The COVID-19 pandemic has provided opportunities for rumors, misinformation and disinformation to find fertile fields for spreading. At the same time, the lack of definitive, well-documented information and the shifting understand of the nature of the ailment and its rate of infection or death rate, who and how it attacks, have all combined to make people fearful and confused.
Pacifica will be providing the most up-to-date an accurate information we can find, including debates and corrections of previous erroneous ideas and misconceptions. We will also cover serious critiques of flaws in the practice of medicine and in the nature of western medicine, embedded as it is in the context of private enterprise, the insurance industry and Big Pharma. Medical racism has been in the spotlight because of the severe racial disparities in testing, treatment and deaths related to COVID-19.
Interview with Michael Osterholm, formerly of the CDC, a renowned and respected epidemiologist.
EXCERPT: MO: First of all, the Sweden model no longer exists. It was a myth to begin with. And it now is even being heavily criticized within Sweden to the point where there’s actually a criminal investigation going on about what did or didn’t happen in their long-term care. Sweden has one of the highest death rates in the world in terms of number of people that have died per population. They have not advanced any meaningful way towards a herd immunity level [60-70% having been infected–PCTF] and are not much higher than the United States is right now. And they recognize in retrospect that maybe they didn’t accomplish all that they thought they were going to.
The adjoining countries of Denmark, Finland, and Norway – who did go into more extensive lockdown activities — have kept their death rates significantly lower than Sweden has. And they’re bringing back the economy, very similar to Sweden is doing. So, I think that one of the problems we have is everybody seems to have a magic answer for what’s going on. And my response is that it might be a magic answer today, but let’s wait a week and see what happens. And that has happened time and time again. We’ve heard about how China was successful in tamping down that initial outbreak in Wuhan and throughout Hubei. But now we see they’re having a resurgence of infection with large parts of Wuhan now being tested again and other major outbreaks in China. So everyone may have a perfect solution today, but following my leaky bucket concept it may not be that way tomorrow at all.
DB: So we should be continuing to lockdown and wear masks and proceed with caution.
MO: I think one of the things we have to understand is we can’t just lockdown. I look at this with two guardrails. On one side is a guardrail where we are locked down for 18 months to try to get us all to a vaccine without anyone having to get infected or die. We will destroy not just the economy but society as we know that if we try to do that. The other guardrail is to just let it go and see what happens. We will see the kinds of deaths we just talked about and we will see healthcare systems that will literally implode. And not just for COVID-19 care, but for heart attack, stroke, and all other causes of disease in our communities. That’s not acceptable.
And so we’ve got to thread the rope through the needle in the middle. The very question you asked me about, what do we recommend to our older citizens of this country — our parents, our grandparents — what do we tell them? That’s the part that we haven’t done a good job of addressing. We have to learn not only how to die with this virus, which tragically we’ve had to do, but we also have to learn how to live with it.
Those are the kinds of discussions we need to have now. If we’re not going to lock up and we’re not going to open up willy-nilly, then what is the approach? And what we’ve been trying to do is facilitate those very discussions so that people can make hard choices. What are the things that we can do to change society that will help us maintain society to the best we know but at the same time also reduce transmission? That’s a key activity right now that public health needs to be playing a very important role in.
Here’s an example of the imperative need for transparent, replicable studies as the basis for any decision making or resource allocation in the effort to prevent and treat COVID-19 infections:
Unreliable data: how doubt snowballed over Covid-19 drug research that swept the world
So the same journal offering unverified clinical experience favoring one anti-parasite drug to treat COVID-19 was the sourve for the supposedly convincing proof that the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine, promoted by Trump, is useless against COVID, Unfortunately both findings now seem suspect, underlining the need for serious, peer-reviewed, falsifiable research that other independent researchers can attempt to replicate. Otherwise, we are dealing with speculation, or even self-serving fabrication, and people trying to dress up something else with the aura and prestige of science and medicine.
It appears that some people can become chronically ill with COVID, for a length of time that is not yet clear. There are people who became symptomatic in March who are still suffering waves of debilitating symptoms — yet not bad enough or progressing to require hospitalization — now in June, with no end in sight. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/06/covid-19-coronavirus-longterm-symptoms-months/612679/
We may print here, or interview on the air, people with diametrically opposed views about many issues that are still open to debate and clarification. A case is point is the dispute between journalist Sam Husseini and Black Agenda Report analysts K. J. Noh and Claudia Chaufan over whether the SARS-CoV2 virus originated in a laboratory or in nature:
Why Is Sam Husseini Channeling Neo-Con Conspiracy Theories on COVID-19?
The authors charge a progressive journalist with acting as a “shill” for neocon propaganda and disinformation on China. (Husseini’s article is also published, below.)
“Husseini is mistaken–or deeply dishonest–in suggesting that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was doing biowarfare research.”
Journalist Sam Husseini was once known for challenging the Neocon warmongers on the Iraq War in a former lifetime. He now seems to have joined them, becoming a promoter of anti-China neo-con conspiracy theories on the origins of Covid-19.
Husseini recently wrote a series of articles that recycle a large amount of right wing disinformation–alt-right fecal matter–and smeared them inside a juicy little hamburger of truth: the fact that the US engages in dangerous biowarfare research.
Husseini’s article is reprinted on the Black Agenda Report website linked to above, but here’s the link to Husseinin’s own blog:
The Long History of Accidental Laboratory Releases of Potential Pandemic Pathogens
Is Being Ignored In the COVID-19 Media Coverage
by Sam Husseini
EXCERPT: Many people are dismissing the possibility that the COVID-19 pandemic might have come from a lab. It is possible that they are unaware of the frequency of biohazards escaping from laboratories.
On Feb. 11, I asked Anne Schuchat, the CDC’s Principal Deputy Director, at the National Press Club if it were a “complete coincidence ” that the outbreak of the novel coronavirus happened in Wuhan, a center of China’s declared biowarfare/biodefence capacity. I got an answer that was remarkably evasive. She wouldn’t answer my followup question about whether the claimed “zoonotic origin” precluded the outbreak from being caused by pathogens from nature that then could be accidentally leaked from the labs.
But neither are the facts always being provided to the public. A search on “Democracy Now” shows that the first time the program mentioned “Wuhan” and “lab ” or “laboratory ” was on April 6 — to credit “the Wuhan lab that identified the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.” Mainstream outlets at least reported the existence of the lab to their audiences in a somewhat timely manner, even if they distorted the information.
EXCERPT: A small community of volunteers, currently led by The Atlantic staff writer Alexis Madrigal, launched The COVID Tracking Project in an effort to aggregate and make sense of numerous and confusing data sources. It then partnered with the Antiracist Center to found The COVID Racial Data Tracker. “This outbreak will not affect everyone equally,” says Madrigal. “It is moving through [US] institutional structures and socioeconomic realities. The COVID Racial Data Tracker is really to track racism, not to track race.”
Indeed, predominately Black counties have experienced three times the infection rate and six times the deaths as predominately White counties during the virus’s initial wave, which hit big cities hard. In L.A., for example, Latinx people made up 44% of the population, but 65% of the deaths.
Many states are not reporting infections among Native Americans—whose history already includes being ravaged by infections, such as smallpox and tuberculosis, carried by Europeans. But what we do know looks grim. Though Native Americans make up just 6% of Arizona’s population, they account for 16% of the state’s deaths. In New Mexico, they comprise 11% of the population, but 31% of deaths.
[But though communities of color are facing greater impact, testing resources have gone elsewhere.] In mid-April, an analysis by the New York Post found that 3.8 out of every 100 residents of Staten Island had been tested, as compared to only 2.9 per 100 in the Bronx and 2.5 per 100 in Queens. Staten Island is 75% white; the Bronx and Queens consist primarily of people of color. 22 of the 30 ZIP codes where the greatest numbers of COVID tests were conducted were either Whiter or wealthier than the city as a whole.
Data in depth here: https://covidtracking.com/race