Here are the 10 most important COVID-related questions which the news media is ignoring

December 15, 2020

Contributor

The recent massive surge of COVID cases here in America and around much of the world has been both shocking and edifying. Clearly, people like me who have promoted the theory on "low-threshold herd immunity" were probably wrong in our overly-optimistic analysis (though it should at least be noted that Sweden's current death rate is WAY below what would be expected based on their sudden dramatic increase in cases, and already rapidly declining).

However, based on this new information, the other "side" of this debate also has a lot of explaining to do, but because the news media is deeply invested in the very same narrative as the "experts" and the lockdown governors, there is zero pressure forcing this to actually happen. This is further validating my prediction that the COVID storyline was uniquely designed for the news media to only allow one perspective to be fully/fairly explored, thus ensuring that the radical remaking of America, which effectively happened in just a few days in March, can never be credibly questioned.

Here are just some of the many important questions which the vast majority of the news media has systematically ignored, seemingly because they don't fit their preferred version of reality.

What does the recent surge in cases say about the effectiveness of lockdowns?:

As devastating as the November/December outbreak has been for the "herd immunity" argument, it has been arguably worse for the "lockdowns work" presumption. There has been, at best, no correlation between heavy lockdowns and areas that have done better/worse during this third wave.

For instance, heavy-lockdown states California and Illinois have fared horribly, even worse than freer large states like Florida and Texas. And yet the news media is remarkably uncurious about how this could possibly be the case if government lockdowns actually work, and they never even contemplate the increasingly obvious possibility that we simply have very little control over a virus which currently has no vaccine.

What is the collateral damage of lockdowns?:

Even the World Health Organization admitted that the collateral damage of long-term lockdowns outweigh whatever benefits they might provide. Tellingly, the news media muted this pronouncement, and, as is their normal M.O. in these situations, did their best to claim that the statement was somehow being taken out of context.

The reality is that, even if you discount the huge economic ramifications of long-term lockdowns (which obviously also has a health component to it), the purely medical damage being done in the areas of suicide, drug abuse, child abuse, lack of normal care, and mental health problems has been extraordinary.

The most infuriating/telling tactic which the news media routinely uses to defuse this issue (when they are not completely ignoring it) is that they blame these impacts, especially those in the economic realm as being "caused by the pandemic." However, it is very clear the LOCKDOWNS which are the origin, not COVID itself.

Why do masks not seem to positively impact the data?:

There is no aspect of COVID governmental restrictions in which the news media is more deeply invested than mask mandates. Faith in the power of masks to stop people from spreading a virus has now reached the level of religious belief (which may be why president-elect Joe Biden has chosen the very "sciency" round number of 100 days of mask-wearing as "penance" for the Trump presidency).

The general conservative view of mask mandates has always been that the evidence that they actually work does not come close to the threshold which should exist for the government to force them on a public in a country that was formerly based on freedom and liberty. The fact that there is no legitimate explanation, nor even any media introspection as to why, based on the data, the pro-mask states/countries have recently done no better—and sometimes worse—than the places with no mask mandate, does nothing to dissuade many people from concluding that mask mandates are based much more in religion than in real science.

If COVID was around way before March, what does that really mean?:

As a resident of California, it never made any sense to me that our state was not hit by COVID before mid-March. As the evidence began to mount that my suspicions of a much earlier timeframe were correct, I wrote that, in a rational world, this new information would radically alter our view of our response to the virus.

Since then, it has become obvious that most of the west coast was exposed to COVID at the end of 2019, and yet normal life went on, especially in extremely busy California, without anyone even noticing, and without the state suffering a major explosion of cases once the official counting began. The news media should at least make a cursory effort to get to the bottom of this very key issue (unless, of course, they are frightened of what they might be forced to conclude).

What is the real evidence of significant asymptomatic spread?:

The foundational premise of the vast majority of COVID restrictions is the presumption that asymptomatic spread is a very substantial factor in why the virus is not under control. But the news media has blindly accepted this basis as gospel, despite there being some legitimate reasons for skepticism.

The WHO stated that asymptomatic spread was "very rare." This was a statement so politically incorrect, and the media cries of "Blasphemy!" were so strong, that they were forced to do an immediate walk-back, with the news media once again bending over backward to rationalize that this was just a misstatement.

America's media darling Dr. Anthony Fauci said, empathically, at the start of this year, that asymptomatic spread is "never" the driver of viral outbreaks. The news media, much like they did with his similar early pronouncement that masks are ineffective against viruses , has memory-holed the video and blocked for Fauci on yet another "misstatement," while also, bizarrely, still treating him as if he is somehow infallible.

What is the average age of "COVID Death"?:

In a rational world, the second most important fact (after how many deaths it has directly caused) about the coronavirus would be what the average age of death is for people who die because of it. However, in the world in which we actually reside, this information is only known by a very small percentage of the population, it is virtually impossible to even theoretically calculate on a national level.

In fact, when you Google "what is the average age of COVID death in the United States?" the website which can immediately answer even the most mundane question suspiciously has no reply. Instead, it highlights a link for the CDC where, at best, you can surmise that the "median" age of death is 79-80.

Several states and many countries which do provide this specific critical information have that number at over 80. We do know that about 60% of USA deaths are 75 or older and that 80% are at least 65.

Considering that the USA life expectancy is just over 78 years, these facts should be widely known and have a dramatic impact on the public perception of how best to handle the situation. Instead, the topic is hardly ever directly discussed, and even then it is in the context of unfairly condemning anyone who dares to imply that the lives lost to COVID are not as costly as those who are killed in a war, or a terrorist attack.

What happened to the flu?

You wouldn't know it from the news media, but while the United States is suffering from record numbers of COVID cases, we are also experiencing the lightest flu season in modern history. Shouldn't we at least be considering the possibility that these horrible COVID numbers are not nearly as catastrophic as they first appear because what is really happening is that we are, to at least some significant degree, simply renaming the flu and that this surge has been provoked primarily by a change in seasons?

At the very least, this reality blows a huge hole in the only argument that lockdown proponents have offered for their ineffectiveness (that people all over the world have suddenly stopped paying attention to their orders at exactly the same time). After all, if the flu has been eliminated because of all the masks and social distancing, you cannot also say that we are not really using enough masks and social distancing.

Whatever happened to fearing absolute executive power?:

The topic on which liberals have been most disappointing and obviously hypocritical is that of the overt crackdown on the most basic of civil liberties which has been led by tyrannical Democratic governors. This not only goes against the fundamental principles of liberalism but is particularly outrageous since the Democratic Party impeached President Trump earlier this year for actions they understandably believed would eventually lead to dictatorial rule.

Under the guise of endless "emergency powers" (which were clearly never intended for a situation like this) these governors have claimed unlimited authority with not a shred of resistance from a liberal establishment which used to pretend to be against fascism above all else. Even court rulings theoretically curtailing the out-of-control Democratic Governors of California, Pennsylvania, and Michigan have been mostly ignored by the news media because they are inconvenient to their narrative.

Why should we trust politicians who have been catastrophically wrong and hypocritical?:

Of all the many outrageous elements of our Governor Gavin Newsom's autocratic response to the pandemic, there are two which stand out above the others.

The first is that this all began with him justifying an unprecedented action by telling a MASSIVE and obvious lie: that California was about to have over 25 million COVID cases in the next eight weeks. The fact that it took nine MONTHS for California to reach ONE million positive tests (while never having our healthcare system come very close to being "overwhelmed") is now never even brought up, even though it should have instantly shattered his credibility on this topic for all-time.

The second is that he can have the gall, and the news media's backing, to give orders shutting down restaurants that are barely surviving just after being caught in a scandal where he attended a party at a fancy indoor eatery where there was no social distancing or wearing of masks.

What are the ramifications of the precedents being set?:

This is an area where there has been almost no major media coverage despite it being perhaps the biggest issue facing our country going forward. Even with multiple effective vaccines on the horizon, it seems all too clear that a very small number of people, many of whom are unelected, have set up new rules for our society where it may very well be impossible for us to return to the pre-COVID era.

For instance, using these new very low standards for dramatic governmental action, why would we not shut down every winter for flu season? And surely whenever a new virus is discovered (which happens fairly regularly) we will have to do the same until we are sure it is "safe." And if the government can regulate our lives for a year like they have over something that, at worst, is still in the ballpark of a bad flu, then haven't we just telegraphed how easy it is for us to be controlled forever?

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Episode 6 of Glenn’s new history podcast series The Beck Story releases this Saturday.

This latest installment explores the history of Left-wing bias in mainstream media. Like every episode of this series, episode 6 is jam-packed with historical detail, but you can’t squeeze in every story, so some inevitably get cut from the final version. Part of this episode involves the late Ben Bradlee, who was the legendary editor of the Washington Post. Bradlee is legendary mostly because of the Watergate investigation that was conducted on his watch by two young reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Bradlee, Woodward, and Bernstein became celebrities after the release of the book and movie based on their investigation called All the President’s Men.

But there is another true story about the Washington Post that you probably won’t see any time soon at a theater near you.

In 1980, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wanted to expand the Post’s readership in the black community. The paper made an effort to hire more minority journalists, like Janet Cooke, a black female reporter from Ohio. Cooke was an aggressive reporter and a good writer. She was a fast-rising star on a staff already full of stars. The Post had a very competitive environment and Cooke desperately wanted to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

When Cooke was asked to work on a story about the D.C. area’s growing heroin problem, she saw her chance to win that Pulitzer. As she interviewed people in black neighborhoods that were hardest hit by the heroin epidemic, she was appalled to learn that even some children were heroin addicts. When she learned about an eight-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy, she knew she had her hook. His heartbreaking story would surely be her ticket to a Pulitzer.

Cooke wrote her feature story, titling it, “Jimmy’s World.” It blew away her editors at the Post, including Bob Woodward, who by then was Assistant Managing Editor. “Jimmy’s World” would be a front-page story:

'Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict,' Cooke’s story began, 'a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms. He nestles in a large, beige reclining chair in the living room of his comfortably furnished home in Southeast Washington. There is an almost cherubic expression on his small, round face as he talks about life – clothes, money, the Baltimore Orioles and heroin. He has been an addict since the age of 5.'

Readers were hooked. And outraged. The mayor’s office instructed the police to immediately search for Jimmy and get him medical treatment. But no one was able to locate Jimmy. Cooke wasn’t surprised. She told her editors at the Post that she had only been able to interview Jimmy and his mother by promising them anonymity. She also revealed that the mother’s boyfriend had threatened Cooke’s life if the police discovered Jimmy’s whereabouts.

A few months later, Cooke’s hard work paid off and her dream came true – her story was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. Cooke had to submit some autobiographical information to the Prize committee, but there was a slight snag. The committee contacted the Post when they couldn’t verify that Cooke had graduated magna cum laude from Vassar College. Turns out she only attended Vassar her freshman year. She actually graduated from the University of Toledo with a B.A. degree, not with a master’s degree as she told the Pulitzer committee.

Cooke’s editors summoned her for an explanation. Unfortunately for Cooke and the Washington Post, her resume flubs were the least of her lies. After hours of grilling, Cooke finally confessed that “Jimmy’s World” was entirely made up. Jimmy did not exist.

The Pulitzer committee withdrew its prize and Cooke resigned in shame. The Washington Post, the paper that uncovered Watergate – the biggest political scandal in American history – failed to even vet Cooke’s resume. Then it published a front-page, Pulitzer Prize-winning feature story that was 100 percent made up.

Remarkably, neither Ben Bradlee nor Bob Woodward resigned over the incident. It was a different time, but also, the halo of All the President’s Men probably saved them.

Don’t miss the first five episodes of The Beck Story, which are available now. And look for Episode 6 this Saturday, wherever you get your podcasts.

UPDATED: 5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and one who hasn't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

UPDATED: Former President Barack Obama: ENDORSED

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

UPDATED: On Friday, July 26th Barack and Michelle Obama officially threw their support behind Harris over a phone call with the current VP:

“We called to say, Michelle and I couldn’t be prouder to endorse you and do everything we can to get you through this election and into the Oval Office.”

The fact that it took nearly a week for the former president to endorse Kamala, along with his original statement, gives the endorsement a begrudging tone.

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep