Omicron coverage reveals how the establishment, media keep us scared



The data out of South Africa, after five weeks of Omicron spread, suggest that Omicron should be a cause for celebration, not fear.Getty Images/iStockphoto

In March 2020, a profile of the typical COVID victim emerged from Italy. The average decedent was 80 years old, with approximately three comorbidities, such as heart disease, obesity or diabetes. The young had little to worry about; the survival rate for the vast majority of the population was well over 99 percent.

That portrait never significantly changed. The early assessments of COVID out of Italy have remained valid through today. And so it will prove with the Omicron variant.

The data out of South Africa, after five weeks of Omicron spread, suggest that Omicron should be a cause for celebration, not fear. Its symptoms are mild to nonexistent in the majority of the infected, especially the vaccinated; hospitalization rates are over nine times lower than for previous COVID strains; deaths are negligible. That assessment will only be confirmed as the United States and other Western countries gather their own data on Omicron.

Yet the public health establishment and the media are working overtime to gin up Omicron hysteria. The official response to the Omicron variant provides a case study in the deliberate manufacture of fear. The following strategies are key:

1. Create a group norm of fear

The media want you to believe that everyone around you is scared out of his mind, and thus you should be, too. Man-on-the-street interviews quote Nervous Nellies exclusively. A Dec. 17 New York Times article headlined “As Virus Cases Surge, New Yorkers Feel a Familiar Anxiety” trotted out a parade of paralyzed city residents:

“Monday I wasn’t even thinking about [Omicron], and Thursday I’m in a panic,” said a 59-year-old woman on the Upper West Side. A teacher at Manhattan’s New School confessed: “It’s literally all I’ve been thinking about. I’m really heartsick and worried.” A 36-year-old woman in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, said: “It’s scary — it feels like we’ve been here before.” A 62-year-old woman in Queens reported that her travel and outing days were over: “I’m going to go home, I’m going to stay home and just keep to myself.”

Are there any New Yorkers who are not panicked? Presumably, but you would not know it from the Times’ and other outlets’ coverage. Needless to say, dissenters from Omicron fear in the rest of the country are beneath notice. The point of these one-sided quotes is to spread and normalize panic as the only reasonable reaction to the variant.

2. Buttress group fear with expert opinion

The only public health experts whom the media quote are those determined to put the most dire spin on Omicron. They stress worst-case hypothetical scenarios and dismiss actual good-case evidence. At best, they may grudgingly admit that Omicron symptoms are disproportionately mild, but rush to assert that there are still many as-yet-unrealized grounds for worry.

“Even if Omicron causes less severe cases, the sheer number of cases could once again overwhelm unprepared health systems,” the director-general of the World Health Organization said. “I’m not counting [Omicron’s lack of severity] as good news just yet,” a disease ecologist at Georgetown University said. “Even if infection is mild in many individuals, it’s not going to be mild in everyone.”

But that 100 percent mildness standard is unrealistic. There are outliers in any disease and any treatment; the question is: What is the predominant reality? The zero-risk, zero-harm standard for public policy adopted for the first time with COVID has proven a social, economic and public health disaster.

At worst, the favored experts do not even pay lip service to the evidence militating against panic. An epidemiologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill told the New York Times: “I think we need to be prepared for the possibility that this could be at least as bad as any previous wave that we’ve seen.”

There are apparently no circumstances that would warrant a less-than-totalitarian response in advance of any actual disaster. The yearning for more draconian lockdowns and more control over the private sector is palpable.

3. Manufacture epistemological uncertainty and insist on that uncertainty as long as possible

The media intone repeatedly that much remains uncertain about Omicron, including how likely it is to cause severe disease. But we already have a good picture of that likelihood from the South Africa experience: very unlikely. Nevertheless, the director of the influential Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Christopher Murray, is determined to assert that we know little to nothing yet: “The most challenging question is severity,” he told the Times.

4. Bury both good news and dissenters from the bad news

The South African data should lead any coverage of Omicron, yet it has barely been reported. Though only 27?percent of that country is fully vaccinated, less than 2 percent of new cases are requiring hospitalization. And that number is undoubtedly too high, since many reported COVID hospitalizations were admitted for reasons other than COVID.

In countries such as the United States, with much higher rates of vaccination, the breakthrough infections from Omicron will be even milder. Omicron will be an ideal vehicle for achieving herd immunity, conferring protection without tears on the vast majority of the infected.

The South African doctor who first reported the Omicron variant has declared herself “astonished” by the world’s reaction to the new strain, which is “out of all proportion to its risks.”

“Patients typically present with muscle pain, body aches, a headache and a bit of fatigue,” Angelique Coetzee wrote in the Daily Mail on Dec. 13.

“After about five days [those symptoms] clear up, and that’s it.”

The only patient with severe symptoms whom she has seen over the last month had HIV, pneumonia and other comorbidities.

Coetzee has been nonexistent in the non-conservative press. Just as we are supposed to believe that everyone around us is universally spooked, so we should believe that there is an unbroken expert consensus about the likely disaster that is Omicron. European health officials are warning of an Omicron spike, we are told. State and local health officials are urging that holiday gatherings be held outdoors and that all participants get vaccinated, boosted and tested; partygoers should wear masks.

Are there no experts who think that Omicron is not an emerging threat? Apparently not, if you read the mainstream media. If any dissenters do break through, they will be as demonized and silenced by Big Tech as the lockdown skeptics in the scientific community were at the start of the COVID era.

5. Omit relevant context

We hear constantly that 1,300 people are dying a day from COVID. By comparison, about 2,000 people die each day from cancer and 1,600 from heart disease. Their deaths get no coverage. COVID was the leading cause of death in the United States only in January 2021, even among those 85 and older. Since then, it has ranked as the third-most-frequent cause of death both in the overall population and in the elderly.

To read the press coverage, however, you would think that nothing approaches COVID in fierce lethality and that all public resources should be directed to stopping its spread, no matter the costs to the education and socialization of children, to physical and psychological health, and to economic opportunity. Restrictive COVID policies exacerbated sickness in the highest-ranking categories of mortality, a toll that will only grow. Patients put off lifesaving cancer screenings, having been spooked away from medical facilities. Obesity worsened, as gyms were shut down and people barricaded themselves at home, packing on the pounds. Those ever-bigger fatties will be tomorrow’s coronary casualties and COVID victims.

Even those 1,300 daily COVID deaths are an overcount, since public health reporting counts deaths with COVID as deaths from COVID. Someone who was dying already from cancer will be deemed a COVID death if he happens to contract that more newsworthy disease at the end of his life. Someone who dies of old age will also be counted as a COVID fatality if infected at death.

The average life expectancy in 2019 was less than 79 years. But the New York Times’ maudlin COVID obituaries report the deaths of nonagenarians as COVID fatalities, as if those oldsters would have otherwise lived indefinitely. A 91-year-old jazz pianist was included last week in the “Those We’ve Lost” series, even though he was a stroke victim with numerous long-standing health problems that the COVID virus merely exacerbated.

6. Flog the case count

If the media is obsessing about case count, it means that COVID deaths have been a terrible disappointment. COVID death rates have plunged over the last year and are barely budging in the post-Omicron era. But case counts are a particularly deceptive measure of pandemic severity, when so many of the new cases are mild to asymptomatic. And despite the concerted effort to generate hospital horror stories, hospitalization rates in New York City, the leading wedge of Omicron, remain comparatively low. COVID hospitalization numbers are themselves deceptive for the same reason as COVID death counts: Being admitted to a hospital with COVID is treated as being admitted for COVID.

Nevertheless, the fear-mongering is paying big dividends. Like clockwork, events and businesses in New York City are shutting down, extending the demand for and dependency on government handouts.

Radio City has canceled its entire Christmas run of the Rockettes; expect Mayor Bill de?Blasio to pull the plug on the Times Square New Year’s celebration.

Detect Hub rapid COVID-19 tests.
President Biden announced a plan to distribute via mail 500 million free at-home rapid tests.
AP

Return-to-work schedules are being shelved and entire offices put back on remote work, another severe setback to the revival of Midtown Manhattan.

Outdoor mask-wearing in Manhattan is back up to about 90 percent, based on informal observation. Masked residents of buildings where virtually everyone is vaccinated are refusing entry to the elevator to their fellow residents (also masked), as if a three-second ride to the lobby will provide enough viral dose to be infectious. Grown men are using their knuckles to press elevator buttons.

Perhaps the rest of the country, particularly in red states, will act more rationally toward Omicron. But here in the epicenter of blue-state dominance, we have turned the equivalent of the common cold into a potent weapon against the resumption of civil society.

From the Spectator

MORE ON:OMICRON VARIANT

 

December 24, 2021 | 9 Comments »

Leave a Reply

9 Comments / 9 Comments

  1. @FelixQuigley

    A mass psychosis inducing technique was tried years ago with the novel flu viruses and it didn’t work so they came up with something a lot more sophisticated with a “novel” coronavirus after, apparently, a great deal of preparation.

    Tens of thousands of the elderly die every year in the US from seasonal flu viruses and nobody has ever made a big deal about it.

    Why?

    Because it is impossible to make anyone care anymore about the seasonal flu viruses and their numerous mutations.

  2. Good point, Peloni. We could all benefit from an accurate definition of the word-concept “fascist,” which people on the left throw around to mean “opinions and people with which we disagree.” This is an instance of the “classic” abuse of language exposed by George Orwell many years ago.

  3. @Adam
    I think your suggestion of looking into his analysis is a excellent idea. I have been quite focused on his psychological analysis, but you are correct we should look at his analysis of the Covid stats. I am currently in the midst of an expansive project and don’t have time to spend the time that it will likely require. I should be able to look at it carefully in the first week in Jan, and I will let you know what I can garner from his analysis.

    Enjoy the fun with the secular New Year.

  4. @peloni. Thanks for your response to my inquiry, Peloni. I am very glad to learn that you have been following Dr. Desmet’s work for some time. I might have missed the post in which which you shared an earlier interview with Dr. Desmet. Or I may have been unable to play it on my dying “Lemon Air” computer. This happens all the time to me now. I must either get a new computer or new software.

    I will appreciate it if tou will consider a follow-up question about Dr. Desmet’s work: Have you examined his mathematical analyses of official Covid statistics, in which he concludes that they exaggerate the number of serious ilness and deaths caused by COVID19? This would require you to look up his numerous publications in scientific journals, since the videos would not contain these mathematical-scientific analyses of official data. So I am asking you to do a lot of unpaid labor. But I think we will all learn a lot of useful information from such a review by you. In particular, we might learn whether the statistical-mathematical basis for Dr. Desmet’s conclusions is valid, and how many actual, as distinct from officially reported, Covid cases he believes have occurred.

    This would not only help make us all better informed, but also provide a basis for credible arguments against Covid panic and Covid mandates that we could use either in private discussions or in letters, columns, etc. or in published letters and articles in newspapers, blogs, etc.

    I realize that I am placing a tall order with you. But you are an excellent researcher who has been able to locate and read some hard-to-find sources, and to explain their content to us ignorant laypersons.

    Many thanks and best wishes for the secular New Year, Adam.

  5. @Adam
    I fully support Dr. Desmet’s conclusions. I am not able to watch the video currently but I did watch this interview a several weeks ago(something like that) and it is a pivotally important video. He was originally interviewed by Fuellmich’s corona committee several months ago. I did share a previous video with Dr. Desmet some weeks ago as I found his interpretations so profoundly fundamental to our current situation. He has since done several other videos but this one you referenced is perhaps the best analysis of his findings. His conclusions compliment and extend my own views. My advice is to weigh his analysis very strongly and I agree that everyone should watch this video.

    Try to interact with those caught in this mass psychosis and use charming humor, not ridicule, to gain their support of reality – think of the ‘Lets go Brandon’ meme as the model of your efforts. Such interaction is very important and the best way to draw the middle 40% from their support of this psychosis. Gaining support of this center 40% is how we return to a rational form of society.

  6. @ Peloni.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRo-ieBEw-8.
    Peloni, could you please watch this important interview with Professor Matthias Desmet, a professor of psychology at a Belgian University, on the Peak Prosperity Youtube channel, and report back to us on your opinion of it? Professor Desmet has a Ph.D. in psychology, but also a masters degree in statistics. He says that he has published numerous scientific papers, and now a book that offer strong scientific support for Ms. McDonald’s, and my, view that the fear of COVID19 stoked by the media and governments is way exaggerated, and that the virus was never as deadly as the WHO, CDC, European governments, etc. have claimed it was. Dr. Desmet published his first article on this subject in a scientific journal in February 2020, immediately after the first reports about the COVID19 virus had come in, and the panic was just beginning. He has been following up this initial report ever since.

    In fact, I think all of us should listen to this video.

    Professor Desmet has carefully examined the statistics published by numerous European governments and the U.S. government concerning illnesses and deaths caused by COVID19, and concludes that they are extremely exaggerated. He believes that the actual number of illnesses and deaths caused by COVID19 are much less than what governments have reported. He maintains that govrnments were exaggerating the dangers to the public posed by COVID19, and that all of the lockdowns and other measures undertaken to combat it are both unnecessary and harmful.

    He considers the reaction to COVID19 to be an example of mass hysteria and psychosis, a phenomenon that he has been studying and writing about for many years. He points out that societies have been severely damaged by mass hysteria in the past. And he believes that the present Covid hysteria is inflicting severe damage to the world community now.

    All this confirms my own long held belief that the scary official statistics about Covid were false, and that it was just another flu-like illness–dangerous for people with certain “comorbidities,” but not to those in generally good health. I do not have the necessary knowledge of statistical analysis to prove my hunch. But perhaps Professor Matthias does have the necessary education in statistical analysis to prove me, and the author of this article, Ms. McDonald, have got it right.

  7. @Felix
    I don’t think the word fascist means what you think it means. It doesn’t make sense in so many contexts, such as this current one, in which you apply it. In fact, with respect, you seem to oversalt every subject, or at least your every comment, with this descriptor to the point that the term’s significance seems to fade from you overuse of it. If you could afford a moment of cordial conversation, could you explain your definition of the word Fascist. Be encompassing if you wouldn’t mind with your explanation.

  8. This article is Fascist

    A 91-year-old jazz pianist was included last week in the “Those We’ve Lost” series, even though he was a stroke victim with numerous long-standing health problems that the COVID virus merely exacerbated.

    The writer has a dismissive attitude to the old as in dismiss to the grave.