Last week, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki was asked a straightforward question about COVID: “This administration has long claimed that you’re trying to be the most transparent in history. If that’s the case why don’t you just release the number of breakthrough cases that you have with vaccinated staffers? ” Psaki provided a non-answer and the reporter immediately followed up: “Why not just provide the number? Are you trying to hide something?” Then Psaki said something that a White House Press Secretary should never say: “Why do you need that information?”
Luckily, the reporter was quick with a good response to this never-should-have-been-asked question: “Transparency. The interest of the public. A better understanding of how breakthrough cases work here in the White House.” Psaki responded a third time with yet another non-answer, rambling on about COVID cases in general but not responding to the specific question asked.
This is the quintessential example of the current administration’s worldview and every one of us needs to realize the truth about them before it is too late. Basically, they want no competing narratives to theirs. This administration which was deemed to be “moderate” and a “return to normalcy” is not doing a good job at hiding the ball on a radical agenda to crack down on free speech as protected in the First Amendment. They don’t care who notices because their propaganda media machine (CNN, MSNBC, NPR, NY Times, Washington Post, and the rest of the one-channel media) doesn’t hold them accountable. The few times when they are pressed on their anti-free speech tendencies, they don’t answer the question and all is eventually swept under the rug by media friendly to them.
This administration, along with many of its cohorts in media, big tech, and academia, claim to be arbiters of the truth, but they are not transparent with facts and information, they are not honest, and the only way they can maintain the charade of transparency and honesty is to crackdown on the free speech of others who challenge their supremacy on the truth.
They claim crackdowns on “misinformation” are needed to protect the public. After all, who could possibly be in favor of spreading lies? However, the ones doing the censoring are almost always the most egregious liars. Authoritarian governments whose message is not popular and cannot standup under scrutiny, must censor those who provide alternative viewpoints or criticism of government policies, or they will quickly fall. In other words, the truth is dangerous to their agenda, and the agenda is what matters the most. If the administration was providing factual and honest information, there would be no need to censor; instead, they would provide a clear and cogent counter narrative to the misinformation and let the alternative voices discredit themselves. There should be no need to censor crackpots spewing wild conspiracy theories because most people see through them. It is only when there is truth in the alternatives voices that the authoritarian power structure feels threatened and uses nefarious means to discredit and censor their opponents; they cannot win the argument any other way. This administration and its cronies are corrupt to its core; they do not want the actual truth of their policies to be revealed because they cannot defend them in the light of day.
Our Constitution is designed to protect us from authoritarian government, but the current administration is trying to undermine its protections any way they can. We the people can move our government if given the opportunity to freely voice our opinions. Thomas Jefferson said: “When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” Rome was once a Republic, much like ours, but it devolved into a dictatorship because the people didn’t recognize Julius Caesar’s power grab or were unwilling to speak out about it; they were unable to stop it once it established itself. Our current government, under this administration, thinks they have the upper hand over the people now; they think they can consolidate power if they can control the flow of information available to us–and if they succeed, this will without a doubt lead to tyranny. The internet and social media has given we the people great power to push back against corruption and dishonesty, power to hold our public officials accountable, power like we’ve never had before. Those in corporate media (the government’s propaganda wing) who had a monopoly on that power before the internet, want it back and they think they’ve found the right formula. COVID has been the crisis they’ve needed to forward their sinister agenda (the so-called “insurrection” of January 6 was the other crisis manipulated, but I won’t get into that just yet).
Please read on. Please take note of the examples I provide. Please listen to the arguments and decide for yourself. Don’t tune out because think you’ve heard it all before. Have an open mind. Everyone in our country must be made aware of what is happening. The First Amendment has protected us for a long time, but it will be a dead letter if we do not muster the political will to fight back against this perfidy. The other protections in the Constitution will fall as well; they are all already under attack. This threat is real, it is happening at breakneck speed, and much of it is out in the open for all to see (if only more of us would take notice!). This same type of censorship was tried early in our nation’s history, under the John Adams administration, and it was eventually put down. It needs to be put down again. (Alien and Sedition Acts – Definition, Significance & Purpose – HISTORY)
How the Con Works
The First Amendment prevents government from making laws to limit our freedom of speech. While the current government is not yet making laws which directly limit freedom of speech, they are manipulating social media to do the dirty work for them. The following analysis demonstrates how this is being done.
First, Joe Biden tells us that Facebook is killing people by allowing misinformation to be spread on its platform: Biden on Facebook: ‘They’re killing people’ with vaccine misinformation (cnbc.com). He is essentially pressuring Facebook and other social media outlets to limit speech, speech he specifically doesn’t like. It all sounds so nice though; he is trying to protect us all from misinformation so that we are not harmed by it. If Joe Biden (or whoever else is in charge in the future) doesn’t like what you are saying, he labels it misinformation in order to get big tech to act as his agents. If the tactic works in this instance, it will work whenever he tries it, no matter what information is labeled misinformation. And so many ignore what he is doing because he doesn’t engage in mean tweets and he seems like such a nice avuncular man.
But then, Joe Biden is an addled old man who does what his staff and his wife tell him to do while he has fun playing president. Furthermore, Facebook can just ignore him after all, right? Maybe Biden just misspoke and didn’t realize he was calling Mark Zuckerberg a murderer? On the other hand, maybe he didn’t misspeak. Jen Psaki, speaking for the president, made it clear that the administration considers social media companies their agents, agents they can direct on who to censor and who to not censor:
During a press briefing Thursday, Press Secretary Jen Psaki said that the White House was collaborating with social media companies to censor COVID “disinformation.”
In response to a reporter’s question, she said the federal government has ramped up its disinformation research and tracking.
“We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation,” she said.
Again, Psaki uses pleasant, non-threatening language. She says they are “collaborating” instead of “pressuring”, and they are not removing information they don’t like they are removing “disinformation” which everyone should be against. But what happens if social media doesn’t “collaborate”? First, its the velvet glove from government, but then the iron fist comes. We see that the president and his team are also collaborating with their buddies in Congress. They are now threating social media’s business model if social media doesn’t “collaborate” and do the government’s bidding.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) on Thursday introduced legislation that would remove the liability protections social media companies enjoy if misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines or other health emergencies is shared on their platforms.
Klobuchar’s bill would create an exemption to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a law that provides platforms like Facebook and Twitter a shield from being sued for content posted on their websites by third parties. During an official public health emergency declared by the Secretary for Health and Human Services, if an internet platform permits misinformation to spread through its algorithms that platform would be legally liable for doing so, the Wall Street Journal reported. The federal government, through HHS in consultation with other agencies, would determine what constitutes health misinformation.
“Earlier this year, I called on Facebook and Twitter to remove accounts that are responsible for producing the majority of misinformation about the coronavirus, but we need a long-term solution,” Klobuchar said in a statement. “This legislation will hold online platforms accountable for the spread of health-related misinformation.”
The bill is co-sponsored by Sen. Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.).
Kind of clever how that works, huhn? But there’s more. They get away with this because the one-channel media goes along with this and doesn’t call it out. Free speech and the openness of the internet is being threatened, so one would think our media would jealously protect the right to freedom of the press specifically granted to them. But the one-channel media is okay with these tactics because they work hand and glove with Democrat administrations. Free speech is being threatened but only for some (mainly conservative outlets), so NBC, NPR, and the rest of the traditional media are okay if there is a crack down on others; in fact they are encouraging attacks on their journalistic rivals:
Per the NBC story above: “Facebook has removed 18 million pieces of misinformation”. First, that’s a remarkable admission and a remarkable amount of censorship. Secondly, it shows the Biden plan is working. Facebook is doing their bidding after all. Facebook and other social media are run by Democrat sympathizers in any case. But ask yourself: does Facebook really know that all 18 million pieces are actually misinformation? Or are they arbitrarily applying a blowtorch to any message they (or someone in the government) don’t like? Ask yourself also: why isn’t NBC outraged that Facebook has on 18 million occasions removed someone’s comments, remarks, posts, story, etc? Doesn’t that sound like freedom of speech in America is under attack?
Who puts up a stop sign when someone doesn’t like something we say on social media? Who is looking out for us? It used to be our government and the ACLU who defended the right of people like us to criticize and speak our minds. But these days, any of us could be silenced because someone we don’t know and someone we can’t talk to has decided we are spreading “misinformation”. Is this not dangerous? The gentleman speaking in the NBC story says that social media posts are more likely to contain misinformation. So, because I write a blog, I am just a rube who knows nothing about nothing according to this snob? Who is fact checking him? The real problem is only some get to determine what is misinformation and they can use their definition of misinformation to silence you. As we have already seen, misinformation comes from all kinds of sources, including blue check marks, WHO, CDC, and government officials who tell us they are just looking out for our best interest. If discussion is stifled who is fact checking the “trusted” sources when they mislead us or when they simply make a mistake?
If you are comfortable with the current environment because those who exercise power today represent your own views and you trust them to not abuse that power, ask yourself how you would feel if the same con started with Donald Trump? Remember this too: if one party grabs the power now, the other party uses it later. Just like Rome regretted ceding power to Julius Cesar after a string of despots followed him, we will all rue the day we let our government abuse its power in this way.
Now that the government has given their favorites the green light, we have journalistic outfits trying to silence other journalistic outfits, specifically we have liberal one-channel media attacking conservative media. NPR tells us that the conservative outlet, Daily Wire, founded by Ben Shapiro, has become too powerful. They don’t criticize Daily Wire‘s content and they don’t attack them for spreading COVID vaccine misinformation (Shaprio and Daily Wire are staunchly pro-vaccine), but the real problem, according to NPR, is that Daily Wire has become too big and they are now more popular on social media than all other traditional news outlets.
There is no limiting principle here. Today they are cracking down on COVID misinformation, which may or may not actually be misinformation and tomorrow they will be cracking down on their political opponents who they conveniently label “white supremacists” in order to have their voices silenced: Facebook, Google, Twitter and Microsoft are cracking down on white supremacist groups like the Proud Boys and 3 Percenters (yahoo.com). Again, who makes the determination of who is a white supremacist? If Joe Biden wants his political opponents shutdown, his administration “collaborates” with social media to label said opponents white supremacists and said opponents have their voice silenced, whether or not actually a white supremacist. It is not rocket science. Are you beginning to see how this works?
Who is Determining What is Misinformation?
The real problem as I said earlier is who determines what is misinformation. If you want misinformation and disinformation and all the rest of the lies stopped, then you have to give someone the power to determine what is true and what is not. If the guys you like are in power now, then you may be comfortable with the current situation, but you shouldn’t be. The framers of the Constitution recognized this problem long ago and so they created the First Amendment which allowed everyone, including crackpots, misinformation-ists, and all the rest freedom to speak. Censorship creeps in slowly; first, you censor the most egregious of voices, then you expand your reach, and suddenly we learn they have removed 18 million pieces of information. There is no limit on who or what you will lie about in order to censor your rivals and control the narrative.
Per the NY Times, the government should have “reality czars” and become the arbiters of truth. They are talking about the government that has more power today than ever before. Many people see the government as a neutral disinterested party that we can all trust to be fair, but the government is made up flawed individuals, flawed like all the rest of us. Who in government are you going to trust with determining what is good information and what is bad? Will you trust the same people I would trust–or maybe we have different ideas about who are the good guys and the bad guys. Let’s look at a few people who we are told we should trust.
How about the guy discussed in this video?
Tucker Carlson commented on this guy’s town hall as well:
We are told by the one-channel media that Joe Biden tackled misinformation and wrestled it to the ground, but let’s turn the table and do a quick fact check on Biden himself (along with CNN as well):
- Biden actually said: “if you get the vaccine, you won’t get sick, you won’t be hospitalized and you won’t die. ” Did Don Lemon of CNN, America’s most trusted news network, challenge this claim that everyone knows is not true? No, of course not. This is not how the game is played. How much are they paying him to sell his soul to the Democrat Party? Granted, your chances against COVID are improved when you get the vaccine, but that’s not what Biden said. He made an ironclad promise that you won’t get sick. Hundreds of thousands of vaccinated folks are getting COVID and some are even dying still. That’s the problem we’ve talking about for the last couple months. It’s also the question that Jen Psaki avoided by asking: why do you need that information? C’mon man! Wake up, man. Get your facts straight.
- Biden also said that all kids over the age of two should be wearing masks. Yet, this contradicts direction from the WHO which pretty much says the exact opposite. I thought the WHO was one of the definitive sources and we should de-platform anyone who wants to defund or contradicts the WHO when they speak on science. Right? Should we trust the WHO or Biden? It’s a dilemma.
During this most recent town hall, Biden is asked several questions about COVID, but rambles on about going to church, the man on the moon, aliens, playground basketball, and the quarterback of the Tampa Bay Bucs. He is the “expert” we should trust? I have never been so embarrassed for our country as I am watching this man on the world stage. Ben Shapiro calls him President House Plant; he is there only to hide the water stain. Unfortunately, house plants don’t do too well when asked to speak during town halls, press conferences, or State of the Union speeches.
Why don’t the media demand Biden be treated like Trump and call for him to be censored or de-platformed for providing misinformation during a national town hall? Or are we going to overlook a doddering old fool when he says such things? What harm can he do in any case? CNN and the rest of the Democrat media don’t just ignore his silly comments or try to make excuses for why he said something untrue. Instead, they tell us we now have grownups and competency in the White House while the rest of us are agape at this nonsense. They tell us what a relief he is after four years of Trump, but Trump never looked this foolish.
The Hodge Twins are conservative commentators who also share several clips from the same Biden CNN town hall. Watch their show for its entertainment value as much as its commentary on this poor old fool who should not be running the country.
Maybe You Want to Trust this Guy Instead?
How about this guy? He is a scientist after all, so maybe we can trust him more than a politician? We all know politicians lie, so maybe we need to go to a real scientist for information? Well, I have had my doubts about this fellow too and I have shared many of them in prior updates. But let’s wipe the slate clean for a moment and just look at what he has said in the last few weeks regarding COVID misinformation. Perhaps we can at least trust his expert opinion on this topic?
“If we had had the pushback for vaccines that we’re seeing in certain media, we probably would still have smallpox and we’d probably still have polio in this country if we had the false information that’s being spread now,” Fauci told CNN‘s Jim Acosta in an interview.
“If we had that back decades ago, I would be certain that we’d still have polio in this country.”
Ok, so what’s wrong with these comments? You may say that’s just his opinion and we are all entitled to our opinions. But this one is more than an opinion; this is designed to elicit a result, not to inform. To understand why this is deceptive, let’s get some basic facts about smallpox and polio:
https://www.who.int/biologicals/vaccines/smallpox/en/Two forms of the disease are recognized, variola minor with a mortality rate of approximately 1%, and the more common variola major with a mortality rate of 30%. Between 65-80% of survivors are marked with deep pitted scars (pockmarks), most prominent on the face. In 1967, WHO launched an intensified plan to eradicate smallpox.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolioAccordingly, the rate of paralysis and death due to polio infection also increased during this time. In the United States, the 1952 polio epidemic became the worst outbreak in the nation’s history. Of the nearly 58,000 cases reported that year, 3,145 died and 21,269 were left with mild to disabling paralysis.
So, let’s get this straight: Fauci compares COVID with a less than 1% mortality rate to smallpox which has a 30% mortality rate. If COVID had the same mortality rate as smallpox, everyone would have been gotten the COVID vaccine by now. How can you possibly compare the two? COVID has never been the same threat smallpox was. In addition, almost half the people that contracted polio in 1952 died or were paralyzed. Again, how can you compare polio to COVID? They are not the same threat. This man thinks you are stupid or else he would not insult our intelligence in this way. He thinks you won’t fact check him.
Furthermore, there are many valid reasons why some should not get the vaccine: you’ve already had COVID, you are young and not at risk, you want to wait and see, or you don’t trust government sources like Fauci, Psaki, and Biden (given their pathetic track record). Plus, it is your choice and not theirs. Your body, your choice. Right? There is also one other relevant fact the greatest of all doctors didn’t tell us:
In April 1955 more than 200,000 children in five Western and mid-Western USA states received a polio vaccine in which the process of inactivating the live virus proved to be defective. Within days there were reports of paralysis and within a month the first mass vaccination program against polio had to be abandoned. Subsequent investigations revealed that the vaccine, manufactured by the California-based family firm of Cutter Laboratories, had caused 40,000 cases of polio, leaving 200 children with varying degrees of paralysis and killing 10.
Do you think Dr. Fauci didn’t know all this or maybe he just didn’t want to tell us? If he didn’t know any of this, he is incompetent at his job, but it is more likely, he is damned liar on par with a snake oil salesman, not the guy I rely on to point out what is misinformation. Yet, this is the man CNN’s Don Lemon tells us should lead the charge in countering vaccine misinformation.
Have you ever heard of the drug Thalidomide? Thousands of babies were born deformed after their parents took the drug in the 1960’s before it was pulled from the market. True Story of Thalidomide in the US | US Thalidomide Survivors. I am not saying this scenario is happening today with the COVID vaccines, but I am saying that many people have reason to be a bit cautious and a bit skeptical. Maybe they want to wait and see what happens? Maybe their individual risk from COVID is not that great, certainly not greater than the potential risk from medication? Yet, this self-righteous blowhard wants to lecture us and tell us how we are killing people by our own actions.
Let’s give one more example of Dr. Fauci from last week. He and Senator Rand Paul have clashed now twice now regarding U.S. funding “gain of function” research in China. Listen to this heated exchange; it is quite illustrative: Rand Paul And Dr. Fauci Call Each Other Liars About Gain-Of-Function Research At Wuhan Lab | Video | RealClearPolitics
Both men say a lot during this exchange and both accuse each other of lying, but Senator Paul throughout insists on knowing the answer to one simple question: did the U.S. government fund “gain of function” research in China? This is the only question asked by Senator Paul in the seven minute exchange. “Gain of function” research we have learned recently is the term used for the manipulation of a naturally occurring animal virus in order to make it more deadly. Believe it or not, this research is actually something which many scientists have defended saying it is necessary to learn more about how viruses evolve and how to defend against them. In 2014, Dr. Fauci actually said “gain of function” research is a good thing. Fauci defends U.S. funding coronavirus research at Wuhan lab (msn.com) Subsequently, funding of “gain of function” was banned by the U.S. U.S. halts funding for new risky virus studies, calls for voluntary moratorium | Science | AAAS (sciencemag.org)
“Gain of function” research has fallen in and out of favor among scientists over the past few years, but after this pandemic, I believe there is widespread consensus that this research is not something our government ought to be funding in a Chinese lab which is being run by the head of the Chinese military’s biological weapons program China ‘appoints military bio weapon expert to take over secretive virus lab in Wuhan’ | Daily Mail Online.
It is important to understand the context of this questioning. Fauci steadfastly dances around the one question which Paul asks repeatedly: “did the government fund gain of function research?” Fauci takes offense because he says Paul accuses him of being directly responsible for COVID-19, but Paul never accused him of that. He only accused him of funding questionable research in China. We are repeatedly told by media that Fauci is our trusted source, but he looks like a mob boss who has lawyered up for this exchange. Then we are told that by that same media that it is Senator Paul who is providing the “misinformation”.
In this case, “misinformation” is asking tough questions of the man who is leading the government’s effort to combat COVID. Shouldn’t he get tough questions from time to time? Or is the answer to Senator Paul’s question something else we don’t need to know? Right, Jen Psaki? Our media continue to defend and prop up Dr. Fauci because he is their counter to the opposition. You can’t give up the game even when your player is not very good. The narrative is all that matters, whether it is true or not.
The Back Benchers Join the Game
How long do I go on for? There is so much to share and I don’t want stop until everyone is convinced of the problem. I will keep going a little while longer, just so you can be sure the people who are talking about the misinformation are trafficking in it as well. Hopefully, you’ve stuck with me this far and have not turned me off because I criticized one of your favorites.
Now that Fauci, Psaki, and Biden have set the pace, we see a few other folks who are following their lead. This next snippet from the Prime Minister of New Zealand is truly priceless. Trust no one else but her and her administration:
‘Remember that unless you hear it from us, it is not the truth’
“We will share with you the most up-to-date information daily. You can trust us as a source of that information.
“We will continue to be your single source of truth,” she said. “We will provide information frequently. We will share everything we can.
Wow, what a bold promise. I think I may start tuning into New Zealand news more often, so I will never be wrong again. On the other hand, maybe not. Anyone who tells me she and her government have a monopoly on the truth probably should be at the bottom of the list of who to trust.
Next, we return to the U.S. and Jay inslee, the governor of Washington state. He tells us if you are not vaccinated you are a risk to every kid in your city.
How do you figure governor? The unvaccinated are watching TV at home while kids are dying in the streets of their cities? Really? Is he referring to the kids who aren’t getting sick from the virus or kids on some other planet? Furthermore, he appeals to folks to get a vaccine by calling them irresponsible people who are threatening all the kids. That ought to wake them up. They weren’t convinced before he made these comments, but that probably was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Maybe this is the guy I want to go to to learn about misinformation? He sounds pretty smart.
Ok, let’s keep looking for trusted sources. There is this woman, another prominent government official, who actually raises doubts about the vaccine.
She seems pretty smart too and she is one of the ones we are being told we can trust, but she is telling us something different than the governor of Washington. Who should we listen to: him or her? I don’t know who is telling the truth anymore!
And then there is this same guy again, speaking to us when he was an actual back-bencher. He seems a bit hesitant about the vaccine back then, even though today he and his partner don’t tolerate any dissent on the vaccine:
Gosh, it is getting rather confusing to know who to trust when folks wind up contradicting the things they said not very long ago. However, I have to say I do like what this guy said about transparency; that seems like the right message. But, wait a minute. Isn’t he also the one that said we have to collaborate with social media to cleanup misinformation? How do you get transparency when you’re removing information that you tell us is misinformation but might not actually be? How can he be so sure it is misinformation? He said we shouldn’t trust the other guy who was president before him, but now that he has taken over, we should trust him? Why should we trust him and not the other guy? He never tells us.
Let’s look to one more back bencher. He is not a politician nor a scientist; he is just a regular guy. Maybe we can trust him? Maybe the little guy has words of wisdom that will break through all the mumbo-jumbo we get from the public figures?
All sarcasm aside, I’m not too sure about this guy either. Do you think it is good for us to be attacking each other because we have different points of view? Does this encounter sound like an actual conversation? I think not. Is it good for the independence of journalists for one of them to be accosted on the street? Is it good that other journalists are stirring up folks by telling so many others that this journalist is one of the guys spreading misinformation? Do you remember when journalists screamed bloody murder when Trump called them “the enemy of the people”? Where are those same journalists when one of their brethren is being targeted as an enemy of the people? Can’t they stand up for Tucker as they did for Jim Acosta, whether they agree with him or not?
Can’t We All Just Get Along?
How can we have a civil conversation, much less solve our problems when the conversation devolves in this way? Those who are screaming the loudest about COVID misinformation and attacking the unvaccinated are not helping. Gavin Newsome compares unvaccinated folks to drunk drivers: California governor Gavin Newsom compares unvaccinated to drunk drivers (yahoo.com). We’ll have to come up with a new traffic violation, DWU: driving while unvaccinated. Governor Newsome is this helpful? Is this designed to solve a problem? Again, I think not. Mississippi Governor Kay Ivey wants to play the blame game too (don’t think I pick only on Democrats; there are plenty of problem Republicans as well); she doesn’t want people to blame her for her state being last in vaccinations, so she lashes out at her constituency: Alabama’s governor, Kay Ivey, says it’s ‘time to start blaming the unvaccinated folks, not the regular folks’ (yahoo.com)
These days, Democrat politicians and media enjoy picking on red states and Republicans who are not as highly vaccinated because they see an opportunity to score political points, not because they are actually trying to get more people vaccinated. As of July 21, 68.3% of all adults had received a vaccine. That’s a whole lot of Republicans and Democrats. The problem isn’t quite so simple as picking on Republicans who don’t trust the current administration to tell them the truth. Democrats don’t call out Blacks and Hispanics who may have similar concerns about the government and big business because they don’t want to alienate their most significant voting blocks. Instead, how about addressing the legitimate concerns of all of these folks, whether Democrats or Republicans?
Close to 70% (68.3%) of the adult population in the United States have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. While this progress represents a marked achievement in vaccinations that has led to steep declines in COVID-19 cases and deaths, vaccination coverage—and the protections provided by it—remains uneven across the country. With growing spread of the more transmissible Delta variant, cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are once again rising, largely among unvaccinated people. Persistently lower vaccination rates among Black and Hispanic people compared to their White counterparts across most states leave them at increased risk, particularly as the variant spreads.
Somehow, I think if Trump were still president, we would have more Republicans vaccinated and fewer Democrats. The players, not the facts, matter more to so many folks.
To wrap this up, let’s ask a few pointed questions. How about we look more closely at the current COVID numbers which are showing us that there are some very real limits on what vaccines can do? How about we ask ourselves if maybe there are other strategies that might work better or augment current strategies instead of continuing to double down on the remedies that have proven ineffective (i.e. masks and lockdowns)? How about we look at what has actually worked well the past eighteen months and what has not? How about we look again at Sweden which tried a totally different approach than the rest of the world but is currently doing better than the rest of the world? How about we challenge some of our earlier assumptions? How about we admit what we got wrong? How about we start with a clean slate of ideas since we are still in this mess eighteen months after its start? How about we own up to facts and maybe just learn to live with COVID since it is probably never going away?
How about we stop silencing those alternative voices and let the chips fall where they may? Only the if we have the type of transparency that candidate Joe Biden called for instead of the type of non-transparency that President Joe Biden has enacted can we hope to solve the COVID problem.