Draconian
By James Thompson • Unz Review • March 18, 2020

Draco was a democratic legislator in 622 B.C. who moved Athenian law from an oral tradition known only to the elite, to a written code of law, which could be called upon by any citizen. A reformer. However, his laws were very harsh, applying the death penalty for minor offences, and his code was repealed by Solon in the early 6th century BC, save for his section on homicide. Law is born out of despair at human nature, and Draco despaired.
It would be interesting to know if Draco’s laws led to better behaviour among Athenians, with less stealing of cabbages, and whether Solon subsequently ushered in an age of depravity, but I merely mention that severe measures are now described as draconian, and this condemnation is expected be understood and agreed by all.
How should countries respond to this coronavirus? Doing nothing is the base case, and no country has openly adopted that policy. Perhaps failed states would be an interesting test case. The two current options are Contain or Mitigate. Palpably, nations failed to contain the virus, though China after an uncertain start in which the severity of the problem was denied, did a fast catch-up and imposed, er, Draconian measures. That is, the relevant ones. Singapore took a more nuanced but effective approach. Taiwan seems to have done well. South Korea was doing OK when one deluded believer jumped hospital quarantine to attend a religious meeting, infecting many, matters being made worse by the reluctance of the religious leaders to say who had attended their service.
Here in the UK the key modelling work is being done by Imperial College, and here is a recent interview with the team leader, and then a much more detailed argument from the same group.
The key picture is the estimate of intensive care beds required under various policy scenarios, which will be closely related to death rates, since those beds are very limited in number.
Basically, we are now able to model something which more advanced principalities in Mediaeval Europe knew instinctively: the way to stop an epidemic is to deny it its stepping stones. You have to block the vector, and deny the enemy its next host. Scorched earth, in fact.
In contrast, here is a podcast with Greg Cochran, in person a mild and courteous companion, and in the abstract an acerbic commentator on all muddled thinking.
For those of you in a great hurry, his main points are:
You have to get the R0 down by whatever means you can; that the main vector of spread is sneezing, coughing and breathing, with hand touching secondary; that closing schools helps reduce the vector, and the children are the vectors, not the victims in this case; UK policy is wrong: if you allow any proportion of the population to get infected you very quickly get a small proportion of that infected proportion who get very ill, and that swamps the intensive care facilities anyway, and hospitals overflow. Respiratory facilities are very limited. Wuhan thought people had acquired immunity, but they were wrong. A few people, just a few, caught the virus, and that was sufficient to swamp facilities, even with the extra hospitals. What the Chinese achieved they did by limiting social interactions. Taiwan and Singapore also succeeded in the same way. Testing for fever and Covid is the way forward. If you let the virus go through the population in the hope of getting immunity you kill a lot of people.
UK advisors seem to take it as gospel that what China did can’t be done in the UK. They are wrong. Furthermore, you don’t have to regard finding a vaccine as the only way forwards. Some old drugs may work partially. Serums will probably work. We need to use any avenue to reduce cases and to reduce death rates.
Now: ship cruises. After I die, I intend to go on one.
The Diamond Princess cruise ship had the misfortune to be boarded by a person already showing symptoms, who was later tested and shown to be infected with Covid-19, by which time he had infected 634 other passengers. This shows that using average figures for the reproductive index can be highly misleading in settings where many people are close together in confined circumstances.
Among those infected, the death rate was 1.2% 12 times worse than ordinary flu. Not nice, as my Granny used to say.
Worse, among those over 70, the death rate was 9%. Definitely not nice. For those whose infection becomes symptomatic and reaches case level, the death rate doubles to 18%.
So, at least two weeks too late, in the UK we are keeping the most vulnerable away from obvious harm, and keeping the fit and young from needless infection. The key error was to keep planes flying, and to keep borders open so that the virus could hitch a ride and use every country as stepping stones to the next victim.
As someone in self-isolation I can tell you that food home delivery systems are struggling, their websites crashing, and deliveries are being cancelled. Pharmacies have local shortages, supermarkets as well. The neighbourhood is pretty deserted, few people about, few of the usual construction workers about, fewer cars on the road, but still a fair number of cyclists. Neighbours who are either younger, fitter or simply more courageous are willing to do errands.
Has the UK goofed? Like other countries it made the fundamental error of running an open house with airlines, visitors, tourists, cruise ships for far too long.
Only the death rate per million will give us the answer as to how badly we have done, in 2021, or 2022, or 2025, depending on how many waves hit us.
The lockdown: One month in Wuhan
CGTN • February 28, 2020
At 10 a.m. on January 23, Wuhan went into lockdown. This was done to stop a deadly virus from spreading further across the nation. It was one day before Chinese New Year’s Eve, a major travel day for people planning to return home for the holidays.
This documentary is dedicated to all those who’ve been battling tirelessly against the COVID-19 virus in order to keep the epidemic at bay. Their efforts in safeguarding humanity from the virus will always be remembered.
Fighting the Canadian Media Crackdown – Dan Dicks on The Corbett Report
Corbett • 03/02/2020
The Canadian government has recently considered a proposal to require all Canadian media to be licensed by the government. The proposal has been rejected for now, but how long can independent media continue to function in the increasingly draconian Canadian police state? Dan Dicks of PressForTruth.ca joins us to discuss the issue.
Watch this video on BitChute / Flote.app / Minds.com / YouTube or Download the mp4
SHOW NOTES:
PressForTruth.ca
Trudeau’s Digital Charter And The $600M Media Bailout Explained
Ezra Levant of Rebel News Interrorgated For His Book Exposing Justin Trudeau
Licensing The Global News Circuit Soon To Be A Reality in Canada Despite Claims They Won’t Do It
Into the Fire – Dan Dicks on The Corbett Report
Dan Dicks on BitChute / Flote.app / Minds / Steemit / YouTube
Virtue Signaling To Destroy The Environment
Tony Heller | February 26, 2020
Wind farms are an environmental disaster – the exact opposite of how they are being marketed by politicians.
Thought-police come for Koch-funded ‘anti-Greta’ – but unlike ‘real Greta,’ she’s open about her backers

© YouTube / The Heartland Institute / Reuters / Fabian Bimmer
By Helen Buyniski | RT | February 24, 2020
A 19-year-old German girl has joined the right-wing Heartland Institute to counter “climate alarmism” with “climate realism,” leading MSM to dub her “anti-Greta” (Thunberg). But unlike Thunberg, her conflicts of interest are in public view.
Naomi Seibt has been attacked as a “climate change denier” for working with the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think-tank funded by oil and gas companies and conservative groups. But the young German insists she’s not denying climate change, just trying to inject some reason into the debate – a demand which has only caused her detractors to shriek louder.
“I don’t want to get people to stop believing in man-made climate change, not at all,” she told the Washington Post on Monday, while acknowledging she found the idea that human activity alone was responsible for the warming planet “ridiculous.” The outlet’s profile of the young activist, whom it not-so-subtly dubs “the anti-Greta,” proceeds to paint her as a puppet of the Heartland Institute, which is “paying [Seibt] to question established climate science” – as if she would never have done so on her own.
Suggesting there’s anything inauthentic or manufactured about Thunberg has been heresy in MSM ever since the young Swede burst onto the global scene at the tender age of 15. Even as it emerged that her rise to superstardom was choreographed with the help of PR man Ingmar Rentzhog, whose ‘We Don’t Have Time’ climate-focused social network featured her prominently in its marketing materials; even after a data leak exposed that Thunberg’s Facebook posts were written by her father and an Indian activist, the integrity of her convictions was never questioned. After all, she had held those beliefs for years before embarking on her climate crusade.
Seibt’s activism, too, predates her involvement with the Heartland Institute. She told the Post she developed a political consciousness “a few years ago” after questioning German immigration policy in class triggered a backlash from teachers and students alike, causing her to develop a general “skepticism about mainstream German thinking.” Only after a Heartland Institute employee saw her speak at another think tank affiliated with the right-wing AfD party – after she was already making videos, including one in which she “came out” for Pride Month as a climate change skeptic – did she become the face of the group, which is heavily funded by oil and gas interests as well as conservative bogeymen the Koch brothers.
While Seibt shares Thunberg’s long blonde hair and youth, the similarities end there. The German’s measured presentation couldn’t be further removed from Thunberg’s emotional pleas. She references Thunberg’s famous call to “panic as if your house is on fire” only to deliver a calm: “I don’t want you to panic, I want you to think.” Warning her audience of the danger of confusing science with politics, she urges tolerance of dissenting opinions and slams her opponents’ use of the term “climate denial” for its not-so-subtle evocation of Holocaust denial. But while Seibt attempts to debunk accepted climate change wisdom, she doesn’t pretend to have the solution, admitting she “could be wrong” and urging viewers to “continue doing your research and form your own opinion on the climate change situation.”
This hasn’t stopped her detractors from attacking her for her “arch-denialist” backers, however. Graham Brookie of the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, apparently unable to find real disinformation in Seibt’s videos, slimed her anyway for allegedly creating a “false equivalency between a message based in climate science that went viral organically and a message based in climate skepticism trying to catch up using paid promotion.” Fair enough – she has a long way to go before she catches up with Thunberg. Except the young Swede’s message didn’t exactly go viral organically, either.
Thunberg’s “brand” – recently trademarked – may position her as a David to the fossil fuel industry’s Goliath, but this is not entirely accurate. From the documentary crew shadowing the pint-sized crusader since her first day school-striking outside the Swedish Parliament to the PR muscle required to get her on board multimillion-dollar racing yachts and shaking hands with Barack Obama, evidence of the deep pockets behind the Thunberg phenomenon is everywhere, even if those pockets’ owners remain elusive. Thunberg’s apocalyptic talking points are compiled in the Climate Emergency Plan, released by Rentzhog’s We Don’t Have Time and another climate-focused think tank to which he belongs, Global Utmaning (Global Challenge) in collaboration with the Club of Rome in November 2018. Global Utmaning was founded by industrial heiress and former deputy central bank governor Kristina Persson and counts as members and advisors a “green” venture capital advisor and more than half a dozen veterans of Swedish-Swiss energy megacorporation ABB, which stands to make a killing on the transition to renewables. And these are just two nodes in the network of environmental NGOs behind Thunberg, a sphere of “nonprofits” that is ideally positioned to soak up what one of these groups, ClimateWorks, predicts will be $90 trillion spent over the next 15 years to stave off the worst effects of climate change. At least Seibt’s backers, riddled with conflicts of interest as they may be, are out in the open.
Those attacking Seibt’s for partnering with the Heartland Institute have pointed to the group’s “attacks” on Thunberg and climate scientists to justify their own smears, though it’s difficult to see how attacking Seibt as a “climate denier” achieves justice for the Swedish activist. Accusing Seibt of climate change denial because of who funds her work would – to avoid hypocrisy, at least – require them to hold Thunberg responsible for everything her shadowy backers have done or said – a prospect that is simply unrealistic, and not fair to Thunberg. Instead, all sides of the debate would be wise to listen to Seibt, who has implored climate skeptics and climate change protesters alike to bury the hatchet. “I hope that we can live in an era of discussion again… freedom of speech is the foundation for a society that can truly stick together.”
Rather then give Seibt the benefit of the doubt, at least one other outlet pounced on WaPo for not being harsh enough on the German activist. Motherboard accused the outlet of “amplifying climate change denialism” from a “noted propaganda factory” that “can routinely be found peeing in the public discourse pool on behalf of its corporate donors.” Imagine what hell would break loose if anyone used such terms to describe Saint Greta…
‘Deliberate hoax’: Russian military denies NGO report of airstrikes in Idlib
RT | February 24, 2020
Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reports of Russian airstrikes on two villages in Idlib province have nothing to do with reality, the Russian military said, adding that none of its planes operated in that area on Monday.
“The information provided by the British NGO is a deliberate hoax,” Rear Admiral Oleg Zhuravlev, head of the Russian Center for the Reconciliation in Syria, said at a briefing.
Earlier in the day, the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) claimed that an airstrike by Russian and Syrian forces on the villages of Kansafra and Al-Bara in Idlib led to the “killing and injuring of nearly ten Turkish soldiers.”
Ankara has not reported any casualties among its troops in Syria, however.
The SOHR claim came at a moment when Russia and Turkey stand on the brink of war over Syria. Ankara sent troops to Idlib – the last remaining terrorist stronghold in Syria – two weeks ago, provoking deadly clashes with the advancing Syrian army. Turkey has demanded Russia to pressure its allies in Damascus into ceasing its operations in the area, while Moscow blamed Ankara of not fulfilling its earlier promise to separate the “moderate” rebels from terrorists.
Last Thursday, Russian bombers struck militants who had launched an attack on Syrian positions with the support of Turkish artillery. However, both Russia and Turkey said they weren’t looking for a military conflict. A new round of consultation between the sides is being prepared in order to defuse the situation in Idlib, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov announced on Monday.
SOHR has been one of the key sources of Western media since the conflict in Syria broke out in 2011. However, a 2015 investigation revealed that the entire organization was run by a single man in Coventry, a former convict who fled Syria for the UK and has not been back since.
