We Surrender: Moon of Mao Drops Hydrogen Gaslighting Bomb, Vaporizes Fact-Based Opposition to COVID Doomsday Cult
He put skeptic experts in quotation marks. Wow, we admit we were wrong now
It is a sad day my friends. Virus hysteria skeptics lie destroyed and defeated after Moon of Alabama delivers a devastating blow to our arguments. Here is the painful, brilliant blow in all its stunning effectiveness:
On two Coronavirus pieces on other websites:
- Sweden Is Right. The Economy Should be Left Open – Mike Whitney, UNZ
The piece debunks itself when it quotes a Swedish epidemiologist who says:
“The truth is that we have a policy similar to that of other countries,” says Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s state epidemiologist, “Like everyone, we are trying to slow down the rate of infection … The differences derive from a different tradition and from a different culture that prevail in Sweden. We prefer voluntary measures, and there is a high level of trust here between the population and the authorities, so we are able to avoid coercive restrictions”
Sweden can do without orders of social distancing because its people will socially distance voluntarily when asked. That works because “there is a high level of trust here between the population and the authorities”.
Now project such a voluntary attempt onto the U.S. public where there is little, if any, trust between the population and the authorities. It simply would not work and one would soon have a runaway epidemic with all its bad consequences. Whitney’s conclusion that we should all do like Sweden is thus not justified.
Wow. Whitney lays out a carefully constructed 1900-words argument, but which supposedly “debunks itself” by the inclusion of 16 words by someone else.
But read Moon of Alabama’s argument carefully, it isn’t even arguing that Sweden’s approach is wrong for Sweden (at this point that argument would be untenable). It merely says it would lead to a “runaway epidemic” everywhere else where there is “little, if any, trust between the population and the authorities.”
That’s very interesting because when Mao of Alabama was writing his alarmist March pieces calling for the iron boot to come down on Europe (Coronavirus – The Hidden Cases – Why We Must Shut Everything Down And Do It Now, Coronavirus – A Lockdown Is Not Enough) he did not pause to make an exception for countries such as Sweden where there is a high degree of trust between authorities and the public that he now finds such a gamechanger.
In fact, there were no qualifications in his calls for anti-virus measures whatsoever. He was empathic that the more Draconian the measures the better:
Yascha Mounk follows my argument and gives a reasonable advice on what we can do to make this as pandemic as survivable as possible. Shut everything down that can be shut down. Increase social distance as much as possible. Avoid all live social contacts wherever possible. Do it NOW!
He was equally clear that anything short of following his recommendations to the letter would spell disaster as health care systems became overwhelmed:
Not shutting everything down guarantees that our health care systems will get overwhelmed. This will increase the death rate of the disease.
But the inescapable empirical reality is that Sweden did not follow Comrade Alabama’s calls for something even beyond a lockdown (“A Lockdown Is Not Enough“), but has not been hit by the catastrophic consequences he predicted for any Europeans who did not do so. Its case load remains manageable and its health care system is coping.
It is equally the case that Whitney’s piece does not in fact “debunk itself” by the inclusion of the Tegnell quote. As Comrade Moon surely knows including a quotation does not mean the author signs under its every word. Zooming in on 16 words which aren’t even Whitney’s as evidence he “debunked” himself is disingenuous.
Tegnell has his own reasons for focusing on similarities rather than differences of the Swedish and non-Swedish approaches. He’s not looking to make enemies or pick needless fights. Saying both approaches do many of the same things, except the Swedish one is voluntary, is one way of defending himself without polarizing the situation further and painting a target on himself.
It might also be an appealing argument for Comrade Moon to run to now that his doomsayer predictions have failed to come true in Sweden. But the truth is that, regardless of what the tactically non-confrontational Tegnell chooses to emphasize, there are very substantial differences between what is still permitted and takes place in Sweden compared to the rest of Europe and with none of the consequences MOA predicted. The gap between the reality of Swedish daily life compared to the Chinese-style crackdown MOA called for is even greater, again with none of the consequences it was so sure of.
In fact, MOA explicitly trashed Sweden’s herd immunity strategy at the time also considered by the UK and the Netherlands as “clearly lunatic”:
Mitigation was the way Boris Johnson had planned to go because he wanted to achieve ‘herd immunity’ for all of Britain. That is something that can only be done through vaccinations. The idea was clearly lunatic. The study says that such a ‘mitigation’ would have resulted in “hundreds of thousands of deaths and health systems (most notably intensive care units) being overwhelmed many times over.”
That leaves suppression as the only way to go. Cut the epidemic down as much as possible and test, test, test to find each and every new case. Cutting the epidemic down requires a two months shutdown and all the above listed additional measures.
In reality, Sweden has fared no worse than many of the “suppression” countries, and better than quite a few.
But in fact, even the most Draconian European governments shied away from the full list of oppressive measures MOA screamed it was absolutely necessary to unleash on us to avoid doom. These included “mandatory isolation” of suspected cases “in sport arenas”, breaking “the family chain”, and cellphone tracing:
There must be a mandatory isolation of people who are probably infected but do not show symptoms as well as separate isolation of suspected and detected cases with ‘mild’ symptoms.
Telling a probably infected person to shelter with their family, as is now done in the U.S. and the U.K, will only kill more people. 75%-80% of the cases in China got infected through direct family contact. The family chain must be broken to effectively stop the epidemic.
Probably infected persons, i.e. those who had contact with another infected person, should be put under quarantine in sport arenas or exposition facilities to be supervised by medics.
Contact tracing teams must ask each of them with whom they met over the last days and then check on those persons. This requires lots of people and resources but China has show that it is doable. Tracing cellphones may be useful to help with this. Community monitoring may be a viable alternative.
Additional hospital capacity must be built. There must be hospitals exclusively for Covid-19 cases and others for people with different medical problems.
But even as European governments started lockdowns MOA screamed that would still not be enough as the shutdowns had come too late. MOA promised that Britain’s ICU capacity would be exceeded by at least several times:
Even with a shutdown the situation for Britain’s National Health Service is likely to become catastrophic. The red line in the graphic below is the actual critical case capacity the NHS has. There are some 10 critical care beds per 100.000 people. All prediction variants show that it will be exceed several times. Johnson’s ‘do nothing’ strategy would have required 180 critical care beds per 100,000 people. Even with all measures that will now be taken there will likely be a need for several more critical care beds for each one that currently exists.
“You may live” and “you must die” decisions will have to be made as there is not enough capacity in place.
Needless to say, none of this has come to pass. Critical care beds are not even yet at capacity (April 14):
Across England, 3,228 patients were in critical care beds — representing 78 per cent of the total of 4,122 critical care beds which were available in February. More have since been opened, but it is not known how many.
In London 1,127 patients were in critical care according to the dashboard report at the weekend, a number which has grown rapidly in recent weeks. It is understood there are currently about 1,550 critical care beds available in London, up from 1,041 in February.
Comrade Moon continues his devastating debunking of the hysteria skeptics:
- 8 MORE Experts Questioning the Coronavirus Panic – Off-Guardian
The piece was posted on April 17. One of the ‘experts’ it quotes is Dr. John Oxford, “an English virologist and Professor at Queen Mary, University of London.” Here is the quote as posted on Off-Guardian:
Personally, I view this Covid outbreak as akin to a bad winter influenza epidemic. In this case we have had 8000 deaths this last year in the ‘at risk’ groups viz over 65% people with heart disease etc. I do not feel this current Covid will exceed this number. We are suffering from a media epidemic!– “A VIEW FROM THE HVIVO / OPEN ORPHAN #ORPH LABORATORY”, blog post on Novus Communications website, March 31st 2020
a. On April 17, when Off-Guardian posted the piece, the United Kingdom already had 14.607 deaths from Covid-19. Those were 6.600 more than the total number Dr. John Oxford predicted. If the real numbers, which are still increasing, are already 80+% higher than the expert’s guestimate should one really use that expert to claim that the ‘coronavirus panic’ is unjustified?
b. Dr. Oxford made his claim in a “blog post on Novus Communications website”. Novus Comes is a public relations agency which provides “financial social media & digital communications for small caps”. The company is paid by its clients to talk up certain sectors of the stock market. Should one really use paid PR posts on a PR company’s website to judge if some ‘panic’ about an epidemic is justified?
Off Guardian has a series of articles where they highlight the many credentialed experts they’ve found who are pushing back against the hysteria. It’s obviously done to fight back the claim of the doomsayers that “scientific consensus” is on their side. So far they ran:
- 12 Experts Questioning the Coronavirus Panic
- 10 MORE Experts Criticising the Coronavirus Panic
- 8 MORE Experts Questioning the Coronavirus Panic
So then MOA takes issue with the inclusion of one of those, with objections so feeble it’s almost not worth addressing them. But anyway here it goes:
- Covid-19 deaths are tallied in a way that is not true of any other respiratory infection thus the 14,500 COVID-19-positive deaths are not comparable to 8,000 ILI excess deaths.
- Yes, even exceeding last year’s flu deaths by 80% would not justify panic or the measures imposed.
- And no, where an argument appeared is beside the point, you argue the argument (if you can) not the paper it was printed on.
But more than that, if in an archive of 30 names you’re going to nibble with the inclusion of just one…at that point why even bother?
But do not worry as Comrade Moon has a final zinger with which to blow away the other 29 experts Off Guardian discovered:
As for the other ‘experts’ Off-Guardian quoted. Yes, there ar some doctors who do have a different opinion than most of their colleagues. But that does not make them right.
Wow! Just because they have an opinion “that does not make them right”. Wow! Did you hear that people? Isn’t that an argument worthy of Socrates! Checkmate Off Guardian! Didn’t you know that just because there are people who have a different opinion it “does not make them right”? I bet you never thought of that until now.
And as a final relish on this deliciously devastating debunking of the Covid doom nayseyers (that would be us) Comrade Alabama puts Off Guardian’s ‘experts’ in scare quotes. Wow. So brilliant. Because you know, someone like Ioannidis isn’t really, really an expert. Not like Imperial College. Not like Comrade Moon.
Actually MOA’s writing, as informative as it remains even now, has always suffered from the fatal weakness of overconfidence. Almost no substantial MOA post can go without bold predictions for the future. But being confident of something that can not possibly be known is a sure sign of hubris.
Except until now, that flaw did not lead it to add its voice to the campaign against your freedom and mine, and against sustenance for millions of people. But now it does.