1. Lots and lots of articles about birdemic-related discrimination against Asians -- people not going to Chinese restaurants, hatepuns like "Kung Flu," the hatefulness of
2. A handful of articles debunking the rumor that black people are particularly resistant to the birdemic -- and by "debunking" I mean simply asserting that the rumors are wrong without providing any data. A few prove that the incidence rate among blacks is not literally zero by mentioning that one black actor says he and his wife have tested positive (with no symptoms).
3. Saying Asians are particularly susceptible is hatespeak. Saying blacks are particularly resistant is also hatespeak. Hence -- presumably -- the silence on the whole issue, since any results deviating at all, in either direction, from mathematical equality would be "problematic"!
8 comments:
@Wm - And yet racial differences in susceptibility (and severity) are found in every disease I can think of - including psychiatry.
Sometimes they are rather trivially small, but often they are massive.
The cause of these differences may be genetic or environmental, or a combination; but in practice that is secondary to the fact that (as of a few decades ago) East Asians often died of stomach cancer (which was seldom seen in the UK) and West Europeans of cardiovascular disease (while even elderly Chinese often had 'clean' arteries).
Suppression of important data during a time of (supposed) crisis has been going on for several decades now. In the AIDS epidemic, the govt line was that everybody was at risk, because AIDS was heterosexually transmitted. However, the only known cases of het AIDS were among recently arrived Africans in the London region.
This obviously important information was concealed for several years. The same is happening now.
Plus the mortality rate is now being systematically and dishonestly inflated by implying that everyone who dies while infected-by the birdemic (which is currently a pretty common infection in some parts of the world, like colds and flu) died because-of the birdemic.
One of my students is a surgeon specializing in liver transplantation -- on which almost all of the research and innovations have apparently come out of East Asia because the procedure is so rarely needed in the West -- so I'm aware that racial differences are the norm medicine.
If there were numbers to back up the claim that "the virus doesn't discriminate so neither should you," they would be reporting them. Therefore, the numbers do *not* back up that claim and are being deliberately suppressed because it's better to let more people die than to stoop to "racial profiling."
@WmJas - "Therefore, the numbers do *not* back up that claim and are being deliberately suppressed because it's better to let more people die than to stoop to "racial profiling."
I agree - Indeed I am happy to bet my life on it.
Although there may be other reasons for concealment - racial profiling fears are not necessarily the most important in this instance.
For example, if there are known but concealed reasons for high mortality in the 'hot spots' - this would mean that other people and places which did Not share these risk factors would not need to worry, and would not need to lock down.
I am sure that racial (and other) data are being concealed, because the birdemic is only an excuse, and the excuse must be maintained at all costs (including faking the mortality data in deniable ways that would not apply to influenza, and treating people diagnosed with birdemic (not necessarily dying from it) with IT/ ventilation, when the same person would not be treated if they were dying of influenza - or anything else).
There are so many ways of lying with statistics, and in a deniable fashion, that one can't predict which specific ones are at work here; but we can be 100% certain that they are being used, because the people involved are of habitual dishonesty and have a track-record of manufacturing and using crises with manipulative intent for personal gain - and because their 'disease preventing' rules are obvious nonsense.
"For example, if there are known but concealed reasons for high mortality in the 'hot spots' - this would mean that other people and places which did Not share these risk factors would not need to worry, and would not need to lock down."
That's certainly possible, although the complete lack of high-mortality hot spots in Taiwan, which is racially identical to China, makes me wonder.
Clearly the intention is for everyone everywhere to panic and demand martial law. A contact in New Zealand told me that that country has just gone into full lockdown, effective today, despite having only 200-some reported cases and zero reported fatalities.
So far cooler heads have prevailed in Taiwan despite the death toll's having recently soared to -- um, two (both elderly, with multiple comorbidities). I'm praying that continues.
I suppose I should clarify that “I’m praying that continues” refers to cooler heads prevailing, not to the rising death toll!
Another aspect to bear in mind is that - as things become more controlled, hence corrupted; the actual data (and evidence in general) gets worse to the point that it can 'safely' be manufactured from whole cloth - just made up. I think we may be at that point now. At such a point, suddenly racial data will be made available that proves... whatever They want it to prove. And to 'refute' (as They always claim their statements do) all those crazy conspiracy theorists who try to make sense of and infer a coherent purpose behind things. (Whereas They tell us that Stuff Just Happens, randomly, unconnected, going nowhere in particular...)
It may be too late to post on this thread, but I just today discovered that South Carolina posts info about racial breakdown of covid19 cases. If you allow a link, here it is. Scroll to the bottom of the page for the graphic: https://scdhec.gov/infectious-diseases/viruses/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/testing-sc-data-covid-19
Thank you, Nancy! Here are the numbers according to that link:
Birdemic cases in South Carolina:
56% White
36% Black
1% Asian/Native
Population of South Carolina:
68.5% White
27.3% Black
1.8% Asian/Native
It appears that blacks are somewhat overrepresented relative to whites, with too few Asian/Native numbers to allow for any conclusions.
Of course, these are statistics for incidence, not mortality, so they don't really tell us which races are more or less vulnerable to the virus. Still, it's something.
Post a Comment