Lockdown – “Probably the biggest single mistake that has ever been made in the history of the world”

Stop panicking – it’s over.”
Doctor predicts an IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) of somewhere around 0.1% (one in a thousand),  “about the same as severe flu pandemics we have had in the past.”
(Don’t overlook the point! Point one percent is ten times less than one percent.

“I look at your blog every day, good job!” says reader Leifur Arnason in Iceland.

“You also blog about the covid, lockdowns and such. Therefore I would like to point out Dr Malcolm Kendrick’s blog.”

The importance of understanding the difference of CASE FATALITY RATE (CFR)  vs INFECTION FATALITY RATE (IFR).  I think it is a bombshell.

Dr Kendrick: “ I had not spotted it. He did. All credit is his.” ( he refers to Ronald B. Brown and his report nr 6 on the page)  “ I am simply drawing your attention to what has simply been – probably the biggest single mistake that has ever been made in the history of the world.”

Here are some quotes from the above referenced article:

The best place to estimate where we may finally end up with COVID, is with the country that has tested the most people, per head of population. This is Iceland. To quote the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine once more:

‘In Iceland, where the most testing per capita has occurred, the IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) lies somewhere between 0.03% and 0.28%.’ 3

Sitting in the middle of 0.03% and 0.28% is 0.16%. As you can see, Iceland, having tested more people than anywhere else, has the lowest IFR of all. This is not a coincidence. This is an inevitable result of testing more people.

I am going to make a prediction that, in the end, we will end up with an IFR of somewhere around 0.1%. Which is about the same as severe flu pandemics we have had in the past. Remember that figure. It is one in a thousand.

It may surprise you to know that I am not the only person to have made this exact same prediction. On the 28th February, yes that far back, the New England Journal of Medicine published a report by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (A.S.F., H.C.L.); and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta. 4

In this paper ‘Covid-19 — Navigating the Uncharted’ they stated the following:

‘On the basis of a case definition requiring a diagnosis of pneumonia, the currently reported case fatality rate is approximately 2%. In another article in the Journal, Guan et al. report mortality of 1.4% among 1099 patients with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19; these patients had a wide spectrum of disease severity. If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate (my underline) may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza.’ 

case fatality rate considerably less than 1%. Their words, not mine. As they also added, ‘the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza.’ 

At this point, you may well be asking. Why the hell did we lockdown if COVID was believed to be no more serious than influenza? Right from the start by the most influential infectious disease organisations in the World.

It is because of the mad mathematical modellers. The academic epidemiologists. Neil Ferguson, and others of his ilk. When they were guessing (sorry estimating, sorry modelling) the impact of COVID they used a figure of approximately one per cent as the infection fatality rate. Not the case fatality rate. In so doing, they overestimated the likely impact of COVID by, at the very least, ten-fold.

How could this possibly have happened?

When they put their carefully constructed model together on the 16th of March, if they had been reading the research, they must have been aware that they were looking at a maximum case fatality rate of just over 1% in China, right at the start, where the figures are always at their highest.

Which means that, unless COVID was going to turn out nearly 100% fatal, we could never get anywhere near 1%, for the infection fatality rate. Even Ebola only kills 50%.

But they went with it, they went with 1%. Actually, Imperial College reduced it slightly to 0.9%, for reasons that are opaque.

From this, all else flowed.

If the INFECTION fatality rate truly were 0.9%, and 80% of the population of the UK became infected, there would have been/could have been, around 500,000 deaths.

0.9% x 80% x 67million = 482,000


However, if the case fatality rate is around 1%, then the infection fatality rate will be about one tenth of this, maybe less. So, we would see around 50,000 deaths, about the same as was seen in previous bad flu pandemics.


What Imperial College London did was to use a model that overestimated the infection fatality rate by a factor of ten.

We now know, as the IFR rates of various countries falls and falls, that the Imperial College estimated IFR was completely wrong. The UK, for example, has seen 42,000 deaths so far, which is 0.074% of population. The US has seen about 200,000 deaths 0.053%. Sweden, which did not lockdown down, has seen about 6,000 deaths, which is an infection fatality rate of 0.06%. All three countries are opening up and opening up. Whilst the ‘cases’ are rising and rising, the deaths continue to fall. They are, to all intents and purposes, flatlining.

In Iceland it is around 0.16% and falling. In other words…

Stop panicking – it’s over

Whilst everyone is panicking about the ever-increasing number of cases, we should be celebrating them. They are demonstrating, very clearly, that COVID is far, far, less deadly then was feared. The Infection Fatality Rate is most likely going to end up around 0.1%, not 1%.

So yes, it does seem that ‘the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza.’

Thanks to Leifur Arnason in Iceland for this info and link

The post Lockdown – “Probably the biggest single mistake that has ever been made in the history of the world” appeared first on Ice Age Now.

via Ice Age Now


September 8, 2020 at 10:11PM

Lockdowns and ‘global warming’ connected


 by Robert

If you’ve wondered why I’ve been posting stuff about Covid-19, it’s because I think the lockdowns are being forced on us by many of the same power-hungry charlatans trying to shove the phony man-made global warming agenda on us.

Here’s an article from Climate Depot:

“Fauci goes full pseudoscience: COVID-19 is due to ‘extreme backlashes from nature’ – Urges ‘creative harmony with nature’ to solve,” reads the headline.

“Fauci in new paper: “Living in greater harmony with nature will require changes in human behavior as well as other radical changes that may take decades to achieve: rebuilding the infrastructures of human existence…”

Former NYT reporter Alex Berenson responds: “But, see, if #COVID-19 turns out to be a testing-driven lil-bit-worse-than-a-bad-flu year, what then? Maybe we WON’T need to redesign all of human existence because some 79-year-old bureaucrat wants us to?”

“Why does Dr. Anthony Fauci, a division-level bureaucrat whose day job includes the word ‘allergy,’ think his brief now includes redesigning all of human society? And how monstrous must his ego have become for him to be willing to say so publicly?” Berenson asked.

Here’s a link to the Climate Depot article:

Here’s the Alex Berenson thread:

And here’s a link to the paper that Fauci co-authored, dated 21 August 2020 (You’ll want to go all the way to the end and read the “SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS”):

The post Lockdowns and ‘global warming’ connected appeared first on Ice Age Now.

via Ice Age Now


September 8, 2020 at 09:14PM

The Climate of Scott Adams

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is log-it-graze-it-or-watch-it-burn.png

Willis Eschenbach / 5 hours ago September 8, 2020

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

At 73, I’m now in what I call my “late youth”. As a confirmed wanderer, I’ve seen a bit of the world, and I’ve read and studied extensively about our life here on this most lovely planet. As a result of my wide experience, I don’t often come across a book full of brand-new ideas and concepts which strongly affect how I look at the world.

So I have to give big props to my gorgeous ex-fiancee who went to the library and came back with Scott Adams’ book, “Win Bigly“. Scott Adams is the cartoonist who draws “Dilbert”, and it turns out he is much more than that.

It’s an astounding instruction manual for how to look at the world in a totally different way. In it, I was surprised to find a discussion of climate science. As with most new looks at the world, he introduces and defines a new vocabulary and uses some existing vocabulary in new ways. So let me start by quoting directly from those of his definitions relevant to this discussion.


I use the word “filter” to describe the way people frame their observations of reality. The key idea behind a filter is that it does not necessarily give its user an accurate view of reality. The human brain is not capable of comprehending truth at a deep level.

Second Dimension

The second dimension describes the most common view of reality—the one in which we believe facts and logic are important to our decisions. This view says that humans are reasonable 90 percent of the time, but every now and then we get a bit crazy.

Third Dimension

The third dimension is where trained persuaders operate. This worldview says humans are irrational 90 percent of the time. The only exceptions are when decisions have no emotional content. 

Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is a condition of mind in which evidence conflicts with a person’s worldview to such a degree that the person spontaneously generates a hallucination to rationalize the incongruity.

Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias is the human tendency to irrationally believe new information supports your existing worldview even when it doesn’t.

Now, that’s a most different way to look at the world. With the “2-D filter”, the way most people look at the world, including me up until I read the book, the assumption is that humans are mostly logical in how we make decisions … but Adams says no, most of the time people are irrational.

And you know what? I think that irrational sucker Adams is 100% right.

For example, I was watching an old Star Trek episode today. Here’s the dialog:

• Captain Kirk: “It’s war. We didn’t want it, but we’ve got it.”

 Mr. Spock: “Curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want.”

My first thought on hearing that was … “Looks like humans need a new filter” …

So without further preface, here are Scott Adams’ thoughts about climate science. 

On top of our mass delusions, we also have junk science that is too often masquerading as the real thing. To the extent that people can’t tell the difference, that too is a source of mass delusion.

In the 2-D view of the world, mass delusions are rare and newsworthy But to trained persuaders in the third dimension, mass delusions are the norm. They are everywhere, and they influence every person. This difference in training and experience can explain why people disagree on some of the big issues of the day.

For example, consider the case of global warming. People from the 2-D world assume mass delusions are rare, and they apply that assumption to every topic. So when they notice that most scientists are on the same side, that observation is persuasive to them. A reasonable person wants to be on the same side with the smartest people who understand the topic. That makes sense, right?

But people who live in the 3·D world, where persuasion rules, can often have a different view of climate change because we see mass delusions (even among experts) as normal and routine. My starting bias for this topic is that the scientists could easily be wrong about the horrors of climate change, even in the context of repeated experiments and peer review. Whenever you see a situation with complicated prediction models, you also have lots of room for bias to masquerade as reason. Just tweak the assumptions and you can get any outcome you want.

Now add to that situation the fact that scientists who oppose the climate change consensus have a high degree of career and reputation risk. That’s the perfect setup for a mass delusion. You only need these two conditions:

• Complicated prediction models with lots of assumptions

• Financial and psychological pressure to agree with the consensus

In the 2·0 world, the scientific method and peer review squeeze out the bias over time. But in the 3-D world, the scientific method can’t detect bias when nearly everyone including the peer reviewers shares the same mass delusion.

I’m not a scientist, and I have no way to validate the accuracy of the climate model predictions. But if the majority of experts on this topic turn out to be having a mass hallucination, I would consider that an ordinary situation. In my reality, this would be routine, if not expected, whenever there are complicated prediction models involved. That’s because I see the world as bristling with mass delusions. I don’t see mass delusions as rare.

When nonscientists take sides with climate scientists, they often think they are being supportive of science. The reality is that the nonscientists are not involved in science, or anything like it. They are taking the word of scientists. In the 2-D world, that makes perfect sense, because it seems as if thousands of experts can’t be wrong, But in the 3·D world, I accept that the experts could be right, and perhaps they are, but it would be normal and natural in my experience if the vast majority of climate scientists were experiencing a shared hallucination.

To be clear, l am not saying the majority of scientists are wrong about climate science. I’m making the narrow point that it would be normal and natural for that group of people to be experiencing a mass hallucination that is consistent with their financial and psychological incentives. The scientific method and the peer-review process wouldn’t necessarily catch a mass delusion during any specific window of time. With science, you never know if you are halfway to the truth or already there. Sometimes it looks the same.

Climate science is a polarizing topic (ironically). So let me just generalize the point to say that compared with the average citizen, trained persuaders are less impressed by experts.

To put it another way, if an ordinary idiot doubts a scientific truth, the most likely explanation for that situation is that the idiot is wrong. But if a trained persuader calls BS on a scientific truth, pay attention.

Do you remember when citizen Trump once tweeted that climate change was a hoax for the benefit of China? It sounded crazy to most of the world. Then we learned that the centerpiece of politics around climate change—the Paris climate accord—was hugely expensive for the United States and almost entirely useless for lowering temperatures. (Experts agree on both points now.) The accord was a good deal for China, in the sense that it would impede its biggest business rival, the United States, while costing China nothing for years. You could say Trump was wrong to call climate change a hoax. But in the context ofT rump’s normal hyperbole, it wasn’t as wrong as the public’s mass delusion believed it to be at the time.

I’ll concede that citizen Trump did not understand the science of climate change. That’s true of most of us. But he still detected a fraud from a distance.

It wasn’t luck.


I’ll leave it there … read the book. It will make the world a whole lot more understandable.

Meanwhile, it’s been hot and dry here on our Northern California hillside. A new fire has broken out northeast of us, but it’s not likely to move this way. And no, it’s not from “climate change” …

And sadly, the idiots running Sonoma county are still stuck in COVIDementia. They are requiring masks at the beach, for heaven’s sake … and yes, that does verify Adams’ “3-D filter”, wherein most of the people act irrationally most of the time and mass hallucination and mass hysteria are common, not rare. 

So me, I just be chillin’. I go to the beach. I go to town. They’re letting people cut hair now … but only outdoors. I don’t wear a mask unless I’m required to, and never outdoors. And in particular never at the beach. But I’ll have to wear one for my haircut today, county regs.

My best wishes to all, stay well in this “fiery but mostly peaceful” world, 


My Usual Request: When you comment please quote the EXACT WORDS that you are discussing. That way we can all be clear on the subject of your comment.

Paris, Quebec, Ottawa, Berlin, Russia, Spain, Poland, London, across Britain – all demonstrating

From Ottawa: “We are not anti-mask at all, we are pro-liberty,” said Kelly Anne Wolfe, executive director of The Line Canadaa group that organized the protest. “If you want to wear a mask or a tutu, we have nothing to say about that. That is your right. You do not have a right to put one on my face or the face of my children. It’s as simple as that.”

“The Germans were forbidden by their Senate to go ahead w their 2d demo, but their court overturned the ban– with the proviso that they practice social distancing,” says Penelope.

“In Paris, most demonstrators seem to be wearing masks while protesting the same. Probably a condition of continuing, as police are present. 

“Something called the Carnegie Global Protest Tracker 

https://carnegieendowment.org/publications/interactive/protest-tracker summarizes only past protests (in US & elsewhere)

“Ah! There’s a better round-up of demonstrations here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_over_responses_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic Lots of places– Russia, Spain, Poland etc Catholic clergy in Italy “demonstrated” online re lockdown preventing services.

“However, I think they are not all current.”

Thanks to Penelope for this info

The post Paris, Quebec, Ottawa, Berlin, Russia, Spain, Poland, London, across Britain – all demonstrating appeared first on Ice Age Now.

via Ice Age Now


September 8, 2020 at 08:32PM

Cold and lots of snow for Colorado

Possible record-breaking drop in temperatures along with 8 to 12 inches of snow for both Boulder and Colorado Springs, 12 to 18 inches for Estes Park. Broken tree limbs. Potential power outages.

“Denver was 101F Saturday, 93F on Labor Day and will soon be snowing with temperatures that might drop to the 20s tonight!” says meteorolgist Joe D’Aleo.

“The biggest day-to-day change (if it reaches 30F today) would be the third highest behind changes in the 1800s. If we reached the 26F in the Euro model, we could exceed the top. Most all big change days are winter changes when arctic air and chinook winds battle.”

Forecast snow in Colorado, and hard freeze in Eastern Plains:



Thanks to Joe D’Aleo for these links

The post Cold and lots of snow for Colorado appeared first on Ice Age Now.

via Ice Age Now


September 8, 2020 at 07:56PM

Selecting Biden-Harris Could Be Disastrous for the US

Joe Biden

Perhaps he [Biden] knows that his new progressive allies would be happy for him to win them a presidency but even happier for him to then disappear as soon as possible.—Victor Davis Hanson, September 6, 2020, New York Post

Previous readers of this blog will long since have understood my view that there are very important differences between the two US parties that have important implications for US climate and natural resources policies.

But the November 3 election may have even more important results.  It is important to understood compromises made by the Democratic Party in their choice of their 2020 Presidential Democratic ticket.  If their Presidential ticket should win, these compromises could well have important consequences for many years to come.

Serious Adverse Economic Effects of a Biden-Harris Victory

The last thing that is needed after the recent most serious economic downturn since the 1930s caused by the COVID 19 Pandemic, is for the Federal Government to raise taxes and increase government regulations, but that is exactly what Biden-Harris propose.  If implemented, the most likely result would be a serious depression comparable to or perhaps worse than the Great Depression of the 1930s. This would be disastrous for the US and most people who live here.

An Even More Serious Possible Result of a Biden-Harris Victory

Maybe I have spent too much time playing chess, but I believe that the success of the Biden-Harris ticket could result in something even worse.  It has the potential to provide socialists or even communists an easy route to achieve power in the United States Government, which may be their real goal and their objective in giving up Senator Sanders as their preferred Democratic nominee.  The left-wing Democrats probably could have nominated Senator Sanders, and presumably fought the election on the basis of capitalism versus socialism/communism.  But they chose not to do so, and would probably have lost the General Election if they had.

A much more clever approach would have been to nominate a plausibly moderate, “familiar” figure, such as Joe Biden, with the understanding that he would leave office during his term of office to be replaced by a far left-wing Vice President who could be depended on to promote socialism/communism during the remaining term of Biden’s Presidency.  If elected, Biden would be the oldest President the US has ever had on election; some believe that he has shown signs of mild cognitive impairment such as losing his train of thought, forgetting where he is geographically, and inability to read a teleprompter carefully.  And he could be “sold” as a continuation of the popular Obama-Biden presidency and policies, particularly if he never clearly explained what his program really is, and avoids answering unscripted, detailed questions concerning them.  Then at any point in his term of office he could resign possibly because of an alleged need to rest or avoid the possible effects of more serious cognitive impairments he may develop, and thus make Harris President without attracting much surprise.  So far the evidence fits this more clever scenario.

The Momentous Possible Effects on the US Government

The prospects for the United States would then substantially depend on an unproven and largely unknown Vice President, Kamala Harris, who is widely reported to be the most liberal Senator, including Senator Sanders.  Until the last few days, Biden has largely hid in his basement and avoided revealing what his real intentions might be, and claims that he is has no physical or mental problems despite his known treatment for two cerebral aneurysms,.

The Critical Choice of Harris

A very few may know whether he may be preparing the way for Harris, an unknown new senator from California little known to anyone outside California.  Not a word need be spoken about Medicare for all or free college or Green New Deal or Federal control of local zoning or any of the other left-wing Democratic policy proposals made by Senator Sanders and subsequently by Biden that do not enjoy great popular support and could lead to economic disaster if actually implemented. The extent that Harris could change American politics would then depend on the extent to which the Democratic Party controls the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court, but could represent a monumental shift in US politics.  The left-wing of the Democratic Party has endorsed income redistribution and Federal control of local zoning, among other far out policies.

The Possible Role of Antifa/BLM and Related Lawless Groups

An important question is what role the election of Biden/Harris would have on the activities of  Antifa and Black Lives Matter and other lawless activist anarchist/communist groups now active in violent rioting and looting of businesses, police property, and even charities in US cities will play in the possible socialist/communist takeover.  The Democratic Party and the mainstream press hardly even mentioned until August 30, when Biden finally said that he was opposed to such activity. This may have been because the Party and their sympathizers in the press had at least sympathized and possibly actively financed these activities.  This lawless activity in cities continues and is likely to continue until truly effective action to control it is taken in a timely way by local, state. or Federal authorities, or until the Democratic Party finds it in its interest to put an end to the activity.  So far, most local control efforts have proved ineffective and the local officials little concerned and strongly opposed to Federal intervention.  It is difficult to see how this activity will stop if Biden-Harris are elected. It might even expand if Harris should become President by changing  the purpose of these lawless activities might be changed to that of a quick reaction force to silence any opposition that may develop to the possible socialist/communist takeover of the Federal Government.

By their current multi-month rampages the promoters may be trying to desensitize the population to violence and to instill fear in opponents of a socialist/communist takeover which could move rapidly against any organized opposition that might develop.  If a city with a Democratic chief executive offers serious opposition, Antifa and other far-left organizations could stage rampages cooperative cities. If homeowners and store owners attempt to defend their property, they may be charged with unauthorized use of a firearm, as in St. Louis recently.  If this is not the objective, why else would the left-wing Democrats run the risk of being associated in any way with these continuing lawless urban rampages?  The purpose may be to instill fear in the well-armed right wing opposition, which has long promoted guns as a safeguard against a possible insurrection.  This is a recipe that could lead to serious domestic unrest and possibly a real insurrection unless there is very determined opposition by the President. I doubt that Harris would be

likely to provide such determined opposition.

Why This Election Outcome Could Lead to This Disaster

Socialist/communist governments often come to power at the point of a gun. They can also come to power by winning an election in the guise of moderate objectives and later installing someone else more to their liking in power.  Since Ms. Harris is largely unknown to most non-California voters and has been characterized as the most left-wing current US senator, having her as the Vice Presidential nominee is profoundly dangerous.  Even if she does not share all of the left-wing views of other members of the California Democratic Congressional delegation, voting for the Biden-Harris ticket is the most dangerous thing any non-socialist/communist voter can do under current circumstances.

If Biden resigns or becomes even more cognitively impaired, Harris would become President, the most influential political office in the United States.  She has no known experience or knowledge of foreign affairs, and she may well be the most far left candidate ever nominated for either President or Vice President.  The result could well lead to a profound change in American government.

Why Take the Risk?

Why take such a very dangerous gamble?  Socialist/communist governments are often very difficult to dislodge once they are elected or take power by violent means. The alternative Vice Presidential candidate, Mike Pence, appears to have no such ultra left-wing sympathies.  Why take the risk of voting for Biden-Harris?

via Carlin Economics and Science


September 8, 2020 at 06:09PM