“This virus doesn’t change who your friends are: it reveals who your friends are”: Covid-19 Is Not Like The Flu In These Two Important Ways — And We Should All Be Grateful 
  • Covid-19 may have an overall lethality that’s closer to seasonal flu than previously thought, but in the following two ways it is not like seasonal flu:

    If it were like the flu, 700 children would now be dead and 150 infants would be deceased.

    As it is, 17 deaths across both age brackets have been recorded in U.S. total for Covid-19. 

    That is a stark and important difference.

    The following story is 100 percent bullshit — promulgated by CNN and Rachel Maddow, among others:



    Reader, I urge you to please process this: Texas’s case numbers are up because their testing has surged.

    Look at percent positive over past seven days. All it takes is one graphic to prove this entire story is complete propaganda. Yet go read the comments: people totally believing it and demanding Texas shut down.




    In other news, Swedish epidemiologist Johan Giesecke, who like all sensible people — scientists especially — realizes the intractable nature of the horrific policies enacted by force overnight, had this to say in an interview today:


    Speaking of sensible people, it’s just been reported that the head of New York City’s public hospitals pushed to keep the city open, but was overruled by stupidity.

    “This virus doesn’t change who your friends are: it reveals who your friends are.”

    A friend sent me that earlier today, and I think it’s true.

    May 17th, 2020 | journalpulp | 3 Comments |

About The Author

I was born and raised in the San Juan Mountains of southwestern Colorado. I've worked as a short-order cook, construction laborer, crab fisherman, janitor, bartender, pedi-cab driver, copyeditor, and more. I've written and ghostwritten several published books and articles, but no matter where I've gone or what I've done to earn my living, there's always been literature and learning as the constant in my life.

3 Responses and Counting...

  • MikiSJ 05.17.2020

    The problem with statistics is that sometimes they give a wrong, incomplete answer. But, and this is what is important about statistics: sometimes they foretell what may be a complete answer.
    There is a very, very, very small chance that tomorrow may not happen. But what if that chance was maybe 50% because we have just seen an asteroid/comet heading, maybe, for a collision with Earth and it is, likely big enough to destroy life on Earth much like what did happen ~65 million years ago.
    Would you go to work tomorrow? Well, if you are an optimist, maybe. If you are a pessimist, probably not.
    But, let’s say reported statistics predict that some percentage of those individuals tested will test positive for COVID-19 is 50%. This number is likely high because most testing is done on individuals who are some type of risk.
    Let us say that, removing known risks, results in a percentage closer to 10%. What this may mean, that roughly 10% of the entire population, at a given point in time, will test positive for being infected by COVID-19. Given the nature of statistical representation, the result is believed to be accurate to some given ‘error’. Most likely these statistics are accurate to a probability of a very high percentage.
    The question then becomes: are you willing to risk your health, and possibly your life, that the entire population may have some percentage of being infected with COVID-19 and a smaller percentage is at risk of death?
    If you are an optimist, you probably will ignore the prospects and also ignore the protections to make you safer against the COVID-19 virus. If you are a pessimist, you will likely heed the prospects of infection and make protection against the COVIS-19 something to be adhered to even though it might be unnecessary. Only the future will tell who was wrong or correct.
    We are fortunate to have some governmental folk willing to risk the wrath of the optimist and hope nothing happens to the pessimist. I chose to live with those governmental folk not willing to risk what might happen to the optimist.

  • I think your comment is articulate and well-reasoned, MikiSJ, and I appreciate your taking the time. The only thing I really disagree with — and it is a significant disagreement — is that government is needed at all, irrespective of the statistical odds, irrespective of optimism or pessimism. Government and its ever-mushrooming bureaus is inherently inefficient — by definition, I am prepared to argue: a ponderous, purblind, lumbering, ever-growing beast which cannot spend a single cent unless it first either taxes, borrows, or prints. Voluntary human action is the proper course, not government force.

    Thank you for dropping by.

  • The problem with statistics is that …

    … is that nine out of ten statistics are wrong?

Leave a Reply

* Name, Email, and Comment are Required