#zero covid policy

[tomorrowusa]

The spy balloon isn’t hugely significant on its own, but it adds to the sense that Beijing’s competence has been exaggerated.

David Leonhardt at the New York Times.

There’s been a lot of hype regarding China this century. But a number of its actions suggest that its success has been overstated.

China is a totalitarian state. The government tries to micromanage the lives of its citizens. The way it handled the COVID-19 pandemic was an avoidable disaster.

The Chinese government foolishly refused to use mRNA vaccines produced in Europe and North America. Its own homemade vaccines were less effective and required the draconian “zero COVID” policy to keep the virus from spreading.

This article may explain why the Chinese government failed to effectively vaccinate its population when it could easily afford to.

Moderna refused China request to reveal vaccine technology, Financial Times reports

China has had a policy of forcing foreign companies to share their tech secrets as a prerequisite for doing business in China. Western businesses, salivating at the thought of massive profits on the mainland, mostly agreed. China was probably able to gather more tech know-how this way than through industrial espionage and hacking.

So Moderna (and likely BioNTech & Pfizer) wisely refused to hand their intellectual property over to the Chinese authorities. So the only people in China who eventually received the mRNA vaccines were foreign nationals who lived in the country.

As I noted a minute ago, China can easily afford the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines but the government has refused to import them because the companies would not submit to tech extortion.

When China’s zero COVID policy abruptly ended, the longstanding effort to extract intellectual property from the West severely backfired. Many of China’s top scholars, scientists, and intellectuals were among the numerous COVID-19 fatalities. It’s true that they were mostly elderly, but many still had years of productivity ahead of them.

In China’s Covid Fog, Deaths of Scholars Offer a Clue

Those are just the more famous ones. There are probably many additional less well-known scientists who died in recent months.

So the Chinese government is not only less competent than it would like the world to believe but it is also less competent than many anti-Chinese politicians in the West would like to have us believe.

[thistlecrimes]

Things I've learned from getting covid for the first time in 2023

I wear an N95 in public spaces and I've managed to dodge it for a long time, but I finally got covid for the first time (to my knowledge) in mid-late November 2023. It was a weird experience especially because I feel like it used to be something everyone was talking about and sharing info on, so getting it for the first time now (when people generally seem averse to talking about covid) I found I needed to seek out a lot of info because I wasn't sure what to do. I put so much effort into prevention, I knew less about what to do when you have it. I'm experiencing a rebound right now so I'm currently isolating. So, I'm making a post in the hopes that if you get covid (it's pretty goddamn hard to avoid right now) this info will be helpful for you. It's a couple things I already knew and several things I learned. One part of it is based on my experience in Minnesota but some other states may have similar programs.

--------

The World Health Organization states you should isolate for 10 days from first having symptoms plus 3 days after the end of symptoms.

--------

At the time of my writing this post, in Minnesota, we have a test to treat program where you can call, report the result of your rapid test (no photo necessary) and be prescribed paxlovid over the phone to pick up from your pharmacy or have delivered to you. It is free and you do not need to have insurance. I found it by googling "Minnesota Test to Treat Covid"

--------

Paxlovid decreases the risk of hospitalization and death, but it's also been shown to decrease the risk of Long Covid. Long Covid can occur even from mild or asymptomatic infections.

--------

Covid rebound commonly occurs 2-8 days after apparent recovery. While many people associate Paxlovid with covid rebound, researchers say there is no strong evidence that Paxlovid causes covid rebound, and rebounds occur in infections that were not treated with Paxlovid as well. I knew rebounds could happen but did not know it could take 8 days. I had mine on day 7 and was completely surprised by it.

--------

If you start experiencing new symptoms or test positive again, the CDC states that you should start your isolation period again at day zero. Covid rebound is still contagious. Personally I'd suggest wearing a high quality respirator around folks for an additional 8-9 days after you start to test negative in case of a rebound.

--------

Positive results on a rapid test can be very faint, but even a very faint line is positive result. Make sure to look at your rapid test result under strong lighting. Also, false negatives are not uncommon. If you have symptoms but test negative taking multiple tests and trying different brands if you have them are not bad ideas. My ihealth tests picked up my covid, my binax now tests did not.

--------

EDIT: I'd highly suggest spending time with friends online if you can, I previously had a link to the NAMI warmline directory in this post but I've since been informed that NAMI is very much funded by pharmaceutical companies and lobbies for policies that take autonomy away from disabled folks, so I've taken that off of here! Sorry, I had no idea, the People's CDC listed them as a resource so I just assumed they were legit! Feel free to reply/reblog this with other warmlines/support resources if you know of them! And please reblog this version!

--------

I know that there is so much we can't control as individuals right now, and that's frightening. All we can do is try our best to reduce harm and to care for each other. I hope this info will be able to help folks.

[auressea]

Where and How do we get new testkits? public health stopped supplying them-all the old ones have expired.

Some recent COVID-19 news

Growing Concern for back to school as data shows rising COVID cases in B.C.

A grassroots group of health professionals are calling for British Columbia to reinstate mask mandates in schools and hospitals to prevent a repeat “tripledemic” of COVID-19, RSV and influenza infections that pushed the province’s hospitals to the brink last fall.

And with data showing rising COVID-19 cases in B.C. and two new viral subvariants on the horizon, Protect Our Province B.C. says the province should act sooner rather than later.

The group is composed of more than a dozen doctors, nurses, researchers, teachers and professionals who advocate for evidence-based pandemic policies.

“We know from last year kids and schools were hit hard and if the goal is to keep kids learning in school we need to do what we can to prevent virus spread this fall,” said Dr. Lyne Filiatrault, a retired emergency room physician in Vancouver and a member of the group.

COVID response confounds SARS expert

As COVID-19 surges globally, a leading infectious disease specialist is confounded by the lack of pandemic mitigation measures in Ontario.

Q: What is your advice for people who want to stay safe this fall?

Dr. Dick Zoutman: “One is to be informed. I do recommend Dr. Tara Moriarty’s website — COVID19resources.ca,” Zoutman said. “We owe her a large debt.”

Second, when the latest COVID-19 vaccine is available, “get it,” he recommended.

Third, “buy N95 respirators and make sure you have plenty and have one with you all the time. And when you go into an indoor public space — be it a hospital, a bank, a grocery store, school — put it on. The best ones are the ones that go around your head, because they’re tighter.”

Fourth, antigen rapid tests must be made widely available. “If you have any symptoms, you need to test and isolate yourself.”

Finally, avoid indoor public places this fall, he said. “I haven’t eaten in a restaurant in almost four years, and I don’t intend to.”

[afeelgoodblog]

The Best News of Last Week

🌍🌡️ - Climate Prophecy: The Forecast Is 100% Chance of 'Cool'

1. No cases of cancer caused by HPV in Norwegian 25-year olds, the first cohort to be mass vaccinated for HPV

Last year there were zero cases of cervical cancer in the population that was vaccinated in 2009 against the HPV virus, which can cause the cancer in women. The HPV virus is extremely common, basically everyone comes into contact with one version or another of the virus in their lifetime.

The vaccine was given to girls only out of an abundance of caution, they were the most likely to contract cancer from the viruses, and because there was limited supply.

2. ‘Every square inch is covered in life’: the ageing oil rigs that became marine oases

Built decades ago, California’s offshore oil platforms are home to a huge diversity of marine life. According to a 2014 study, the rigs were some of the most “productive” ocean habitats in the world, a term that refers to biomass – or number of fish and other creatures and how much space they take up – per unit area.

3. Vaccinations may have prevented almost 20 million COVID-19 deaths worldwide

Vaccinations estimated to have averted 19.8 million COVID-19 deaths worldwide in their first year, according to the latest Imperial modelling study.

In the first year of the vaccination programme, 19.8 million out of a potential 31.4 million COVID-19 deaths were prevented worldwide according to estimates based on excess deaths from 185 countries and territories.

4. Global climate policy forecast predicts ‘well below 2°C’ Paris Agreement climate goals will be met

They report only a 10% probability we exceed 2°C by 2050. Temperatures are expected to peak between 1.7°C and 1.8°C, which is consistent with the “well below 2°C” objective of the Paris Agreement in Art. 2.1c.

5. Young driver fatality rates have fallen sharply in the US, helped by education, technology

Crash and fatality rates among drivers under 21 have fallen dramatically in the U.S. during the past 20 years.

Using data from 2002-2021, the report says that fatal crashes involving a young driver fell by 38%, while deaths of young drivers dropped even more, by about 45%.

6. A Virginia woman was feeling sad. Her doctor prescribed her a cat.

7. Remote workers report saving $5,000 to $10,000 a year

What value would American workers place on the privilege to work from home?

In a 2022 survey by FlexJobs, 45% of remote workers reported saving at least $5,000 a year. One in 5 reported saving $10,000 a year. The savings average out to about $6,000 a year. The poll reached 4,000 workers in July and August of last year.

Three years into the remote-work revolution, research increasingly suggests that telework is a commodity, a job descriptor worth thousands of dollars in potential savings and improved quality of life.

---

That's it for this week :)

This newsletter will always be free. If you liked this post you can support me with a small kofi donation here:

Buy me a coffee ❤️

Also don’t forget to reblog this post with your friends.

[triviallytrue]

Tbf you can make the argument that we relaxed about covid too quick and everyone should've pursued a China-style zero covid policy forever. And you'd be wrong (even China realized this was stupid), but it's an argument

What you can't argue is "the pandemic is still going on and everyone just magically decided to ignore that" because it is extremely blatantly false

[yourtoradorasextendedwarranty]

People speedrunning hating the West with clickbait bullshit like this. Meanwhile I wonder how many died in the Uhigur Camps and during the Zero Covid Policy that China LIED about how many people died. And even if this is clickbait, it pushes that same narrative. Because most people ONLY read headlines.

China is not "Objectively" better than the US. Better at killing their own people sure, but I guess from their perspective they are better because they have less, what was it that guy said to me? Oh yeah, "China is better country because we have less whores and gays. No naked people in streets dancing around. US is disgusting and we don't have the problem you have".

Yeah no see. His english was not the best but the sentiment is funny considering how many progressives would be pissed at the message while literally DICK RIDING the country. Ya know, that uses actual slave labor, has women in camps and rapes them because they were born wrong, and kills its own citizens on a whim. Truely a bastion of freedom and acceptance.

And more to the point. Even with the content of this video, I disagree with this thumbnail. It paints the wrong image. And many people will see it, nod along with the message and keep scrolling. Most of the only people that will click it is those that disagree with the message. Not those that agree.

But for the sake of brevity here's the video

[prolibytherium]

I drove 220 miles for this.

Today my Fargo quest becomes a reality. Any of my 278 tpotal followers happen to live in Fargo and want to have some sort of freakish encounter (nonsexual) in a Hornbachers parking lot . Not saying which Hornbachers if it's meant to be we will find each other on vibes alone

[covid-safer-hotties]

Also preserved on our archive

Long Covid, the constellation of long-term health effects caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection, is a significant global health crisis affecting at least 400 million individuals worldwide, with a cost of $ 1 trillion, equivalent to 1% of the global Gross Domestic Product. Long Covid can affect nearly every organ system resulting in various symptoms including fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, post-exertional malaise, autonomic dysfunction, and chronic conditions including new onset diabetes, cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal and neurologic disorders. Long Covid can affect people across the lifespan and across age, race and ethnicity, and baseline health status.

Chinese scientists were among the first to report Long Covid in people who survived the acute phase of Covid-19. However, these early seminal Chinese studies on Long Covid were exclusively from Wuhan – where the pandemic originated. Because of China’s zero Covid policies, infection rates plummeted quickly in Wuhan and were very low and sporadic outside of Wuhan for much of 2020, 2021, and 2022. However, China relaxed its zero Covid policies at the end of 2022 which led to explosion of cases – hundreds of millions of Chinese got infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the weeks and months following the lifting of zero Covid policies.

Now a report by Qin and colleagues provides insights into the colossal scale of Long Covid that resulted from those infections. Their large-scale survey of 74,075 Chinese participants, one of the largest studies of its kind and the first from China, shows that approximately 10%–30% of survey participants reported experiencing Long Covid symptoms such as fatigue, memory decline, decreased exercise ability, and brain fog. The features of Long Covid in China mirror those observed in studies conducted in other parts of the world. This underscores the consistency of Long Covid features across national borders, cultures and healthcare settings.

Interestingly, the authors show that despite having milder acute symptoms during reinfection, participants who experienced multiple infections were more likely to experience various Long Covid symptoms with greater severity. The authors show that having two infections is risk factor for many long-term Covid symptoms, and the risk increased exponentially when the number of infections exceeded two. These new data on Long Covid risk after reinfection are remarkably consistent with prior studies.

Another critical insight from the study is the protective role of Covid-19 vaccines in reducing the incidence and severity of Long Covid. The data shows that vaccination, particularly with multiple booster shots, significantly decreases the risk of developing long-term symptoms. These findings are consistent with other studies showing that vaccines reduce the risk of Long Covid. Despite this, Covid-19 vaccine policies in much of the world consider effectiveness of vaccines in reducing risks of hospitalization and death during the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection (which are most evident in older adults and people with comorbidities) and ignore their protective effect on Long Covid – a condition that affects people across the lifespan including young adults and children. Consequently, restrictive vaccine policies exclude children, young and healthy adults who may benefit from the beneficial effects of vaccine on Long Covid. Vaccine policies must holistically consider the benefit profile of Covid-19 vaccines including their effects in lowering the risk of Long Covid.

Looking forward, there are several key areas where Long Covid research must focus. There is an urgent need for comprehensive—and globally coordinated—Long Covid research strategy to understand the biological mechanisms, develop diagnostics, test therapeutics, characterize the long-term epidemiology and clinical course, evaluate health care delivery, and assess the impacts of Long Covid on patients, care givers, health systems, economies and societies.

Equally important are policies to prevent Long Covid; support impacted individuals and their care givers; and ensure access, quality and equity of care. Policies are also needed to promote public awareness and facilitate professional training for health care providers.

China, with its rich scientific history, is poised to contribute significantly to solving the puzzle of Long Covid. The international community must come together to identify areas of synergies in research, share data, resources, and expertise to accelerate progress on Long Covid. This includes fostering partnerships between governments, academic institutions, and the private sector, as well as engaging with patient advocacy groups to ensure that research is aligned with the needs and experiences of those affected by Long Covid.

The study by Qin and colleagues offers the first comprehensive view of the state of Long Covid in China. The findings are both sobering and illuminating. Long Covid is clearly a serious public health challenge in China, as it is globally. These insights underscore the urgent need for a coordinated international response to address this significant and growing crisis. The stakes are high. Yet, throughout history, humanity has risen to the challenge of solving complex problems. We must now face Long Covid with the same resolve, ingenuity, and collaborative spirit that have driven our greatest achievements.

[urialnathanonwright]

Trump’s War on Science: A Betrayal of Public Health and Common Sense

You ever hear a bad idea so blindingly stupid you have to stop and wonder if it was cooked up by someone actively rooting for humanity’s downfall? Well, Donald Trump has managed to pull a double-header in that department. First, his administration is plotting to halt federal funding for gain-of-function research—critical work that helps us understand and combat the next global pandemic. Second, Trump’s team wants to muzzle the CDC, NIH, and other federal health agencies, halting their ability to communicate with the public and fund life-saving research. Folks, this is not just incompetence; it’s a slow-motion catastrophe.

Let’s start with gain-of-function research. Now, I get it—making viruses more dangerous in a lab sounds like the start of a bad sci-fi movie. But the reality is this: it’s one of the best tools we have to predict and prevent pandemics. It’s like doing a fire drill—you simulate the worst-case scenario so you’re ready when the real thing happens. But Trump and his enablers, in their infinite ignorance, want to shut it all down. Why? Because a bunch of conspiracy-loving Republicans blame it for Covid-19, even though there’s zero evidence to support that claim. None. Nada. Zilch.

Let me be clear: killing this research won’t make us safer—it’ll leave us defenseless. You think other countries will stop doing this work? Of course not. China, Russia, and others will keep pushing the envelope, while we sit here twiddling our thumbs, pretending ignorance is a shield against viruses. Spoiler alert: it’s not. Pandemics don’t care about your politics. They don’t care if you think science is scary or inconvenient. They just spread—and if we’re not ready, people die. It’s that simple.

Now, let’s move on to the second act of this disaster: silencing our top health agencies. Trump’s HHS has decided that all scientific communications must be vetted by political appointees before being released. Translation: they’re putting public health in the hands of spin doctors. This isn’t just unethical; it’s dangerous. During a bird flu outbreak, they’re delaying critical reports. Scientists can’t publish data, can’t approve grants, and can’t even speak publicly without some bureaucrat rubber-stamping it first. And all this during a time when trust in public health institutions is already hanging by a thread.

Let me spell this out: these actions are not about protecting people. They’re about control. Trump and his cronies are weaponizing ignorance, suppressing inconvenient truths, and sabotaging the very systems designed to keep us safe—all for political gain. This isn’t just bad policy; it’s an abdication of responsibility, a betrayal of trust, and a clear and present danger to every single one of us.

So, what do we do? We fight back. We demand accountability. We refuse to let science be politicized by a man whose grasp of facts is as flimsy as his hairline. This isn’t about left or right—it’s about survival. If we let this slide, if we let Trump’s war on science go unchecked, we won’t just be risking the next pandemic—we’ll be inviting it. And when it comes, the blame will lie squarely at the feet of those who chose politics over progress and willful ignorance over wisdom. Let’s make sure history remembers their names—and ours, as the ones who stood up and said, "Enough."

[dosesofcommonsense]

Foreign Aid, Renewable Energy, Earth’s temperature - ALL money laundering platforms that produce zero results.

Israel spends more on their New Jersey sized piece of land per capita than any other country. The US doesn’t have a secure border, but we sent $28B to Israel to reinforce their border. Israel has an Iron Dome. They know everything coming in and out. The US currently has an open door policy and Kamala and the Red Cross are telling people where to enter. We should support Israel, BUT we should not help any other country until we fix our own: take care of our troops, pay off our debts, pay out the retirements that have been built and help people create private retirement accounts not controlled or spent by the government, end homelessness, end hunger. IF we ever fixed all that stuff, then we can consider helping someone else…and to all the countries who hate us and burn our flag and seek our death, they don’t get a cent.

Renewable Energy DEPENDS upon oil. You cannot get renewable energy without oil. You cannot build it or maintain it without oil.

Climate. Carbon is good for the environment. Plants use it and give us oxygen. Cut carbon and people would die. It’s pushed globally by the same groups that brought COVID and the MRNA death sticks. They wanted to kill you, and it hasn’t changed. Why believe them this time after countless lies and attempts to kill you?

[libdeminomenon]

2025 Predictions:

- Rachel Reeves gone by the end of the year.

- The Rest Is Politics interview Kamala Harris and / or Michelle Obama.

- Peter Mandelson / other important Labour Party figure is exposed in a leak slagging off Trump. Outrage.

- Keir Starmer hugs Ed Davey and they play FIFA for charity.

- Lee Anderson pornography scandal.

- George Osborne randomly admits he did a fuck load of cocaine at one point in his political career and no one is surprised.

- Right-wing media starts panicking that Keir Starmer is going to make us join the Euro currency, based on absolutely zero evidence.

- Ian Hislop / other big pundit goes viral slagging off Brigit Phillipson’s education policies and she is forced to fight for her job.

- It is revealed that the Tory sleaze was even worse than originally thought. Boris Johnson makes a Nick Clegg-style apology video and it is immediately remixed into a chart-topping banger.

- Wes Streeting cries publicly. He is also accused of bullying within the Labour Party but that is unrelated.

- Kemi Badenoch has an Ed Miliband bacon sandwich moment.

- Israel win the judge’s vote in Eurovision.

- House of Lords reform becomes The Big Thing. Keir Starmer faces rebellion from his own party as some of them quite like being lords. Lib Dems win more public support through this.

- Sir Sadiq Khan scandal. Labour Party refuse to acknowledge it and bring up Tory COVID parties whenever it’s mentioned.

- Someone makes a Rory Stewart documentary and suggests that he *was* a spy.

- Nigel Farage is videoed saying he doesn’t care about how much the British people are suffering so long as they continue to vote for him. His supporters either defend him and accuse the Left of not being about to take a joke or defect to another far-right party.

- Daisy Cooper dabs / flosses / does a TikTok dance.

- A petition to ban Donald Trump from the UK reaches five million signatures. It fails to change anything, but the Liberal Democrats and the Greens lead a protest of over a million people through the streets of London.

- Trump says he loves the English people but he’s not so keen on the Pakistanis and the Welsh.

- Ed Balls has a massive argument with Rachel Reeves on Good Morning Britain. He is accused by Centrists in the Labour Party of being “a traitor” and “a bad husband”.

- Someone shits themselves in the House of Commons.

- Tony Blair says something about trans people again / is photographed with JK Rowling. In response, Gordon Brown comes out with his unequivocal support for trans people everywhere.

- Ed Miliband paints his nails.

Feel free to add your own predictions !! I’d love to hear what everyone thinks :)

[matan4il]

Daily update post:

You might have seen me mentioning before the Palestinian Authority's "Pay for Slay" policy, where they pay Palestinian terrorists based on how deadly their attacks have been. Let me share something even worse: based on the Oslo peace accords from the 1990's, Israel collects the Palestinian tax money, and then passes it along to the PA. Which means, when Israel became aware of the "Pay for Slay" law (yes, turns out that it's a LAW, not just a program, that the Palestinian Authority pays terrorists... the same PA that now has the audacity to claim at the International court in Hague that Israel is committing a genocide, meaning the intentional destruction of, or a part of, a nation... I think a LAW that financially incentivizes terrorists to kill members of the Israeli nation fits), it also realized that Israeli authorities, paying with Israeli tax payer money for the work done by Israeli clerks tasked with doing this, has been collecting and passing along money that goes to pay Palestinian terrorists for having attacked, injured and murdered Israelis. In what world is that right? In what world is it moral to make a victim, through a "peace accord" participate in the payment to its victimizer? As part of the money collected by Israel and given to the PA, an annual 278 million dollars (!) are then passed by it to Palestinian terrorists for hurting and killing Israelis. The PA has already added Oct 7 terrorists, most of them Hamas members, to the list of those being paid thanks to the "Pay for Slay" law.

The annual payment was revealed thanks to a lawsuit by the parents of 26 years old Dalia Lemkus, who was stabbed to death in Nov 2014 by a Palestinian terrorist (he also injured 2 others. Dalia herself had survived a previous terrorist attack in 2006. On the day she was murdered, another Israeli was killed in a separate terrorist attack. I don't think most people realize just how intense Palestinian terrorism is). The lawsuit was filed against the PA, which has been paying him 3,300 dollars a month. This is Dalia, may her memory be a blessing:

I'm not gonna lie, I'm thinking about the fact that coincidentally, I've been at our Holocaust museum and education center since Nov 2014, with the purpose of helping to educate against antisemitism, racism, homophobia, every other type of generalized hatred that humans are capable of, and against genocide, which is the possible consequence of that type of hate. And a part of what's wrong with this world, is that even with me being a "veteran," I get paid less money a month than that Palestinian terrorist does for having murdered a Jewish woman based on that kind of generalized hatred. My income depends on how many tours, lectures or workshops I did that month, but in almost 10 years of working there, I have never had a month where I got a salary of 3,300 dollars, most months I don't make it to half of that, and I have had many months where my salary was zero (during Covid, and whenever the security situation is bad enough that no one comes to our museum). Don't get me wrong, I consciously made a choice to do this work, where my salary would be very low, because I wanted to do something meaningful, I'm not complaining, but I can't help thinking about the fact that a part of why antisemitism thrives, is because it IS socially and financially rewarded, clearly more so than fighting it. That was true before and during the Holocaust, and sadly has been true since as well.

I would love to understand how the evacuation of civilian Gazans out of the war zone is described as "ethnic cleansing" or worse, but not the evacuation of Ukrainian civilians out of those war zones, and not the evacuation of a Hamas-affiliated Al Jazeera "journalist" (who documented himself in southern Israel during Hamas' massacre), taken out of Gaza to Egypt, to be flown from there to Qatar, one of the two great financiers of Hamas (along with Iran). Qatar has not opened up its gates to wounded Gazan civilians. It's clear Ismail Abu Omar was given this special treatment precisely because he is a Hamas terrorist. What's scary about this possibility is that the IDF didn't know he was smuggled out of Gaza, begging the question, who else is Hamas smuggling out? Also, this is Hamas' middle finger to anyone claiming Gaza is closed off, and an open air prison or concentration camp...

Speaking of Qatar, it is currently hosting the swimming world championship. Israeli swimmer Anastasia Gorbenko won a silver medal, a huge Israeli achievement, but she got repeatedly booed by the crowd, including during the medals ceremony. Anastasia has a childhood classmate who is currently held hostage in Gaza. She dedicated her medal to him.

A TV report by an Israeli journalist (source in Hebrew) is about a Hamas document dated May 2023, which the IDF found, the summary of a Hamas leaders meeting. It details some of the considerations for the timing of "the big project," listing 4 Jewish holidays as possibilities for the massacre (including Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish year, and Simchat Torah, when the massacre actually took place), so it's clear Hamas was always going to use our holy days against us. Another thing mentioned is that Hamas must strike before Israel deploys Magen Or (literally: shield of light, but most publications in English refer to it as Iron Beam), the laser-based defense system meant to complement Iron Dome. The system has been making a lot of progress, enough that by Oct 2023 there have been reports on it becoming operational soon. The document mentions making Israel used to Hamas conducting large scale exercises close to the border, so that the commotion ahead of the massacre wouldn't look abnormal, and it also mentions making use of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the second biggest Palestinian terrorist organization in Gaza. It wasn't included in the plans, but was being relied on. In recent years, all of Israel's operations in Gaza have been against PIJ, and Hamas chose not to join them, the document indicates that this was done in order to reinforce the idea in Israel that Hamas is more interested in the wellfare of Gazans, than in killing Israelis. At the same time, the document warns not to let PIJ fuck up Hamas' planned operation.

I did not write about the private initiative of family members to send medications through international mediators to Hamas, meant for the hostages, for the simple reason that I did not for a second believe Hamas would give the hostages these meds. I didn't wanna get my hopes up, when logically, I was sure such initiatives were futile. Now, thanks to the IDF's operation in the Nasser hospital in Khan Younis, we have confirmation that these meds were found in its pharmacy, with the names of the hostages on the unopened boxes, meaning the kidnapped Israelis never got them. We can assume the meds were kept in the hospital pharmacy, either to serve Hamas terrorists, or to be sold, with the money going to Hamas.

This is Matan ben Ari, the last Israeli injured on Oct 7 (out of thousands) to be discharged from the hospital on Dec 1, almost two full months after Hamas' massacre. People spontaneously gathered around to applaud him as he was making his way out:

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

[darkmaga-returns]

It will come as no surprise to learn that Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos have invested heavily in “climate vaccines“.

The pair are bankrolling the development of a vaccine designed to reduce the methane produced by cattle.

In the video below Josh Sigurdson of World alternative Media reports on how they are pushing this latest agenda:

“Jeff Bezos’ “Earth Fund” is attempting to do something Bill Gates has also been investing in for years. So-called “vaccines” that stop cows from emitting gas. Of course this is simply an excuse to inject cows with mysterious poisons which then end up being fed to the masses. These injections are the latest example of the “poisoning of the well” as we also see the push for mRNA Bird Flu “vaccines” in the food supply.

This latest story once again correlates the World Economic Forum’s goal of net zero with the Covid hoax as the WEF openly stated in 2022 that “Covid” was a test for compliance to bring in climate policies and 15 Minute Cities.

Recently, the United Nations Pact For The Future was signed by 193 countries and includes the net zero agenda, the eventual banning of meat, the shuttering of bank accounts if you say negative things about the establishment online and the integration of carbon credits attached to your bank account.

As we see weather modification across the board causing disasters, as we see the war on farmers, as we see the push for both World War 3 and Civil War which would allow the state to bring in emergency orders while destroying the supply chain, as we see the mass culling of animals under the guise of “Bird Flu,” as we see inflation driving food prices up, it’s blatantly clear the direction they’re leading us to. The destruction of the supply chain, the poisoning of what is left and the enforcement of rations on digital IDs. The global technocracy nears more every day.

We are witnessing mass death from the “Covid vaccines” and as more is exposed about the hoax, we’re being hit by a dozen other things to not only distract us but keep people in a perpetual state of fear so that the culprits themselves can come in and pretend to be a “solution.”

The solution is you. Reject the system. Withdraw from the system. Build your own, grow your own, stock up and exit the global financial system as much as possible.”

[txttletale]

as an immunocompromised and disabled person it very much does matter if individual people refuse to wear masks. this isn’t like trying to row back the harm of fossil fuel companies with reusable shopping bags or whatever. yes society is broken etc but even if it weren’t, masking would still result in fewer infections and lower risk than not.

if individual people refuse to wear masks when there is a mask mandate policy, that's meaningfully bad, yeah. but when there is no policy enforcing population-level mask adoption (as is now the case) then the difference caused by one person's masking habits is neglible enough to be meaningless. masks prevent transmission when adopted at a community level. being in a crowd of 100 people is just as dangerous whether one or zero of them is wearing a mask. it is basically exactly like reusable shopping bags because whether one individual chooses to mask or not makes no difference whatsoever to the transmissibility of covid in whatever public spaces they're in

[dailyanarchistposts]

When Elon Musk took over Twitter and the platform began to tank, the stock value plummeted, and people were leaving in droves, many of us thought he was just an arrogant doofus, a parasitic man-child who became a billionaire by throwing around free money, more recently billions in government subsidies but originally, as a kid, his massive inheritance from South African diamond mines. And he is all those things, but there is also something more going on here.

The Twitter takeover, in fact, possesses an opaque but important similarity with—of all things—the Chinese government’s COVID policy. If we assume that Musk’s many fumbles with one of the world’s largest social media platforms is nothing but a blunder, nothing but stupidity, then we miss out on an illuminating question. Which, it turns out, is the same question we miss when we assume the Chinese government’s zero tolerance COVID policy is a mere example of totalitarian inclinations or a different public health culture (both of which are explanations infused with racist stereotypes).

So what on Earth connects Elon Musk to China’s COVID policy? For one thing, one of Musk’s other companies, Tesla, became the first foreign company to wholly own a car factory in China when they opened an assembly plant in Shanghai in 2019. The Shanghai Gigafactory is one of Tesla’s largest, though it ran into problems when the government temporarily closed it down in 2020, and again in March 2022, to enforce a COVID quarantine. As the threat of new quarantines pops up, Musk might consider sending new investments to countries with weaker regulations like India. Apple, for example, is increasingly relying on India over China for iPhone production, meaning China’s COVID policy is costing them foreign direct investment.

There’s the similarity. A government policy causing a loss in revenue. A new corporate policy causing a plummet in stock value. Are we to judge both of these policies failures, or at the least, ineffective, because they lost money?

And that gets us to our central question: do companies and governments in this capitalist world system exist to make money? Is money, capital accumulation, the fundamental driving force of our world?

If it is, then both the turbulence Elon Musk has caused at Twitter and the stagnation the Chinese government has inflicted on its own economy due to its zero tolerance COVID policies have to be viewed as blunders, as they have unarguably caused a loss of economic value. However, in both cases, we might at least entertain the possibility that such an argument is reductionist if it hides other factors and outcomes that cannot be so easily quantified.

And quantification is an angle we need to explore to be able to answer this question. Even though the vagaries of international finance make it an obscure field, economic loss is easy to measure relative to qualitative forms of evaluation. Did Twitter lose value? Did the growth rate of the Chinese economy contract? Since both of these questions can be reduced to a number and real numbers are arranged along a single dimension, meaning we can always say whether one number is more or less than another number, then yes, Twitter lost value, and yes, the Chinese economy began to grow at a slower rate. So if it’s all about money, both of these policies were mistakes.

Before considering the case closed, should we be thinking about any kinds of qualitative as opposed to quantitative analysis that might illuminate the topic? After all, the knowledge systems of all the dominant institutions of our society are heavily biased in favor of quantitative and objective frameworks of thought; in fact this epistemology is central to the rationalism of the modern state and of capitalism itself, given that they allow for reproducibility and thus industrialism as both an economic and a political or war-making mode, and they allow ethical and spiritual frameworks to be subsumed into the construction of society itself, therefore making them invisible and immune to being questioned. If you want me to explain this idea more, let me know and I’ll devote some time to it in the future, but for now, let’s get back to Twitter.

What did Musk accomplish at Twitter, aside from losing unimaginably vast sums of money and showing the entire world that he’s not as intelligent as he thinks he is? He has taken a huge step to create a more right-wing media environment in what might become the biggest change to the landscape since the emergence of Fox News. True, Twitter’s algorithms always favored the specific content and also the controversy-seeking, baiting tactics of the Right. It is also true that conversation on Twitter was more often than not superficial and demeaning. However, we should not deny that anarchists and other anticapitalists saw Twitter as an important space for organizing and outreach. I had never been on social media my entire life, until finally around the end of 2019, when other anarchists convinced me that it did not make sense for me to spend so much time writing if I was going to avoid the platforms where writing and political analysis were actually being distributed in the current day.

And there are other corners of Twitter where emotional supportiveness, care, and mutual aid are actually the norm, spaces important in many people’s lives for building safety and opportunities for healing and connection, in rejection of the ableist, trans- and homophobic, racist culture that predominates in public space.

So yes, Twitter is a hellsite, but if we so quickly forget about some of the things that brought us there, we risk missing the relevance of this moment. Musk’s takeover of Twitter has enabled a fierce campaign of censorship against anarchist and other anticapitalist accounts, frequently executed by Musk himself, to such an extent that we should seriously consider that this was one of his primary motivations, more than making money. We already know that restoring Trump’s account was a motivator for him.

Meanwhile, the centrist media has given massive coverage to the Right’s “free speech” anti-censorship alibi. They continue to portray Musk as an anti-censorship figure, restoring far-Right accounts that had been banned, and they refuse to mention the accounts that Musk has been banning.

What about the Chinese government’s zero-tolerance COVID policy? Obviously, shutting everything down in a neighborhood, a city, or an entire region as soon as a rise in COVID cases is detected is going to be disruptive to the economy, as when when authorities closed down Tesla’s Shanghai Gigafactory and so many other thousands of factories. For a while now, Chinese planners and economists internationally have figures detailing how the zero-tolerance and other regulatory policies are slowing the economy and causing unemployment to skyrocket.

It’s important to mention that GDP growth is not just a metric imposed by Western observers. The Chinese Communist Party under Xi Jinping has made GDP growth targets a central part of their ruling strategy and their conceptualization of development. And yet, midway through the year, when it became clear they would not even meet their already reduced target of 5.5% growth, they chose to prioritize their restrictive no COVID policies.

Most countries in the world chose to allow a massive number of deaths in exchange for better economic growth. In the US, that’s over 1 million deaths, a figure we don’t see the media mention very often. However, the Chinese government cannot accurately be accused of humanitarianism, given that their solutions have included locking workers into their factories. In fact, their zero-tolerance COVID policy bears a striking similarity to Mao’s Four Pests Campaign, which sought to drive animals like flies and sparrows to extinction as a part of the government’s ambitious agricultural program. The purpose is less to save lives and more to eliminate external, natural forces capable of disrupting a rational, quantitative planning process.

A couple notes here, for accuracy. Mao is frequently lambasted for trying to eliminate sparrows, and the disastrous ecological consequences that policy had. At the same time (late ‘50s) and for significantly longer, the US government was trying to exterminate the wolves. Also, Western hacks and mainstream media frequently refer to socialist states as “planned economies” and NATO states as “free market economies.” Though there are significant differences in the strategies of state intervention in the economy, these labels are bogus since all modern states exist on the same continuum. The US government, from the beginning but even more so since FDR, engages in substantive economic planning, deciding which sectors will get the most capital, deciding interest rates, setting targets for inflation; and the Chinese government allows and encourages a massive private sector that is more responsive to market forces.

The reason all states engage in planning, and a more accurate framework for understanding the nature of that planning, is social control.

What is social control? The Marxist I like the most told me it is a fetishistic, meaningless category. Actually, it’s a necessary concept for explaining some glaring holes in Marxism itself and in any framework that sees capital accumulation as the be-all and end-all for understanding our society.

Musk’s actions make sense, even though they lost him $9 billion dollars, because like any capitalist he is worried about fundamental questions of social control that allow him to be a capitalist in the first place. The Chinese government’s actions make sense because developing techniques that allow a state to neutralize and surpass epidemics would greatly increase that state’s planning powers, and even if they fail they are testing and amplifying their arsenal of social control techniques, and social control is the fundamental concern of any state and thus the fundamental concern of capitalism, being an economic system entirely dependent on state power.

In this context it is worth noting that the Chinese government decided to relax their COVID policy not in early July, when they were forced to choose that policy over their economic growth targets, but at the end of November, when mass protests bordering on insurrection against the policy broke out. The policy got in the way of economic accumulation: they stuck to it. The policy got in the way of social control: they abandoned it.

Academically trained Marxists are going to be biased in favor of a quantitative analysis, like seeing capital accumulation as the fundamental force in our society, for the same reasons that all our dominant institutions are biased in favor of quantitative analysis. A qualitative analysis is not reproducible, and the modern state needs access to reproducible sciences.

This seems like a contradiction to claim that the state is fundamentally motivated by a qualitative science, like social control, and yet constantly in need of a quantitative science like capital accumulation. In fact, this contradiction traces a tense balance, a relation, that has come to shape the entire planet in these last centuries. The fundamental truth of the State is social control, an existential war waged by centralized power against all life. And the most effective motor the State has ever developed to fuel its war is not a winning religion, it’s not a more streamlined process for the transfer of power, it’s economic accumulation. Before capitalism, states were exponentially weaker, frequently overthrown by the societies they tried to dominate, even when state and society shared the hierarchical culture produced by patriarchy and organized religion.

Capitalism, which requires the enclosure of the commons and the alienation of all life, cannot exist without the planning and war-making powers of the State. And once capitalism emerged, created in a continuum by the Italian city-states, the Castillian-Aragonese state, and finally in its modern form by the Dutch state, it bestowed the states that adopted it with such power that henceforth it became the duty of every government on the planet to embrace capitalism, lest they be overwhelmed by those that already had. This sheds light on one of the reasons that colonialism spread in such a rapid wave, especially where there were already states that could be instrumentalized in the conquered territories. And it helps explain why socialism, by not rejecting the state, was fully absorbed by capitalism in the early 20th century, and why all Marxist-inspired states are fully capitalist, fully colonial, and every bit as imperialist as their geopolitical circumstances allow them to be.

Capital accumulation is a necessary motor for the state; it is also a favored metric for a quantitative science of power. Given that accumulation is a result of oppressive, exploitative processes and it cannot happen without the domination of society and nature, high rates of accumulation are generally a good indicator that state power is firmly ensconced, that the State is winning its war against life. Still, the fundamental question is that of social control. Many capitalists, as specialists, will lose sight of this as they become obsessed with their numbers game, but in the end it’s just a game, a highly useful game, and when push comes to shove, questions of social war will always be more important for the institutions of power. The trick for them is to make sure that seeking capital accumulation and seeking social control always go hand in hand, rather than entering into contradiction.

As for anticapitalist movements, we lose sight of the social war at our own risk. The reasons for this are multiple. Marxism’s predictive power regarding the development of the revolution is nil, displaying a profound lack of understanding of what revolution actually means. Attempts to combine materialist with geopolitical analysis, as with Giovanni Arrighi’s development of world systems theory (on the whole an illuminating theoretical framework) also demonstrate their inaccuracy and disconnection from living history wherever they focus too heavily on quantitative questions of capital accumulation, a weakness explored in Alex Gorrion’s “Anarchy in World Systems.” These are not just obscure questions relating to debates from past centuries, given how academic, materialist-oriented journals and discussion groups continue to falsify the history of revolutionary struggle as we live it, claiming, for example, that the major uprisings of the past two decades have occurred as a result of the crisis of accumulation, when in fact the uprisings preceded the manifestation of that crisis and have occurred in countries experiencing polar opposite moments in the kinds of crises capitalism constantly produces.

(I shouldn’t have to provide this rebuttal, but alas, experience tells me I do: it is intellectually dishonest and a waste of everyone’s time to start off by claiming that rebellion is “produced” by a specific quantitative crisis in accumulation, to then be shown that in fact rebellions are occurring in completely different economic circumstances—the crises associated with growth, the crises associated with recession, the crises associated with inflation—and then to double back around and claim that one’s original argument was that crisis produces rebellion. Given that capitalism is a constant string of crises, this is a meaningless statement with nothing predictive or scientific about it, and it sets up the dishonest strawman that non-materialists believe that rebellions come out of thin air, in no way a response to their surroundings.)

Time and again, the first sign of crisis that materialists notice is the rebellion itself, meaning they are rarely on the front lines. Those who are more present tend to be those who decide to fight back even if objective conditions are supposedly unfavorable.

For our survival, we need to understand the ways the State is designing a constant war against us, and always has been, and always will be. For our liberation, we need to understand unquantifiable life, abundance without capital, and we need to develop an intelligence for a kind of struggle that also subverts the logic of warfare. A collective sight that can perceive the battlefield but destroy the opposing army by moving sideways, by burrowing, by climbing into the trees, by turning the battlefield back into a field, a forest, a community.

[beardedmrbean]

Who knew? Nearly three and a half years after Covid-19 first appeared on the scene, the World Health Organisation has declared the pandemic officially over.

And there we all were thinking it had ended more than a year ago, when the UK and much of the rest of Europe abandoned the last of their Covid restrictions.

Late to recognise Covid as a pandemic, the WHO has also been late to acknowledge that thanks in large measure to Western medicines and vaccines, it is also now essentially part of history.

Perhaps that's because of the continued influence of China, which only very recently abandoned its zero-Covid policy.

As long as a major economy was still imprisoning its citizens at the slightest sign of infection, then I suppose it was indeed hard to declare the disease no longer a public health emergency.

For most of us, the pandemic has nevertheless been over for a long time now. 

The grimly dispiriting legacy is, however, still very much with us. 

In the UK, the national debt is a fifth of GDP higher than it was, inflation has soared to double digits, economically sub-optimal work from home remains deeply entrenched, labour shortages abide, and many people still complain of long term sickness – much of it unrelated to Covid as such but seemingly triggered by the pandemic's deprivations – with record numbers claiming out of work benefits.

The Government's response to Covid always looked to me like a ruinous over-reaction, and I became something of a lockdown sceptic.

I say “something of” because in the initial stages of the pandemic – call it the “we're all going to die” phase – something fairly dramatic was obviously called for, watching the TV images of emergency hospitals being built in Wuhan and overwhelmed ICU units in Northern Italy.

Politically, it would have been virtually impossible for the UK to have stood alone in remaining open even as virtually the whole of the rest of Europe was closing down. 

The Government would have fallen within weeks if it had stood by and done nothing. 

Even Sweden, which seems to have got its approach about right, eventually implemented a watered down version of the restrictions imposed elsewhere.

Instinctively, Boris Johnson, then Prime Minister, was against lockdown, preferring instead the idea of “herd immunity”, but then he became seriously ill himself, and ended up fully embracing the made-in-China response.

For some, such as the former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption – who would regularly warn of police state authoritarianism – the objection was on principled libertarian grounds.

This was, however, very much a minority position. One of the most remarkable things about the whole sorry affair is quite how compliant the country proved, and how quickly we succumbed to instruction. 

Somewhat alarmingly, it turned out that supposedly freedom loving societies are remarkably willing to submit to authoritarian rule, especially if paid to stay at home, as was the case with furlough in the UK. 

Even the Government was surprised by the obedience.

Yet it was always abundantly clear that these were essentially temporary, wartime measures that would be lifted once the emergency was over, so on those grounds at least, most of us were initially willing to go along with the heavy handed approach imposed.

No, what worried me was not so much the loss of liberty as the economic impact, and once the case mortality rate was confirmed at less than 1 percent for advanced economies, the lack of proportionality and cost benefit consideration. 

I could never quite accept the argument that what was being done was similar to putting the economy into a medically induced coma, with the patient reawoken as if nothing had happened once the pandemic was over. 

As we can now see, the lasting damage was monumental.

It would no doubt have been disastrous had the health service been overwhelmed, but when the main justification for lockdown becomes the rallying call of “protect the NHS” you have to ask yourself what the whole thing was really all about. 

Insulating the health service from a sickness it is there to treat?

You cannot put a price on life, it can be argued, and therefore almost any cost is justified. It is also true that in the fog of war, mistakes are bound to be made; over-reaction is possibly better than under-reaction.

All the same, it now seems abundantly clear that the treatment was in many ways worse than the disease itself. We'll never know the counterfactual, or just how many lives were saved by imposing a strict series of lockdowns.

Most epidemiologists will tell you that it was a lot. 

But they are not paid to think about the wider consequences, and it is now patently clear that the lasting damage to education, the economy and to wider public health was off the scale.

What are the lessons? We don't need to wait for the results of the official inquiry, still years away, to know some of the answers. 

Let's make a start by examining the death toll, reported on a daily basis during the pandemic as if in some kind of international competition for how effectively each country was dealing with the crisis.

For a long time, Britain seemed to be bottom of the class, which in turn instructed the severity of the counter measures thought necessary. 

The worse the numbers looked relative to others, the more draconian and prolonged the restrictions became.

Given differing methodologies and reporting systems, the best way of measuring the impact is not through recorded deaths from Covid, but via the excess death rate over and above what would normally be expected. 

On this measure, most major advanced economies ended up in much the same place.

Britain was slightly worse than Germany and France, but not significantly so, and actually quite a bit better than Italy and Spain, according to estimates published in the Lancet. 

This was not the impression you got at the time, when the British response was widely viewed as uniquely incompetent. 

What is more, Scotland did worse than England, notwithstanding the plaudits the first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, received for outbidding Westminster on the countermeasures needed. 

The same is true of Wales, whose first minister, Mark Drakeford, was similarly lauded for a more restrictive and therefore seemingly capable approach. 

Well, not according to the numbers.

Culture wars, I'm afraid to say, are as likely to determine your view of the efficacy of lockdown as the underlying facts of the matter.

What we now know, however, is that lockdown is an extraordinarily costly way of dealing with a pandemic. 

It is to be hoped that this lesson at least has been learned, and that the response to future pandemics will therefore be better calibrated to the severity of the disease. 

A 1pc case mortality rate scarcely seems to justify what was done, even if it was admittedly much higher in older age cohorts.

A more consensual approach that keeps people properly informed but allows them to make their own choices on the degree of risk they are prepared to run must be the way forward.