Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Thom Hartmann Program" channel.

  1. 1
  2. 1
  3. I just crunched the numbers of Austria: 3,8 % of those that were tested positive died, these are the aggregated numbers since end of February - then testing certainly was not deployed like it is now (but case numbers were low in Feb, too, they shoot up in the 2nd week of March). They have free and strategic testing in place, and people also have paid sick leave (by law) and single payer healthcare, so no reason to sit it out and NOT get tested. IF people have the typical symptoms they will be tested now. And those around them, too. Now there may be still a few cases that are so mild, that they are not found (or were not found in the past). They are reopening, and sure enough had a cluster in a postal distribution center (temps !), they did contact tracing, and found some infected, and some w/o symptoms, too. It spread to 1 teacher and to 1 childcare worker - partners of men working for the postal center. (The country has emergency child care if parents work, else the kids incl. students are at home, and the schools are just reopenening - online learning so far. The military staffed the postal center for 2 weeks while they quarantined workers. Two soldiers tested positive later, but they are young so we can hope they will be fine. Which makes me think about airborne transmission, maybe a ventilation setup in that center. it may be mainly spread by droplets, but aerosols must play a role. See call centers in the U.S. or the choire in Washington. They did a lot of contact tracing / testing- and they found asymptomatic carriers (mum of child that still went to school, she was infected by the teacher), and the infection was spread within families, too. Authorities did a few thousand tests to contain it - 130 infected (= tested positive) were found, and they tested 16,000 people to find those (7,7000 as ontaczt tracing, and the rest some strategic testing - care homes etc.) So it obviously CAN spread quite easily, at that time it was the first phase of reopen (retail, restaurants - with masks, distance rules etc.). The reproduction numbers immediately went up with the first phase of reopen (but based on a relatively low number of cases in total). If a country "spikes" to a R0 of 1,03 with around 800 people being sick (most at home) they can handle it. Versus let's say you have a 3 % growth (R0 = 1,03) but for 10,000 or 100,000 cases. 3 % is not exponential growth (if you let the novel coronavirus run its course it is exponential growth at least 3, so numbers tripple every 5 days.), but 3 % is something to watch VERY very closely. the R0 is influenced by behavior. Never mind the virus can mutate as well. And ONLY more infectious mutations will replace the currently dominant strains (there are a few). If we would be VERY lucky a more infectious but non-mortal strain would appear (with de facto tiny death rates). Because even 1 or 0,1 or 0,01 % mortality rate result in huge casualties if you have a few billion people infected. It would have to be almost as harmless as the common cold while also giving some immunity against the other strains. That: or waiting for a vaccine. OR an equally or more infectious strain could emerge - with much higher death rates. Then we would be really screwed. So the current more infectious mutations (dominant since early March) are less deadly, the percentage is less than the 3 - 4 % of the confirmed infection cases (in a first world country that is set up to get better results than the U.S. or developing countries though) because there are (or were) cases that were not diagnosed (or no symptoms at all, person got infected but not sick). But now, they eventually should find even more of the asymptomatic and mild cases in Austria - they have ramped up the testing and contact tracing, and watch the infection numbers like hawks. Even IF the undiagnosed cases bring the REALISTIC mortality rate down to let's say 2 % - that is still more than the Spanish Flu had (it was in the 1 - 2 % range). It also means it is MORE infectious than we think (the other side of undeteced cases, which statistically lowers mortality rates). And if it spreads like wildfire you WILL have the global fallout, it is a numbers game. Again see Spanish flu. Compare that with flu pandemic of 2009 (estimate: 700 million to 1,4 billion infected, that disease had really a relatively low mortality rate, I think it was 0,1 %. As a percentage there were not nearly as many people that needed the hospital, let alone weeks of intense care. There were not as many complications. Either people died or they were on the path of recovery after 1 - 2 weeks and almost always could recover at home. Still a lot of people died and hospitals were full. But not at breaking point. No one discussed closing down the economy, restricting travel, not even wearing of masks or social distancing for 2 weeks (which likely could have helped a lot because it was also less infectious than the novel corona virus). For public health reasons (and for being able to open the economy) a disease with higher mortality rate BUT less infectious would be preferable. Because then it so much easier to CONTAIN. The R0 was in the 2,5 - 3 range (doubling to trippling !) when lockdown started in Austria on March 15, cases shoot up despite decisive lockdown measures, they had it down to 1 after 3 weeks. (ONE is the magical number where 1 person on average infects only one other. Then the number of new infections is stable. Of course it matters a lot how many infected cases you have ) After one more week (so 4 weeks lockdown) reproduction number dropped to 0,63 - 0,68 - but then it stagnated between 0,68 and 0,8. While CASE NUMBERS went down - but slowly. The situation was comparable in Germany with 10 times the population (lockdown measures the same, started also at the same time, development, reopening, even the clusters caused by low income temp workers in the first phase of reopening. In Germany it was meat packing workers).
    1
  4. DemocracyNow's Amy Goodman cornered Tom Perez in summer 2018 when he protested family separation at the border - if he was for "Universal healthcare". He vented some fluff remarks ("access", opportunities, , party of the people ). He could not even bring himself to mention the "dirty" word Universal Healthcare and quickly turned to the other journalists. - He is not even good at obfuscating. - Sell outs like Tom Perez are the reason Turmp is in the White House. When Keith Ellison was leading in the race to become party chair, Tom Perez was introduced into the race, and he was heavily promoted by former president Obama. There is a reason HE was the darling of the party establishment. (some creative rigging of the rules too when the votes were done. The Dems KNOW how to play the underhanded games with the rules, and the procedures - it is just that they reserve that art to keeping progressives down. They never use those skills against Republicans - either they can't be bothered - or the Big Donors gave differing marching orders. A do-over at the fringes of ACA is the most that can be expected from those sell-outs. keeping the money of the Big Donors is more important than the well-being of the citzens. A country can either have good affordable healthcare for everyone OR the industry can make money hand over fist. European countries made their choice after WW2 (Canada and Australia followed suite in the 1960s and 70s - which was O.K. - then healthcare was not as capable and not as expensive, so they made the change in time). In 1976 the Supreme Court ruled that money equals free speech The Dems had not pushed for that decision (a right wing Nixon appointee proved to be crucial for that decision) - but once it was on the books the Dems got excited. (Jimmy Carter was the last to finance his campaign with public money. And very likely the last that was not in it for the money). There was a chance THEY also could have the gravy train. (The Republicans were the party of commerce and Big money - and of course THEY could provide the cushy jobs for ex politicians). The insane spending on elections offered opportunities for obedient Democratic politicians. And since they started to see the Big Donors as constituents - they became eligible for more cushy jobs and lucrative contracts.
    1
  5. 1
  6. How the brave protest movement of Eastern Germany SAVED THE RECORDS of the dictatorship spying on its own citizen Eastern Germany was always Soviet obedient. After Gorbachev had called for openness and change in the Soviet Union (Glasnost, Perestroika) the dictatorial bureaucratts in Eastern Germany for the first time did NOT fall in line. But the opposition there sniffed morning air and over the course of 2 years the movement grew and dared to act more in the open. There were demonstrations, which was unheard of before. And the regime likely would have brutally cracked down on them - but no one knew what would come out of the whole situation. The Soviets might stop protecting them (the hardliners of the current government). A massacre could not be pulled off w/o Western Germany noticing (they wanted loans from them). And if the dictatorship would be toppled or at least a more moderate leadership would come into power (and w/o the protection of the S.U. that could happen within some years) then those ordering to shoot at protesters AND those following orders would be held accountable. So they felt compelled to show more restraint than they liked to. The peaceful prostest movement was somewhat aware of the dilemma of the regime (and hoped it would be enough to give them some protection of the worst abuse). So dissent and demonstrations increased. When the Berlin Wall fell, the citizens just entered the "holy halls" of the very powerful spy agency (the Stasi). The Stasi had a lot of snitches, many of them were working for them secretely, they called them "informal employees" - spying on the regular citizens. It could be the neighbor, co-worker, even a close family member, that let the regime know if you said critical things about them or - worse - planned to leave the country w/o permission. When it was clear that the dictatorship would not stay in power, the agency started to destroy the files (which in a very German fashion they had meticulously kept, including the clear names of the snitches, the contracts and the payment for them). The officers in the spy agency were shocked that the citizens would dare to just enter the building in large numbers and prevent the further destruction of the files. Sure they could have shot them, but it was clear it was over for the regime and someone would pay for the killings. The demonstrators knew it and the servants of the falling dictatorship knew it too. Which is why one can make a FOIA request today if the agency had a file about oneself (incl. the clear name of the snitch - unless that person was a minor at the time when the snitching happened, then the identity will not be disclosed). Yes, the Stasi approached vulnverable teens (loners, nerds, kids with problems at home) to recruit them for spying at their fellow students, teachers. They also employed citizens of Western countries for instance they had "informal employees" in the redactions of influental newspapers of Western Germany. And they even spied on persons of public life (and of only medium importance) in other countries like Germany, Austria - and even their children at the university. Of course the Stasi has nothing on today's surveillance programs. When it come to efficiency. The human impact of never knowing if people you thought were friends would betray you .... that's another story.
    1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. Dr. Eicke Weber (Fraunhofer Institure - think M.I.T.) if you double the capacity of installed solar panels (for electricity) you can expect a price drop of 20 %. - Let me add: The German Energy Transition was a flawed project of political convenience (Merkel is not one for green energy - or the little people). BUT it did increase installed panels (paid for by the German consumers!) which gave a boost for production and research. So prices became good enough for California, Texas, Australia (without high subsidies). Countries with IDEAL conditions for solar electricity (excellent harvest AND due to demand for cooling peak production and demand align much better. So less need for storage, which then was still in the beginning). Now when those sales kicked in, the issue of STORAGE finally got more attention. Dr. Eicke: the panels were invented to power satellites, price was not an issue in the 1980s for THAT use. Since then the price drops per doubled installed capacity is a steady trend. And it is not a function of time but only a function of sold and installed units. The awarness of solar power and renewables was fairly high in Germany, Switzerland, Austria. (They were busy with solar for heating water. So they would have enthusiastically embraced developments from the U.S. - and of course put their engineers to work (same with Japan they also do not have oil, so also a high incentive to replace oil with technology). Being frugal with energy use is part of the culture (shpaed by WW2 among other things), high appreciation of clean environment and a stronger than usual anti nuclear sentiment (Germany, Austria). In other words had Carter stayed 4 more years the technology would have made these jumps much earlier (there are enough sunny states in the U.S. to pave the way). And that would have affected the world markets. But no more NEED to control the Middle East and its oil reserves (that is how the U.S. keeps the "allies" (vasalles) in line. Citizens and communities could do their thing - no need for huge CENTRALIZED companies (those who donate and offer cushy jobs for ex-politicians). The war mongers and profiteers and the oligarchs did not like that idea.
    1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40.  Bullets in Bacon Grease  At the end of March (the time when you claim the Italian government intentionally promoted spreader events) the authorities informed the Italian hospitals about the rules of triage - official ! ethic rules whom the doctors would give treatment (especially ICU) - and whom they would let die. People over 80, with a bad prognosis, people with severe underlying conditions even when younger (also and for all if their need for help had nothing to do with corona virus). If I remember correctly ALL of Italy went into lockdown in February already (that means all provinces, after lockdown of only the most hit region did not work at all. On the contrary, people were allowed to leave the region, the wealthy went on vacations or went from Milano to Rome - and spread it even further. China did better, the military made sure no one could leave Wuhan. China dropped the ball - but once they got into action they got it right). Then - end of March 2020 - the neighbour nations (who had gone into lockdown mid of March, take or add a few days), did not yet dare to help out Italy. Once they realized they could contain the pandemic and the case numbers (with their lockdowns) that they could avoid the scary state of hospitals in Italy (completely overwhelmed because they got the pandemic first in Europe and did not contain it soon enough) ..... Germany and Austria flew in some Co-Vid-19 patients (military transports) to treat them in their hospitals. Germany also took in patients from France (they had also a phase where it was bad although not as dramatic as in Italy). As far as I know triage was never officially practiced in Italy, but they were within 2 days of it - then they reached the peak of the crisis and case numbers. But because staff and hospitals were so overwhelmed there were a lot of cases that died (but would have had a chance in a normal setting), they could not provide the best possible care for all anymore, even if triage was not officially used. So once lot of people died and they did not get quite as many new cases because lockdown started to show its helpful effects - the numbers went down. Slowly. They just scraped by. Italy got doctors from Cuba, and equipment from China and Russia. They did a lot of things in March and at the end of March, but certainly NOT having any events where the virus could spread even more. You bet that would have been headline news. In all of Europe not only in the Italian households where people could not even leave the house for a solitary walk.
    1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 4:41 - the Brownshirts having or not having guns did not matter (most didn't - the street fights and mob actions were done with other means, sticks, knives, beating folks up or damaging property, plus verbal abuse). - The problem was that a minority government was tolerated by a conservative President, which in the German constitution was one of the checks on the power of government. The government was the Chancellor with the governing party or coalition of parties and then of course the parliament that passed the laws (and in which the government needed either a simple majority or support from other parties on a case by case base). President Hindenburg was well respected, he could have reigned in Chancellor Hitler because of his standing with the population - the lower and the upper class, especially the Conservatives and people with military ties which Hitler NEEDED for his power grab. The Conservatives helped to VOTE the Parliamentary powers out of existence. There was a dangerous precedence in the 1920s - then it had not resulted in tyranny. And of course the election that brought Hitler into government was one of many in short succession - Germany could not find a working government in these times (too many parties resp. the unwillingness to cross bridges, again a lot of hostility from the more conservative forces of society against the "new" blue collar players). The Nazis could not have used force against the Conservatives - they had strong ties to the (ex)military leadership (and so had Hindenburg). Hindenburg thought Hitler would fail bein able to govern with the minority government resp. would fail to create a stable coaltion government. Of course at that time the institutions already had been heavily infiltrated (police, justice system). They had a strong bias against the "left" - after the removal of the emporor the "unwashed masses" had more of a say in government - and there were a lot of people that detested the idea that the "natural order of society" was being upset. So they detested the Left even more than Hitler and his guys (Hindenburg was one of them). Who stood between Hitler and the power ? - 2 Conservative resp. very right wing parties and Hindenburg. - that was not enough. Weapons had nothing to do with it.
    1
  50. 1