s worst impact. “I’m not minimizing anything,” Atlas says in reference to the handful of students hospitalized and the need to protect teachers, “but what I’m saying is that it is irrational to start seeking out cases in low-risk populations for people who are generally in low-risk environments. It is the exact opposite of logic and common sense.”

And while Atlas isn’t an epidemiologist, as his critics emphasize, he relies on the work of infectious disease experts the world over. He cites Sunetra Gupta, a professor of theoretical epidemiology at Oxford University who maintains that remaining in lockdown is “extremely dangerous from the point of view of the vulnerability of the entire population to new pathogens.” And he points to Katherine Yih, an epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School who argues that a broad public-health approach is needed “to minimize the number of cases of severe disease and death over the long run.”

Maybe Trump doesn’t read medical journals (he once suggested injecting disinfectants into the human body to fight the disease). But the president, Atlas insists, does listen to scientists: “We are learning, we are listening, and that is why we have a state-of-the-art understanding about the science that is consistent with the exact policy of the president,” he says, referring to Trump’s stated preference to implement strict protections for the vulnerable and a return to business for the rest of the society.

Atlas is getting good at making this argument. He’s made it on Fox News, and then after the president invited him to join the task force, he made it inside the administration. But then Trump got sick.

If the federal government, with all of its resources, can’t keep the president safe from the virus, how can the country be expected to protect the most vulnerable? That was the question RCP planned to put to Atlas the Friday that the COVID-positive president was admitted to Walter Reed medical center. But the interview was scuttled, and rescheduled for two days after Trump was discharged.

The first question put to him then: Doesn’t Trump’s own diagnosis upend Trump’s prescription of reopening society?

His response: “Not at all. If anything, the First Patient has solidified his pandemic thesis.

“The president’s case illustrates some very important things. Number One: The virus is not eliminated by mitigation; the virus is not eliminated by a lockdown.” All the handwashing and social distancing and mask wearing in his own inner circle were not enough to keep the president safe. Again, he adds, how it possible to protect the most vulnerable who aren’t nearly as insulated as the leader of the free world? Atlas points to the president a second time, noting the “very secure special environment in the White House,” where an audience with the president requires a negative COVID-test.

“But the virus is still there,” he concedes, and “none of these systems are infallible.” A second point the public should learn from the president’s case, according to Atlas: “This is not March or April. We’ve learned a tremendous amount about the virus — who is at risk, who is not; who to protect and who is at very low risk.”

Trump has now added his professed clean bill of health to his election platform, even though some of the drugs that apparently helped his recovery are unavailable to the public. Democrats, meanwhile, argue the opposite. The whole episode, in their view, illustrates a recklesssness that finally caught up with a president who mocks masks and flaunts CDC guidelines to host packed rallies amid a pandemic.

Isn’t Trump being careless? And isn’t he downplaying the virus by claiming a miraculous recovery? “He has a tremendous, I would say, respect for the seriousness of the disease,” Atlas responded, “but that does not mean that a leader can be afraid or can hide in the basement.”

Asked about the wisdom of holding a packed ceremony in the Rose Garden, where few attendees wore masks and which Fauci later described as a “super-spreader” event, Atlas insisted that Trump “wears a mask when he needs to and when he cannot socially distance.” Behavior that critics condemn as careless, Atlas calls the actions of someone who “knows that his job is essential.” And what Trump is saying with words and his subsequent return to the crowded campaign trail, he adds, “is to not be paralyzed by fear.”

Meanwhile, with less than three weeks to go until Election Day, Trump is a very active candidate. Cleared by his physicians, the president is campaigning at a frenzied pace, with stops planned in Pennsylvania and Iowa and North Carolina. If he feels any fatigue, he doesn’t show it. Trump told a Florida crowd on Monday night that he felt “so powerful,” claimed he was “immune,” and offered “to kiss everyone in that audience. I’ll kiss the guys and the beautiful women, and everybody. I’ll just give you a big, fat kiss.” He ended the night by dancing off stage to the “YMCA.”

Aside from the dancing president, Atlas is one of the most unpopular men in Washington. It probably doesn’t help that his bedside manor isn’t the warmest or that he is quick to criticize those who helmed the initial response to the virus and “instilled fear into the American public.”

“There’s been obsession after obsession after obsession in this pandemic about testing-testing-testing about cases-cases-cases about masks-masks-masks. That’s not the issue,” Atlas argued. “His policy is completely appropriate, and it is 100% backed by the science.”

What’s especially not scientific? According to Atlas, the obsession with masks and the congressional testimony of his task force colleague: “The CDC has many fine scientists, I am sure of that, but when the head of the CDC held up a mask and said a mask is better than a vaccine, that is absurd. That is not science. That is contrary to all rational thought.”

Mask mandates and those who propose them, he says, “are completely contrary to rational thought.” There is a time and place for the mask, namely when you can’t social distance. But Atlas is clearly frustrated by their universal use: “Why in the world would you wear a mask if you’re riding your bicycle all alone outside? Why in the world would you wear a mask if you’re in your own car driving? Why in the world would you wear a mask if you’re in the desert all alone?”

That the vaccine is forthcoming is significant reason “for optimism.” Atlas says a successful vaccine could be approved as early as this month. If deemed effective by the FDA, doses would go first to “priority groups and people at high risk no later than January.” He plans to eventually take it himself, and hopes the hypodermic needle will be the knife in the heart of the virus.

Some wonder whether politics plays an undue role in the Operation Warp Speed effort. Vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris has even questioned its effectiveness, saying that “if Donald Trump tells us what we should take it, I’m not going to take it.”

Unprompted, Atlas dismisses as a conspiracy theory any suggestion that the president, not the doctors, are driving development. He calls any assertion to the contrary “heinous,” an outright “sin.” He won’t attack any politician by name because “it’s not my job.” All the same and in no uncertain terms, the doctor condemns “anyone who is in a position of leadership who instills doubt and fear into the process of the vaccine.” They are guilty, he says, of “doing more harm than I could ever imagined a public figure would do.”

Whenever a vaccine becomes available, Atlas says getting it won’t be mandatory. Meanwhile, masks remain readily available. Should the president set a better example by wearing one more regularly? “He believes in freedom,” Atlas responds, “and he believes in individual responsibility, but he is doing his job to do the right recommendations.”

Medical historians will judge if Trump did enough to combat the pandemic. His critics have already concluded that he has not, and it is part of the reason Joe Biden holds a double-digit lead against him. But even if the president doesn’t win a second term, Atlas may enjoy some eventual vindication.

“We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” Dr. David Nabarro, one of six special envoys to the WHO on COVID-19, said in an Oct. 9 interview. Lockdowns, he added, only “buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted. But by and large, we’d rather not do it.”

The statement followed a proclamation written by three epidemiologists and infectious-disease experts, Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard, Dr. Gupta of Oxford and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford. Called “the Great Barrington Declaration,” it warns that letting lockdowns linger until a vaccine is developed “will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.”

Days after his RCP interview, Atlas wrote to this reporter: “I hope you explicitly point out that my advisement and writings since March have now been publicly stated in that document by some of the world’s top infectious disease scientists and epidemiologists, and they are aligned with the President’s policies.”

To date, 9,366 medical and public health scientists have signed the letter along with another 24,484 medical practitioners.

Source: Real Clear Politics

“In 2017, Nabarro and Tedros competed for the WHO Director-General role. …Tedros’s candidacy was mired in several scandals”

By Stacey Rudin

Last week, in a major departure from months of pro-lockdown messaging, Britain’s envoy to the WHO Dr. David Nabarro called for world leaders to stop locking down their countries and economies as a “primary method” of controlling COVID19. “I want to say it again: we in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” Dr. Nabarro told The Spectator.

“The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganise, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.” Dr. Nabarro’s position aligns with the Great Barrington Declaration, of which he spoke favorably, in which 30,000 scientists and public health experts have joined in advocating an immediate return to normal life for those at low risk. Nabarro and the thousands of signees of the Declaration opine that this approach will minimize overall mortality and lessen the disproportionate burden of lockdowns on the working class and underprivileged.

The day after Nabarro made his remarks, WHO director-general Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus flatly contradicted him, declaring that lifting lockdowns would be a recipe for “unnecessary infections, suffering and death.” Tedros claims that herd immunity can only be “safely” achieved through vaccination, a conclusion premised upon the frightening assumption that the development of a safe and effective vaccine is guaranteed, and the dubious premise that natural infections can be held back “as long as it takes” to prepare and distribute the vaccine. However, according to Tedros, there is no other way: “allowing a dangerous virus that we don’t fully understand to run free is simply unethical. It’s not an option.”

It’s difficult to reconcile this stance with the data from states and nations which did not lock down for COVID19. For example, Swedish all-cause mortality is on average for 2020 — incredibly, the nation had higher per-capita mortality just five years ago, in a year in which there was no pandemic. This undeniable, easily-verifiable fact is shocking in light of the decimation of world economies on the premise of “stopping” a “highly deadly” pathogen. Far from “unethical,” allowing the virus to “run free” produced a much better result than tight lockdowns such as those imposed in Argentina and Peru — yet Tedros is ignoring this. The question is: why?

The China-Paved Path to WHO Director-General

In 2017, Nabarro and Tedros competed for the WHO Director-General role. For the first time, the position was filled by a direct vote of the member-states, and not by the WHO executive board. Tedros’s candidacy was mired in several scandals. Ethiopians and concerned global citizens pleaded with the countries voting in the election to reject Tedros because he was a representative of a repressive political regime who had helped to build and maintain a surveillance state with a total lack of government transparency. Critics pointed out that Tedros was “comfortable with the secrecy of autocratic states”— a characteristic that could wreak havoc on the world if he assumed a position of power within the WHO.

Tedros also received criticism for his role in covering up cholera epidemics while he was Ethiopia’s Health Minister from 2005 until 2012. Tedros summarily dismissed the complaint, raised by one of Nabarro’s advisers, likening it to James B. Comey’s reopening of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server just days before the 2016 presidential election. He also attributed racial and elitist motives to his accuser, claiming “Dr. Nabarro’s backers have a ‘typical colonial mind-set aimed at winning at any cost and discrediting a candidate from a developing country.’” [Big words for a creature of Bill Gates.]

However, the undisputed facts depict a Health Minister who is doing one of two things: grossly neglecting cholera testing, or intentionally prioritizing his nation’s economy over protecting people from cholera. Tedros claimed that outbreaks of what he called “acute watery diarrhea” in 2006, 2009, and 2011 were not cholera, although he could not produce a test ruling out the deadly pathogen, and neighboring Somalia and Kenya disclosed cholera as the cause of their own simultaneous outbreaks.

Tedros claimed that testing in his country was “too difficult,” but this was belied by the fact that outside experts were able to test and find the cholera bacteria in stool samples. Testing for cholera bacteria is simple and takes less than two days. It is hard to fathom why outside experts and other countries would be able to test while the Ethiopian government could not.

Cholera can kill a person in as little as five hours. News of cholera outbreaks can have a quick and devastating impact on a country’s economy, so African nations sometimes fail to declare cholera emergencies even when they know for a fact that they have one. During the 2006 outbreak, for example, Ethiopia “did not share the results of lab tests since [the outbreak started]” because “it can mean some serious economic losses,especially in terms of international trade and tourism,” said Kebba O. Jaiteh, emergency officer in Ethiopia with the WHO.

During earlier outbreaks of cholera in Ethiopia (or “acute watery diarrhea,” depending on who you believe), The Guardian and The Washington Post investigated and reported that Ethiopian officials “were pressuring aid agencies to avoid using the word ‘cholera’ and not to report the number of people affected.” Research by Human Rights Watch found that the Ethiopian government “was pressuring its health workers to avoid any mention of cholera, which could damage the country’s image and deter tourists.” Despite this accumulation of evidence, Tedros stood by his denial, preventing aid from being delivered to Ethiopians: the UN cannot act without permission and a declaration of an outbreak.

Vaccines are also unavailable when a country fails to declare a cholera outbreak, so Tedros refused his countrymen this option even when their neighbors in Somalia and Kenya received it. This seems to have escaped the notice of Dr. Seth Berkley, CEO of Gavi, the vaccine alliance, who praised Tedros’s “commitment” to human health and vaccination: “Tedros’s commitment to immunization is clear . . . His work with Gavi as Ethiopia’s health minister helped boost the proportion of children reached by vaccines from less than half to more than two-thirds.” Other defenders of Tedros included former CDC director Tom Frieden, who was appointed by Barack Obama to head the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Frieden praised Tedros as “an excellent choice to lead the WHO,” and today vocally agrees with Tedros on lockdowns, masks, and social distancing.

Tedros’s strongest and most important backer throughout these controversies was not an individual, but a government: China. As an opinion writer in the Indian press described it, “China propped Tedros.” American apathy in the public health arena had allowed China to “colonize” global health:

“One reason that Tedros has gotten away with so much brazen cronyism is that America pays little to no attention to global public health, save pouring in money as a sugar daddy . . . China started a scheme for global health colonisation and won because America didn’t think it was important enough. The Chinese leveraged their investments across Africa to force the African Union to back Tedros, [and] also got Pakistan to withdraw its candidate who was opposing him,sources say . . . India’s diplomatic credentials helped in covering up Tedros’ shady past and the fact his main backer was a Communist dictatorship.”

“I’ve Got Your Back, and You’ve Got Mine”: Tedros Backs the Chinese COVID19 “Supression” Strategy

Fast-forward to the COVID19 epidemic. In early 2020, Tedros went to great lengths to congratulate China on its response to the “novel coronavirus.” On January 30, the WHO issued a statement effusively praising China’s response, highlighting the Chinese government’s “commitment to transparency” and efforts to “investigate” and “contain” the outbreak. The statement declares that China’s novel “lockdown” strategy — wherein dictator Xi Jinping welded people inside their apartments in the name of “disease control” — are “good not only for that country but also for the rest of the world.” Tedros followed this up with a tweet: “China is actually setting a new standard for outbreak response.” During this time period, hundreds of thousands of social media posts later traced to China praised the lockdown, and criticized and ridiculed world leaders who failed to follow suit.

The WHO’s resounding praise of China continued into February 2020, when it convened a “Global Research and Innovation Forum” on the novel coronavirus to study “the origin of the virus, natural history, transmission, diagnosis, infection prevention and control,” among other things. On February 24, the group’s Joint Mission held a press conference to report on its findings, during which it declared, “there is no question that China’s bold approach to the rapid spread of this new respiratory pathogen has changed the course of what was a rapidly-escalating and continues to be deadly epidemic.” The stated basis for this unequivocal declaration on the effectiveness of lockdowns was as follows:

“And there’s a couple of other graphics . . . here’s the outbreak that happened in the whole country on the bottom. Here’s what the outbreak looked like outside of Hubei. Here are the areas of Hubei outside of Wuhan. And then the last one is Wuhan. And you can see this is a much flatter curve than the others. And that’s what happens when you have an aggressive action that changes the shape that you would expect from an infectious disease outbreak.

This is extremely important for China, but it’s extremely important for the rest of the world, where this virus you’ve seen in the last few days is taking advantage to explode in certain settings. And it wasn’t easy because what I didn’t mention on this slide is every one of these lines represent a huge decision by policy makers and politicians in this country and leaders to actually change the shape with big measures such as, you know, the suspension of travel, the stay-at-home advisories, and other incredibly difficult measures; to make decisions about, but also to get a population to follow. And that’s why, again, the role of the individual here in China is so important as well.”

The Joint Mission’s conclusion that China’s actions “worked” is a perfect depiction of the classic logical fallacy post hoc, ergo propter hoc: Latin for “it happened after, so it was caused by.” While it is indeed possible that a “more flat” curve in Wuhan could be attributed to government mandates, there are equal or greater possibilities: one, that testing protocols differed; two, that China simply witnessed the natural course of this “novel” pathogen. The latter is particularly likely since there was no baseline with which to compare the proffered epicurves.

It should be obvious that the mere issuance of government mandates does not automatically mean they were effective — this is particularly true here, since the global scientific community had previously considered and rejected large-scale quarantines as a method for controlling epidemics. Respiratory viruses never spread evenly throughout countries, provinces, or states, so it was nothing short of reckless to conclude that the noted variance in spread — which again, could be nothing but a recording error due to testing aberrations — was due to anything but natural factors. It was criminal to summarily conclude on this evidence that the Chinese government’s draconian actions led to a “favorable outcome,” and then use that patentily illogical conclusion to sell lockdowns to the rest of the world. But that’s just what the WHO did.

“China didn’t approach this new virus with an old strategy for one disease or another disease. It developed its own approach to a new disease and extraordinarily has turned around this disease with strategies most of the world didn’t think would work . . . What China has demonstrated is, you have to do this. If you do it, you can save lives and prevent thousands of cases of what is a very difficult disease.”

The Joint Mission repeated this assertion — “lockdowns work, they can and do save lives” — in various ways throughout its press conference, recalling to mind the words of a famous propagandist named Joseph Goebbels: “repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.” Research shows that this illusion of truth effect “works just as strongly for known as for unknown items, suggesting that prior knowledge won’t prevent repetition from swaying our judgements of plausibility.” Our parents never heard of lockdown, and understood and accepted that humans sadly cannot “stop” a highly contagious infectious disease like the flu — even with a vaccine — yet suddenly most of the planet was behaving as if this were not only a reasonable mission, but something for which it was rational and desirable to sacrifice social lives, relationships, smiles, businesses, and educations in service of.

At the helm of the WHO, Tedros undoubtedly played a key role in the creation of this perception. Thanks to the many individual worldwide lockdown experiments, we now know that he was dead wrong: no lockdown was ever needed to “flatten the curve” — in fact, lockdowns spiked the curve. No-lockdown Sweden’s epicurve was much flatter than many areas with tight lockdowns, including New York City, Italy, and Spain. While this may be adequately explained by Hanlon’s Razor, it is very interesting that the Joint Mission took great pains to protect China’s trade and travel interests despite advocating simultaneous lockdowns for other nations:

“And this brings us to what I think is one of the most important recommendations we would make in respect to getting China fully back on its feet after this crisis. The world needs the experience and materials of China to be successful in battling this coronavirus disease. China has the most experience in the world with this disease, and it’s the only country to have turned around serious large-scale outbreaks. But if countries create barriers between themselves and China in terms of travel or trade, it is only going to compromise everyone’s ability to get this done.

And those kinds of measures need to be anything that goes beyond what’s been recommended by the IHR committee, has got to be reassessed, because the risk from China is dropping, and what China has to add to the global response is rapidly rising.”

The human rights community did not share this enthusiasm for China, its draconian lockdown, or its offer to “help” other nations contend with the virus. On February 2, The Guardian published an opinion piece by a human rights advocate outlining the lockdown’s serious human rights violations and opining that the WHO broke its own commitment to “human rights and health” by praising China. The WHO’s commitment reads in part:

“Human rights are universal and inalienable. They apply equally, to all people, everywhere, without distinction. Human Rights standards — to food, health, education, to be free from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment — are also interrelated. The improvement of one right facilitates advancement of the others. Likewise, the deprivation of one right adversely affects the others”

To protect these “universal and inalienable” human rights during a public health emergency, international law requires that restrictions on human rights be based on legality, necessity, proportionality and grounded in evidence. Similarly, the Siracusa Principles — in which the United Nations outlines an overarching international covenant on civil and political rights — state that restrictions on rights and freedoms in the name of public health must be strictly necessary and the least intrusive available to reach their objective:

“In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.”

“Lockdown” goes far beyond these basic human rights boundaries. They are proven now to only damage societies — they even worsen COVID19 outcomes. When The Economist analyzed all recorded epidemics since 1960, it concluded that “democracies experience lower mortality rates for epidemic diseases than their non-democratic counterparts.” This finding holds true at all levels of income.

Tedros aligned himself not with democracies and their fundamental principles but with an autocratic dictatorship, the same dictatorship that helped him assume power within the WHO. Together, using logical fallacies and pseudo-science, they betrayed international law governing human rights, the WHO’s own stated principles, and committed crimes against humanity on a massive scale. Should we continue to listen to Tedros, or should we turn to Dr. Nabarro, another qualified expert who — like the thousands who signed the Great Barrington Declaration — urges a return to democratic norms as necessary to minimize human suffering?

“Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never, ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer. Just look at what’s happened to smallholder farmers all over the world. Look what’s happening to poverty levels. It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year.” — Dr. David Nabarro

It is no longer possible to ignore Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’s long history with suppressive autocratic regimes, including China. Whatever the motivation behind his advocacy for continued lockdowns, the data invalidates his position unequivocally. Lockdowns do not save lives — lockdowns kill. The reign of tyranny must end, immediately and forever, with a full restoration of the rights and privileges of each individual citizen to choose what level of risk he or she will accept as a law-abiding member of a functioning, democratic society.

WHO, what, where, and why? We don’t yet have all of the answers, but we do know that the WHO director-general is on the wrong side of the lockdown debate.

Source: AIER

by Damian Wilson via RTWith a second wave of coronavirus hitting many countries and new lockdowns achieving little, might we finally see ministers and health officials being held accountable for their dreadful decisions?

As French police investigate the government’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic and launch a series of raids on the homes of leading politicians and senior health officials, elsewhere around the globe Prime Ministers and Presidents should be starting to sweat. Because the people want payback.

Payback for the months of sacrifice they have made of their children’s education, their jobs, their personal freedoms and their mental health. Payback for their losses, of loved ones, of their futures, of hope.

And if that means the police kicking down a few doors and hauling shame-faced politicians and bureaucrats from their beds so that they might be pressed for answers, then so be it.

The upset in France is symptomatic of the worldwide fury at the incompetence shown by our leaders in tackling the coronavirus pandemic and we can only hope that this demand for accountability brings some answers.

Answers as to why 40 million cases of Covid-19 have been recorded in less than a year, why a million people have died so far, and why there is still no solution in sight. And why the so-called solutions to it – lockdowns, shuttering businesses, closing off hospitals to sick and dying patients who don’t have the disease – have not only failed to tackle it, but have made everything worse.

Lockdowns will cause more deaths than Covid ever will, thousands of businesses have crashed, and millions have been thrown out of work.

Have we had any explanation or any apology for all this self-inflicted wreckage? Of course not. In place of answers and admissions that public health efforts have so far proved impotent or worse, we’ve been asked to swallow yet another catchy slogan or accept even harsher restrictions upon the limited personal liberties we are allowed to enjoy.

What has become clear, however, is that our leaders cannot simply keep turning the screw and expect everyone to just fall into line over the common good.

In Britain, the last day that worked was March 23 this year, when the national lockdown was imposed. Now, the UK’s regional leaders are no longer prepared to trash their own local economies by bowing to a central government demand that they enforce local lockdowns when it’s not happening elsewhere. There has already been talk of legal action against the Government, in a bid to avoid being placed in the highest tier of mandatory coronavirus restrictions, essentially Lockdown mark II.

Resistance has been building steadily elsewhere. It has led to mass protests in the US, Spain, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Kenya, Mexico, Israel, the Philippines, Argentina, Australia and just about anywhere else you can find on the globe.

With incompetence, delays and confused messaging the hallmarks of most governments in dealing with the coronavirus pandemic, no one would be surprised to see the police knocking on the doors of the homes and offices of politicians in any of these nations. Surprised? They’d be bloody delighted! It would be a much better use of police time than their fining people for breaking the rule of having just six people in one’s house, or raiding a gym that dares to try to keep people healthy.

Each country has its own horror stories of gross incompetence. While much of that stems from a failure to recognise the pandemic early enough and to do something about it, there is also a criminal neglect of emergency protocols, which have been universally ignored and stripped of funding by complacent governments everywhere.

This has meant not only a lack of interest in research and preparedness, but a deadly shortage of fundamental protective equipment that, surely, has cost lives of many of those working on the frontline across the globe.

Then there are the confusing quarantine rules, which seem to change daily, and the embarrassing squabbles and fortunes squandered over track and trace applications and their efficacy.

Whenever the citizenry manage to have a close look at the way their governments have dealt with these key issues, there will be no shortage of national outrage, public humiliation, legal action, and worse.

While the backlash began some months ago in China, where it followed its own proprietary way of dealing with those it holds responsible for public incompetence, France is choosing a more western-European approach to its investigation. The prime minister, Jean Castex, his predecessor Edouard Philippe, Health Minister Olivier Véran and the director of the national health agency, Jérôme Salomon, should be expected to squirm. Who knew what and when?

With President Emmanuel Macron last night announcing a four-week, 9pm to 6am curfew for Paris and eight other French cities from Saturday and PM Castex declaring a ban on all private festivities, including weddings, the people of La République are in no mood to be fobbed off.

The world is watching to see what price they exact for the incompetence of their leaders and the outrageous demands made upon their prized liberté. Heads may yet roll. Isn’t that old method of dealing with incompetent and wayward leaders, once so belolved of les citoyens, still lying somewhere in the basement of the Musée d’Orsay in Paris?

Last updated: October 8, 2020; First published: May 12, 2020

Overview

1) Antibody studies ⇓ 2) Immunological studies ⇓ 3) Median age of death ⇓ 4) Hospitalizations ⇓ 5) Nursing homes ⇓ 6) Overall mortality ⇓ 7) Development ⇓ IFR: Infection fatality rate

1) Antibody seroprevalence studies (⇓)

The covid-19 infection fatality rate (IFR) depends on demographics (age and risk structure), public policies (e.g. protection of nursing homes), and medical treatment quality.

Covid-19 IFRs are strongly age-dependent, with a steep increase above the age of 70. The median age of covid-related deaths in most Western countries is 80 to 86 years (see section 3 below). In most Western countries, about half of all deaths occurred in nursing homes (see section 5).

In terms of covid-19 IFRs, an important difference exists between places with and without a partial or total collapse of local health and elderly care, and between the early and late pandemic phase.

A. Places without a collapse of health and elderly care

Country	Published	Population	IFR (%)	Source
Global	October 5	WHO estimate	0.136	WHO
Japan	Sept. 23	Tokyo	0.01	Hibino
USA	Sept. 2	Indiana	0.265	AIM
Brazil	Sept. 1 Sept. 21	Maranhao Manaus	0.17 0.28	da Silva Buss
Iceland	Sept. 1	General population Below 70 years	0.30 0.10	NEJM
Switzerland	July 14 August 7	Geneva hotspot Zurich area	0.32¹ 0.30¹	Perez Aguzzi
India	July 31	Delhi Mumbai	0.07² 0.12²	India
Africa	July 29 August 5	Kenya Malawi	0.01 0.01	Uyoga Grace
Global	July 14	50 studies Below 70 years	0.24³ 0.04³	Ioannidis
Austria	June 25	Ischgl hotspot	0.26	von Laer
Slovenia	May 6	General population	0.16	GSI
Germany	May 4	Heinsberg hotspot	0.364	Streeck
Iran	May 1	Guilan province	0.12	Shakiba
USA	April 30 April 24 April 21	Santa Clara County Miami-Dade County Los Angeles County	0.17 0.18 0.20	Bendavid Miami Sood
Denmark	April 28	Blood donors (<70y)	0.08	Erikstrup

1) 0.64% and 0.60% including nursing homes; 2) 0.14% and 0.23% assuming 40% missing fatalities (more); 3) median values; 4) the unadjusted IFR is 0.28% (page 9); 5) general population (excl. nursing homes); 6) one million deaths and 760 million infections (WHO global estimate).

Note: The much-cited Meyerowitz-Katz meta-study claiming a global Covid-19 IFR of 0.68% is misleading because it mixes modelling studies and antibody studies, nursing homes and the general population, early and late phase IFRs, and commits several methodological mistakes.

B. Places with a partial or total collapse of health and elderly care

Overview: 1) Spain; 2) Northern Italy; 3) New York City; 4) England; 5) Belgium

Places with a partial or total collapse of local health and eldery care experienced significantly higher and very strongly age-dependent IFR values, especially during the early phase of the pandemic.

However, IgG antibody tests may underestimate the true prevalence of coronavirus infections and may thus overestimate the IFR by a factor of two to five (see section 2 below).

1) Spain

Country	Published	Population	IFR (%)	Source
Spain	August 7	Covid confirmed Excess deaths Below 50 years Below 40 years	0.82 1.07 <0.10 <0.03	Pollan

A Spanish seroprevalence study found an overall IFR between 0.82% (based on confirmed Covid-19 deaths) and 1.07% (based on excess all-cause deaths). The study didn’t include nursing homes, which accounted for about 50% of all deaths. The IFR was strongly age-dependent, with values below 0.03% until 40 and below 0.1% until 50 but reaching very high levels above 70 years.

The study found a country-wide IgG antibody seroprevalence of just 4.9% (about 12% in Madrid). However, less than 20% of symptomatic people (3+ symptoms or anosmia) had IgG antibodies. This may indicate that infections were up to five times more widespread than detected by IgG antibody tests (see section 2 below on this topic). If so, Spanish IFR values might drop below 0.5%.

Above 60 years, there was a significant difference in lethality between men and women. This might be due to e.g. genetic reasons, cardiovascular health, or certain habits like smoking.

Spain: IFRs by age group and gender in confirmed cases (Source)

2) Northern Italy

Country	Published	Population	IFR (%)	Source
Northern Italy	August 6	Above 70 years Below 70 years Below 50 years 80+, first phase 80+, second ph.	10.5 0.43 <0.01 30.40 8.10	Poletti

An Italian study considered contacts of confirmed Covid-19 cases in the Lombardy region, which includes hotspots like Bergamo and Cremona, to determine their fatality risk and their comorbidities. They found that the overall IFR was 62% lower in the second phase of the pandemic (after March 16) compared to the first, cataclysmic phase (up to March 15).

This was particularly evident in people above 80, where the IFR dropped from 30% in the early phase to 8% in the later phase (4% for women, 16% for men). Below 50 years, IFRs were near 0%; below 70 years, IFRs were 0.43% (both phases combined). More than 80% of deaths occurred in patients with cardiovascular diseases, which are known to be an important risk factor.

Of note, among Italian people with anosmia (temporary loss of the sense of smell or taste), a very typical Covid symptom, only about 25% were found to have IgG antibodies. This could indicate that coronavirus infections are more widespread, and IFRs lower, than assumed.

Northern Italy: IFRs in early and late pandemic phase (Source)

3) New York City

City	Published	Population	IFR (%)	Source
New York City	June 29	Overall	0.70	Stadlbauer
New York City	June 29	Confirmed Probable 25 to 44 y. <25 years	1.10 1.45 0.12 0.01	Yang

Until May 2020, New York City counted about 20,000 confirmed and probable Covid-19 deaths among its 8.4 million citizens and registered an antibody prevalence of about 20%. Studies estimating the infection fatality rate (IFR) for New York City found values between 0.7% and 1.1% based on confirmed deaths and up to 1.45% based on confirmed and probable deaths.

About 52% of Covid deaths in NYC occurred in the 75+ age group. This value is lower than in Europe, where about 90% of deaths were 70+. In all of New York State, about 6,300 patients were sent from hospitals into nursing homes, which ultimately registered between 6,600 and 13,000 deaths.

As in Italy and other hard-hit places, the IFR for age groups above 65 dropped by about 50% during the course of the pandemic, possibly due to better medical preparedness and treatment strategies.

Assuming that serological IgG antibody tests do not capture the full extent of coronavirus infections (e.g. due to mild cases without IgG antibodies), the overall IFR in New York City might drop to about 0.50% or below, and the actual spread of the coronavirus might be above 50%.

Covid deaths in NYC by age group (Source: NYC.gov)

4) United Kingdom

Country	Published	Population	IFR (%)	Study
England	August 21	July 28 (MCT) July 28 (ONS)	0.30 0.49	CEBM
England	August 14	General population Incl. care homes 45 to 64 years Below 44 years	0.90 1.43 0.50 0.03	Ward

Until July 2020, England counted about 30,000 Covid deaths in the general population and about 20,000 Covid-related deaths in nursing homes (which had to receive patients). According to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, the Covid IFR fell by 50% to 80% during the epidemic and reached a value between 0.3% and 0.5% by the end of July.

A study by Imperial College London estimated an IgG antibody seroprevalence of 6% overall and 13% in London by mid-July. However, according to Public Health England, London blood donors had an antibody seroprevalence of 17.5% already in May.

Of note, only about 50% of people with anosmia (temporary loss of the sense of smell or taste), a very typical Covid symptom, had IgG antibodies. Only 35% of people who were suspected to be Covid cases by a doctor, had IgG antibodies. And only 28% of people who self-reported “severe symptoms” had detectable IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.

If some of these people were indeed Covid cases (without detectable antibodies at the time of testing), the overall IFR value in the general population may drop to about 0.50% or below. The overall mortality of 2020 is comparable to the strong flu season of 1999/2000 (see below).

England: Mortality 2020 compared to strong flu wave of 1999/2000 (Source)

5) Belgium

Country	Published	Population	IFR (%)	Study
Belgium	June 20	General population Incl. care homes 45 to 64 years Below 44 years	0.43 1.25 0.21 0.02	Molenberghs

Belgium reported one of the highest Covid death rates in Europe, in part because it always included confirmed and probable Covid deaths. 66% of excess deaths in Belgium occurred in nursing homes. Of these, only about a third were confirmed by a PCR test. It is possible that some of the non-confirmed nursing home deaths were not due to Covid, but due to the extreme circumstances.

Due to the high proportion of nursing home deaths, IFRs differ markedly between the general population and the nursing home population. The IFR for the general population is estimated between 0.30% to 0.62%, while the IFR for the nursing home population is estimated between 28% and 45%. For people aged 45 to 64, the IFR is 0.21, and for people aged 25 to 44, the IFR is 0.02%.

Even without age-adjustment, the number of excess deaths due to Covid in April 2020 is comparable to the number of excess deaths in January 1951 and February 1960 due to strong seasonal influenza.

Belgium reported an overall IgG antibody seroprevalence of about 6% by May 2020. If actual infections are more widespread (including mild cases without IgG), the IFR in the general population might drop below 0.30%. As in other countries, above 65 IFRs are higher for males than females.

Belgium: IFR by gender and age in (non) nursing home population (Source)

2) Immunological studies (⇓)

Immunological research indicates that serological antibody studies, which measure antibodies in the blood (mostly IgG), may detect only about 20% to 80% of all coronavirus infections, depending on the sensitivity of the assay, the timing of the test, and the population tested.

This is because up to 80% of people develop no symptoms or only mild symptoms if infected, as they neutralize the coronavirus with their mucosal (IgA) or cellular (T-cells) immune system. These people may develop no measurable IgG antibodies or may show them only for a few weeks.

Most global Covid-19 hotspots peaked at about 20% IgG antibody prevalence (e.g. New York City, London, Stockholm, Madrid, Bergamo). Moreover, among people with anosmia (temporary loss of the sense of taste or smell) – a very typical Covid-19 symptom – only about 20% to 50% had detectable IgG antibodies, according to surveys in several countries (see below).

See also: Are we underestimating seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2? (BMJ, 09/2020) and Coronavirus up to five times more common and less deadly than assumed (SZ, 06/2020).

Country	Published	Focus	Factor	Source
Switzerland	May 23	IgA	5	Report / Study
China	June 16	IgG	6	Study¹
Sweden	June 29	T-cells	2	Study
Spain	July 6	IgG	5	Study²
Germany	July 16	IgG	2	Study
Italy	August 3	IgG	4	Study²
Brazil	August 12	IgG	5	Study²
UK	August 14	IgG	2	Study²

1) Only 16% of likely infected HCW had IgG; 2) People with anosmia but without IgG antibodies.

3) Median age of Covid-19 deaths per country (⇓)

Half of all deaths were below, half were above the median age.

Country	Median age	Source
Australia	82 years	DOH
Austria	80+ years	EMS
Canada	86 years	HCSC
England	80+ years	NHS
France	84 years	SPF
Germany	82 years	RKI
Italy	82 years	ISS
Spain	82 years	MDS
Sweden	84 years	FOHM
Switzerland	84 years	BAG
USA	78 years	CDC

Example: Death rate by age group in Massachusetts (Source)

4) Hospitalization rate (⇓)

Initial estimates based on Chinese data assumed a very high 20% hospitalization rate, which led to the strategy of ‘flattening the curve’ to avoid overburdening hospitals. However, population-based antibody studies (see above) have since shown that actual hospitalization rates are close to 1%, which is within the range of hospitalization rates for influenza (1 to 2%).

The US CDC found that Covid-19 hospitalization rates for people aged 65 and over are “within ranges of influenza hospitalization rates”, with rates slightly higher for people aged 18 to 64 and “much lower” (compared to influenza) for people under 18.

In local hotspots like New York City, the overall hospitalization rate based on antibody studies is about 2.5% (19.9% or 1.7 million people with antibodies and 43,000 hospitalizations by May 2).

The much lower than expected hospitalization rate may explain why most Covid-19 ‘field hospitals’ even in hard-hit countries like the US, the UK and China remained largely empty.

5) Percentage of Covid-19 deaths in care homes (⇓)

In many countries, deaths in care homes account for 30 to 60% of all additional deaths. In Canada and some US states, care homes account for up to 80% of all “Covid19-related” deaths. In Sweden, deaths in nursing homes plus nursing apartments account for 75% of all deaths.

Care home deaths: absolute numbers (bars, left scale) and percentages (dots, right scale)

Source: Mortality associated with COVID-19 outbreaks in care homes (LTC Covid, May 21, 2020)

Source: The Covid-19 Nursing Home Crisis by The Numbers (Freopp, June 19, 2020)

6) Overall mortality (⇓)

In countries like the UK (lockdown) and Sweden (no lockdown), overall mortality since the beginning of the year is in the range of a strong influenza season; in the US, mortality is in the range of the 1957 and 1968 influenza pandemics; in countries like Germany, Austria and Switzerland, overall mortality is in the range of a mild influenza season (but antibody levels are still low).

Global covid deaths and cases vs. global all-cause deaths

US: Monthly all-cause deaths since 1960

US: Age-adjusted death rate since 1900

UK: Mortality 2020 (shifted) vs. 1999 and 2000

UK: Mortality 2020 vs. 2000

Sweden: Mortality since 1851

Switzerland: Mortality vs. expected value (2010-2020)

German mortality 2017-20

Belarus monthly mortality (no lockdown)

Sources: USA-1, USA-2, UK-1, UK-2, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, Belarus

A comparison between the number of coronavirus deaths predicted by the influential model of Imperial College London (no measures or moderate measures) and the actual number of deaths in Sweden shows that the model strongly overestimated the impact of the epidemic:

Sweden: ICL model predictions versus actual Covid-19 deaths (HTY/FOHM)

7) Development of the pandemic (⇓)

Even in states without a lockdown, the epidemic usually reached its peak within a few weeks of the outbreak. However, some reports showed cumulative deaths per day of report (left) instead of daily deaths per day of death (right), falsely implying an ever escalating situation.

Cumulative deaths per day of report vs. daily deaths per day of death. (OWD/FOHM; April 24)

The United States is no exception to this dynamic. Rather, the US has seen several regional waves that were delayed due to lockdowns but then each peaked within a few weeks of the outbreak.

US: Covid cases by region (Source)

See also

1. Facts about Covid-19

2. An overview of the current evidence regarding the effectiveness of face masks.

3. Seven charts showing the covid big picture.

4. Covid-19 infection fatality rates (IFR) based on antibody studies.

5. The WHO-commissioned meta-study on the effectiveness of facemasks is seriously flawed and should be retracted.

6. A Covid-19 early treatment protocol.

7. Already in mid-March, SPR explained that the highly sensitive PCR tests are prone to producing false-positive results and their predictive value may easily drop below 50%.

8. Approximately 10% of people with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection report persistent or recurring Covid symptoms for several weeks or months. This notably includes younger and previously healthy individuals, as well as those whose original covid was mild or moderate (without hospitalization).

Virologist Jonathan Latham and geneticist Allison Wilson have proposed a new hypothesis for the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the Covid-19 pandemic.

Swiss Policy Research (SPR), founded in 2016, is an independent, nonpartisan and nonprofit research group investigating geopolitical propaganda in Swiss and international media. SPR is composed of independent academics and receives no external funding other than reader donations.