Month: August 2020

Lockdown Failure, Part Two

Posted on by Tommy Madison

The lockdowns failed miserably in reducing COVID infections or deaths.  Let me show you the proof?

In part one of lockdown failure, we compared two states that shared geographic location, population size, population density, and size of their largest city.  These two states were Kansas and Nebraska.  The primary difference between these two states is Kansas utilized a lockdown, and Nebraska did not.  Here is a chart of their new daily cases since the beginning of the COVID pandemic.

Kansas locked down and is blue.  Nebraska did not lockdown and is orange.

As I have long argued, the lockdowns were never going to reduce or eliminate the number of infections.  All they would do is delay them.  Once you opened back up, the infections were still going to take place.  The comparison between Kansas and Nebraska proves the theory was correct.  Kansas locked down and had fewer infections initially, but once they opened back up, their infections soared above Nebraska’s.

All the damage caused by the lockdowns (please read here) was self-inflicted because it was a flawed theory that has proven incorrect.  It was an experiment that failed.  COVID did not cause those damages; our leaders did.

Now, while the Kansas/Nebraska comparison is as good a comparison you can get, there is another one just as good.  We will compare two other states that border each other, Arkansas and Mississippi.  Mississippi locked down, while Arkansas did not.

  • The two states border each other, so they share their geographic location.
  • Arkansas ranks 34th in total population, and Mississippi ranks 35th.
  • Mississippi ranks 38th in population density, and Arkansas ranks 40th.
  • The largest city in Arkansas is Little Rock, with a population of 197,000.
  • The largest city in Mississippi is Jackson, with a population of 164,000
  • Mississippi was a lockdown state. Arkansas was not.

The two states share geographic location, have a similar total population, similar population density, and comparable size of their largest city.  This is also as good of a comparison as you can get. Let’s check the results.

Here is a chart of both state’s number of new cases of COVID on a rolling 7-day average.  Can you guess which graph is the lockdown state?

It’s pretty obvious which state instituted a lockdown, right?  Except it’s not.  The only give away is the surge in the blue line, Mississippi, which took place after they ended their lockdown.

Again, these states share geographic location, population size and density, and size of their largest city.  Mississippi (Blue) locked down due to COVID, and Arkansas (Orange) did not.  Can anyone make an argument that the lockdown worked?  If you can, it will be very thin.

The effectiveness of lockdowns was and is entirely theoretical, and the data has shown that those theories were wrong.  Our governments caused us all considerable harm for what?

“But wait, the lockdowns saved lives.”

Okay, let’s check the data. Let’s look at the number of deaths in each state on a rolling 7-day  average.

Did the lockdowns save lives?  No, that is a big fat lie.  The state that locked down had considerably more deaths than the one that didn’t.  The lockdowns were theoretical, philosophical bullshit based upon flawed mathematics (“models”) that resulted in significant damage, and did nothing to reduce COVID infections or deaths.

The worst part is that the lockdowns should have never happened, or at a minimum, should have never lasted as long.  Hopefully, you read my book where I go in-depth into how and why the lockdowns happened, and why they continued well past their expiration date.  If you haven’t, you will find a link below to purchase it on Amazon.

Here are the two most recent reviews from readers.  There are more reviews and a free sample on Amazon.

Look, if you believe everything you were told I challenge you to read this book and dispute the conclusions.  It will be a epiphany for you.  Plus, it is free if you are a member of KindleUnlimited.

 

States with mask mandates are twice as likely to be trending upwards in the number of new infections

Posted on by Tommy Madison

There is a lot of controversy about whether or not wearing a mask helps reduce the number of infections.  How about we look into how effective the masks have been? 

In full disclosure, I am a supporter of mask-wearing.  They are not the end-all and be-all, but I believe they do reduce the number of infections.  However, there is undoubtedly some downside to wearing a mask. 

In a recent article, I discussed a study by the CDC and the Navy that had some interesting results.

There is science on both sides of this discussion, and I am not going to wade into all of it.  However, I have to admit frustration with the trust in mathematical models that continue to incorrectly predict this and that disaster.  In this case, they predict things like 70,000 lives will be saved by everyone wearing masks.  These models have proven inaccurate over and over, yet people use them to support their arguments. 

As Mark Twain said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.  You can make these models say whatever you want by feeding in the information to get the desired result.  If the data fed into the algorithm is flawed, the results will also be flawed.  These models being flawed should be obvious by this point because of how many times they have been wrong.

So, instead of the mathematical model damn lies, we will use real statistical information to test the effectiveness of wearing masks.

Currently, in the United States, there are 19 states not mandating mask use.  This group includes media punching bags Arizona and Florida, amongst others.  That leaves 32 states (including DC) that are mandating mask use.  Let’s look at what is happening in those two categories of states.

As of today, August 12th, we will look at the number of states that are trending up or trending down in their daily number of new infections.

  • 10.5% of the states without mask mandates (2 out of 19) are trending upwards in the number of new infections.
  • 21.8% of the states with mask mandates (7 out of 32) are trending upwards in the number of new infections.

Yes, you are seeing that correctly, the data shows that states with mask mandates are twice as likely to be trending upwards in the number of new infections.

Am I saying that masks are useless?  Of course not, I am very much pro mask when used correctly at the correct times.  But the nonsense that the media is propagating is not accurate.  They are trying to drive a hysteria instead of informing the public.

Look, remember a few weeks ago when the media was attacking states like Arizona and Florida repeatedly. Those states and their leaders were going to kill everyone, not only in their state but everywhere else.  Why do you not hear so much about that now?  Let’s take a closer look at how those states are doing.

Here is the chart of Florida and its progress against COVID.

And here is the chart of Arizona and their progress against COVID.

According to the media, their experts, and the models, Arizona and Florida Governors were trying to get people killed.  But the results prove otherwise.  Why is the media not touting their success at this point?

The bottom line is simple and increasingly obvious.  It has gotten to the point where you can pretty much assume any assertion in the media regarding COVID is inaccurate and designed to exaggerate, not inform, especially when they back it up with some “model” or “expert” opinion, without any actual statistical reference.  At what point do we wake up and realize that the media is not trying to inform us, they are trying to scare us.

Do you want to know why people do not believe everything reported about COVID, including the use of masks?  Because they have been lied to over and over.  You cannot trust the untrustworthy, and the media has proven to be untrustworthy.

I am pro mask.  But with the ongoing media campaign about the need for masks, I am becoming more and more skeptical.  I am pro mask, but I understand the science is not definitive, despite the depiction in the media. 

If you want to know more about why we all need to be skeptical of the media, please read and share my book, the FEAR-19 Pandemic.  It goes into detail about how the media led a campaign of deception early on in the pandemic to create a false perception.  COVID is a terrible and deadly virus, but the COVID boogie man created in the media is just a mythical creature carefully created and continually cultivated to terrify the populace.

There are reviews and a free sample of the book on Amazon.  Here is the most recent review.

#fear19  #covidphobia

Lockdowns failed to reduce COVID infections or deaths

Posted on by Tommy Madison

Okay, let’s look closer at whether or not the lockdowns were effective at limiting the spread of COVID, and limiting the deaths from COVID. 

To do so, we will compare a couple of states, one that did a lockdown, and one that didn’t.  The states share geographic location, population size and density, and comparable size of their largest city.  The primary difference, one locked down and one did not.

We will begin by showing you a chart comparing the two states and their “new cases” on a seven-day rolling average.  

See if you can tell which state is the lockdown state, and which is not.

Can you tell which color is for the state that locked down? 

My primary question has always been, if it is not obvious that the lockdowns work, why would we use them?

The orange line is the state that did not lockdown.  They had more infections initially, but then the state that did lockdown (blue line) had more infections later.  The infections were not decreased, they still happened.  The lockdowns only delayed the infections.

I have long argued, going back to March, that lockdowns were not warranted because all they do is delay the infections; they do not prevent or stop the spread.  And this graph completely backs up that theory.  The data is starting to come in, the theoretical and philosophical justifications for lockdowns have not stood up to the facts.  The models were wrong because they were given flawed information.

Let’s take a look and compare the deaths for each state.

Again, can you tell which is the lockdown state and which is not?

The deaths do not quite follow the same pattern as the number of “new cases,” they are a lot more random.  But again, I think the chart makes the point for me.  If you cannot tell the difference between a state that did lockdown, and one that didn’t, what was accomplished?

The lockdowns did all that damage, but there is no discernible advantage gained against COVID.  Feel free to read this sample from my book about lockdowns if you are unaware of the damages.  But beyond the damages caused, the bottom line is that the lockdowns failed to reduce the number of COVID infections or deaths.  Destruction caused, but no advantage gained.

These two states in this comparison are Kansas (blue) and Nebraska (orange).  Kansas did lockdown while Nebraska did not.  These two states share a long border, so they share geographic location.  They rank 36th and 38th for population amongst the US States.  In population density, Kansas ranks 41st and Nebraska ranks 43rd.  Plus, the largest city in Kansas is Wichita, with a population of 390,000.  The largest city in Nebraska is Omaha, with a population of 469,000. 

The two states share geographic location, have similar population size and density, and their largest cities have similar size.  I challenge you to find a better comparison. 

One state locked down, one did not, but there is no discernible difference between their results in total cases or deaths.  So, what was the point? 

The lockdowns were an entirely unwarranted experiment that was ineffective and caused more damage than COVID ever could have by itself.  We destroyed our economy, eliminated jobs and wreaked businesses, damaged children and families, increased suicides and overdose deaths, reduced the health and mental health of the entire population for what?  Absolutely nothing except lots of media and political attention.  Sorry folks, you were hoodwinked.

For more information on how and why you were hoodwinked, you can find my book on Amazon.