Warning

Warning: This site contains images and graphic descriptions of extreme violence and/or its effects. It's not as bad as it could be, but is meant to be shocking. Readers should be 18+ or a mature 17 or so. There is also some foul language occasionally, and potential for general upsetting of comforting conventional wisdom. Please view with discretion.

Tuesday, May 5, 2020

Myanmar: Arakan Army Helps in COVID19 Fight

May 5, 2020
rough, incomplete

Myanmar's Alleged Coronavirus Offensive
In 2017-18 I studied crimes alleged by and/or committed by the Islamist Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) allegations in Myanmar (Burma). The brutal, genocidal government and its security forces called "Tatmadaw" were accused of massacring Muslim (and Hindu) Rohingya civilians in the western state of Rakhine, torching villages, and chasing the "Bengalis" back to Bangladesh, after a deadly ARSA offensive on 30 police stations on August 24.

The government of Myanmar was historically run by the Tatmadaw, but since 2008 includes a civilian part headed by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Once hoped to be a Western puppet against the Tatmadaw, it seems she "went native" and sides with them, now joining them as a target of the regime-change machine. Myanmar is one of those nations like Syria that's been pre-judged as guilty for everything new, on the precedent of all allegations before that being accepted. And ARSA - like the "Free Syrian Army" - was a Western-favored "resistance" force in another state-genocide narrative, until their public reputation was thoroughly ruined; evidence of their hideous, deceptive, and genocidal nature could not be denied. ARSA forces animated by religious hate hacked up Hindu babies, 100 villagers total, at Kha Maung Seik, on day one of their military offensive. (covered best by me, and later by Amnesty International) They lodged false stories blaming the Tatmadaw, but unusually, the stories failed once the women they had kidnapped as "wives" were freed to tell the truth. And so ARSA is blamed for the only clearly proven massacre of civilians in that whole affair. The reality of 2017's other allegation has never been properly re-assessed in that light.

Two years later, the same Rakhine state is again rife with violence initiated by separatists , but now the government faces the primarily Rakhine Buddhist "Arakan Army." They claim to be enemies of the hated ARSA terrorists, but they almost seamlessly took the lead as "resistance" champions in Rakhine state just as ARSA's image was ruined and they faded to the sidelines. So they're on the same side vis-a-vis trying balkanize Myanmar, and they even work like a wrestling tag-team, or in agreed shifts.

One might understand why Burmese officials see a link there, but AA and ASA both deny it, it would make a good smear, and I can't prove they're right. The concept is one I mean to write on in another post, but for now, we just need to know this Arakan Army existed as far back as 2009, but only got big and bold and well-equipped in mid-late 2018, and emerged with major attacks by January, 2019 at the latest. Myanmar designated them a terrorist organization only on March 23, 2020, after more than a year of increasing violence, contested as always.

All this would have been just barely complicated by what seems to be a mild, well-contained outbreak of coronavirus. The 161 confirmed cases and a mere six related fatalities (as of May 5) is probably an extremely incomplete count, however, and the World Health Organization had been working on getting a wider reading of the COVID19 crisis there, including in the embattled Rakhine state. Both sides publicly agreed to a ceasefire and to facilitate the WHO's work, but it was badly complicated, on April 20, by the first armed attack on their workers, killing one of them. Arakan Army blames the Myanmar military for the shooting, and the government blames Arakan Army. Most credible sources have reserved judgment, but are most likely to side with the designated terrorists or, as others say, the resistance to Myanmar's brutal, genocidal government. But let's consider this alleged regime crime in light of its alleged strategy so far.

CNN, April 30: The departing UN special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar, Yanghee Lee took a last shot at Myannmar, accusing them "of targeting ethnic Rakhine Buddhist civilians during recent clashes with the Arakan Army (AA), ... houses had been burned, a monastery was attacked and people had been arrested and tortured. "And then we find bodies that have been decapitated, these are Rakhine people," Lee said." Later, the article says "The Arakan Army is also carrying out attacks on civilians, Lee says. "We have proof that they have kidnapped local parliamentarians," Lee said. "They also have kidnapped people and civilians," likely including fellow Rakhine people who support the government. But the beheaded ones, she's pretty sure, are the ones by government forces, on account of being Rakhine. "I am calling the situation crimes against humanity and war crimes. These are the highest, the most heinous and gravest crimes of international law," she added.

Just then, on May 4, emerges supposed visual proof - a Tatmadaw soldier (by the uniform, presumably issued, not stolen) holding a man's severed head and a knife, and smiling. The picture says that's an "Arakanese ( Rakhine) villager" beheaded after soldiers detained, just for looking for food in the forest. "Burmese soldiers behavior like ISIS terrorists!" For what it's worth, the victim was clearly shot in the head, probably before the mutilation of his body. The image was clearly taken by a willing cohort, and then ... some AA opposition guys in their own uniforms must have found it on a soldier they just then killed, as luck would have it. That's possible, of course, but I'm far from convinced. I'll put this up (you don't need to see the head) and ask if anyone in Myanmar can say is that a specific soldier who can be held to account or, if not, what evidence can be shared to help us understand?

So it's already accepted they're hacking up Rakhine Buddhists now, as they have with Muslim Rohingya in the past. And now COVID19 is "emboldening the Tatmadaw," Lee said, complaining they've put up roadblocks that only keep people from hospitals. "If they have these additional powers in the name of enforcing or preventing the spread of the pandemic" this can only give them "a greater, higher level of power to do what they've done always in the past few decades, but in a more severe and horrific manner." She's thinking they'll enforce the virus' spread, to genocide the Rakhines and the remaining Rohingya as they always have before. Some say Lee has a bias against the Myanmar government. They're clearly correct. She sounds much like an anonymous "human rights activist" in Myanmar said “I assume Myanmar army ... wants our people die by the coronavirus infection whereas they believe massive Rakhine population are infected and then killed will make the army to win the war against AA as Aung San Suu Kyi has ordered the army to crash it.” [AN1]

I've been arguing how serious this pandemic is, challenging ill-informed dismissals and conspiracy theories about it. But as dangerous as it is, it is overblown in many minds, and it's not much in the line of a deadly tool of genocide, as people are suggesting. And the evidence that Suu Kyi and the Tatamdaw are behind it, as we'll see, is rather unconvincing.

Phil Robertson, the deputy Asia director for Human Rights Watch said "Myanmar's military, and its accomplices in Aung San Suu Kyi's civilian government, are taking advantage of the world's distraction with Covid-19 to press forward with military atrocities to try and break the back of the Arakan Army resistance, and they don't care who they kill or maim to do it." [CNN]
Thei CEO Kenneth Roth agreed, the same day saying "The Myanmar military seems to calculate: what better time to commit war crimes than while a global pandemic distracts everyone. Having already used murder, rape and arson to chase ~700,000 Rohingya Muslims, it can target the ~600,000 who remain in Myanmar." [Roth]

Next in that strategy - while the world is distracted by COVID19 crisis and the WHO-led response, they should ... be the first state to murder some WHO workers leading that response, knowing they'll be blamed and have no luck passing it off. The same CNN article notes more blandly "On April 20, a World Health Organization (WHO) ​driver of a UN vehicle was killed and a government official in the car was severely injured after their vehicle came under attack when they were transporting Covid-19 samples." [CNN] They don't say who did it, and no one comments on how that fits, because it doesn't fit very well at all. They shoot their own official and a WHO driver working ON the crisis everyone's distracted BY? That inserts you on the world stage, the opposite of the strategy these interventionists have imagined. Robertson knows the answer: the regime thugs just "don't care who they kill or maim." They're unfailingly evil and, wherever it's convenient, they're also illogical inept, whatever.

Neither side in the Rakhine conflict stands to benefit from such a senseless act, except by blaming the other side, and that can't work unless they can make their story stick. Naypyidaw has proven bad at this. Arakan Army, as the championed "resistance" group of the moment, is the one with a rational motive to try a stunt like this. That's far from proof they did it, but it shouldn't be ignored, especially if other evidence points the same way - as it does.

Incident Review
The following is a decent analysis of the incident, with perhaps more detail to emerge and add later.

Myanmar Times, 21 April: "A driver for the United Nation’s World Health Organization has died from his wounds after armed men fired at a marked UN vehicle in Rakhine State on the evening of April 20. The driver, identified as Pyae Sone Win Maung, was one of the two people injured when the vehicle they were riding was attacked near Ra Maung bridge in Minbya township."

“The WHO colleague was driving a marked UN vehicle from Sittwe to Yangon transporting COVID-19 surveillance samples in support of the Ministry of Health and Sports,” it added. “The United Nations is seeking further information on the circumstances of the incident.” The vehicle came from the Rakhine capital, Sittwe, and was on its way to Yangon when the incident occurred, according to a report of the Ministry of Information on its website. It was carrying medical workers, including two local staff of the World Health Organization, who were taking nasal and throat swab samples for COVID-19 tests from several townships in the state. The vehicle crashed into a ditch, injuring the driver and a health official identified as U Aung Myo Oo. The Ministry of Information blamed the attack on the Arakan Army (AA)." [MT]

An Arakan Army account starts with an unprovoked army assault in the area lasting all day on April 20, killing a village and wounding others. A map shows the location of clashes in the forest where the road bends south. Implicitly, the area was then cleared of AA fighters, and is shown ringed with 3 mobile army posts/camps. "The Myanmar Army suffered some losses during their offensive assaults. There was only sporadic fighting after 16:00 pm." [AA1]

Side-note: One AA supporter posted a video to argue the government and/or WHO violated transport rules in a suspicious set-up: "the Sittwe-angoon highway in the Rakhine state is a death road in the war zone." The only safe route was by air, he argues, but they sent the team into a death zone they alone had access to - that late in the day, allegedly.

AA account, continued: "At 17:40 pm, the WHO car passed the tatmadaw's checkpoint coming fom Sittwe, given permission to cross the Ra-Maung bridge and continue south. then, as villains do, "the Myanmar soldiers who gave the permit opened gunfire behind the car and other Burmese troops from left and right side of the road also shot the car. ...

"As a result, those two staffs were critically injured. In addition, their car engine stopped by the roadside." It has been for a long time that the Burmese troops have stationed in the factory by the roadside. This incident happened in the area of the Myanmar Military base. ... the incident is totally unrelated to our organization. This is a deliberate and heinous act of the Myanmar Army." Shooting came "from the Ra-Maung bridge Myanmar Military Checkpoint, other Myanmar troops from left and right side of the road and the Myanmar Military stronghold stationed in the factory by the roadside" are those all really active posts, that were not overrun in the day's "offensive"? AA says or implies as much, but we shouldn't blindly trust them.

"The bullet shot by the Myanmar Army hit the body of U Pyae Sone Win Maung. … At the time we rescued U Pyae Sone Win Maung, he got shocked by over bleeding. According to follow-up news, ...he passed away of gunshot wounds at midnight at the Minbya hospital." The injured passenger is named as U Aung Myo Oo. Myanmar Times reported the car held "medical workers, including" two from WHO and the injured survivor, a "health official identified as U Aung Myo Oo" That suggests there were others, but they aren't mentioned explicitly, or reported as missing. That could be nothing but unclear wording, or an important clue. (The AA is known to kidnap soldiers, officials, etc.)
"If the staff with gunshot wounds and the places on the car hit by the bullets are checked, it can be clearly seen that the injuries and damages were caused by the bullets of the Myanmar Army." [AA1]

"However, Brigadier General Zaw Min Tun, a spokesman of the Tatmadaw, said autopsy on the victim showed the bullets that hit him are 7.62 mm in diameter and 25 mm in length, which are not standard issue for government troops. "Bullets are different from those used by the Tatmadaw. They are from M-23 gun used by AA. It has been tested by gun experts," he said." [MT] I can't verify this claim, but it is more specific and more logical than the AA's tedious repetitions of their total innocence in the face of mindless evil.

And somehow, Arakan Army admits they were first on the scene, albeit some time after - as they tell it: "The Arakan Army saw a well-marked United Nations vehicle by the roadside soon after this incident happened and rescued those two WHO staffs pulling out of the car. After that, the Arakan Army provided and treated them with First Aid and we transferred them to Minbya Hospital with help of local residents there." [AA1]

Pyidaungsu Institute on Facebook: "About an hour after the shooting, the injured WHO personnel were treated and taken to a safe place by the AA." [PI]

So ... the Tatmadaw ran this area, 3 mobile posts and a base within meters, surrounded and shot the WHO team off the road, but then never moved in to arrest them or to finish them off, move the car, or anything. They just left the men - one of their own health officials and a WHO driver - stranded and bleeding, in an area the Tatmadaw was known to control, for about an hour before AA was somehow able to access the scene again, get around those posts, to witness the wreck and do their good guy thing. No one shot them as they rescued the witnesses, only one of whom died. Did they drive them out on the road, or carry them through the woods? Not explained yet, that I've seen, and I suspect the latter would be mentioned if it happened.

Pyidaungsu Institute: “The incident happened around 5 pm,” said Maj. Gen. Zaw Min Tun of the Tatmadaw News Agency. He said that the Ramadan Bridge was crossing over from Sittwe and that the left side shot at the hill. The Tatmadaw Bridge has been repeatedly fired by Tatmadaw troops and vehicles. ” Lt. Col. Zaw Min Tun said that the army troops were on the way to the hill, which was throwing the WHO car at night, and that some of the soldiers were injured." (translation brush-up ...) [PI]

AA notes they were first to break the story around 11PM, hinting at a cover-up. They were telling the world just 4 hours after they claim to have stumbled upon the scene, and just an hour before the diver passed away. - But as they note, the government and its media outlets delayed reporting the incident (and/or learning about it?) until after AA broke the story. It was around 1 am on the 21st when "the state-own MRTV broadcasted it with misinformation and full of lies," with the rest following quickly. "We strongly condemn ... misinformation and smear campaign to accuse ... the ULA/AA. Such smear campaign by state-owned information agency is not only trying to cover up war crimes committed by the Myanmar Army but also working in tandem with the Myanmar Army’s propaganda machine to impose the blames of the Myanmar Army on our organization."

At the scene, they took this image (faint AA logo stamped in red), looking like a screen grab from a video I wouldn't mind seeing.

The vehicle damage is minimal - I'm not sure if any bullet holes are clearly visible. The diver's side window is gone, seeming shattered away, and it's the driver who was hit in the upper body and died. The scene is of some interest. It's non-descript stretch of road, trees on either side, giving way to rocks and dirt on the left, as at a side-road or driveway. In the graphic below, I marked in orange 3 spots that seem like possible matches: one is inside AA's given area and might be it. But otherwise, the middle one seems a slightly better guess (four much smaller trees in the foreground?). Other small details that don't pin it down play into that (e.g. a mound and white pole in the mid-distance on the left? There's a mound not far from the middle spot, possibly with such a pole.). The other spot is what they say, and it's at the deeper part of that Sherwood forest these Robin Hoods can just pop out of.

The angle of sunlight says there is none, because it's past sunset. As I looked it up, that was at 18:37 local time that day. I'd say this is at least a few minutes after that, about 6:45 pm or a bit later.The incident is agreed as around 5pm (rounded) or more exactly, a bit after 5:40. Visually, this is about an hour later, like they say. The car might be facing west towards the glowing horizon after sunset, with the brightest point maybe reflecting directly off the left passenger-side mirror, so car facing is a bit SW, just like this stretch of road runs.

So they may give the right time and place, and it doesn't help much when that seems before any army people got to the victims, and right next to where AA had been until some clash earlier that day, and would return to afterwards. In-between, before, and after, they'd have us believe, "It has been for a long time that the Burmese troops have stationed in the factory by the roadside," and we can see how they had those woods surrounded. That was all meant to prove who did the shooting, but then the logical culprits seem to have at least as much access, and perhaps even control of the area.

A Second Incident
In case anyone was unclear on their motives, the Tatmadaw repeated a similar stunt in the same area the following afternoon, and AA again has access. On the 21st, Arakan News reported the "second time COVID-19 related vehicle was shot in Myanmar," this time a truck "carrying antiseptic solutions" (actually pest control - should contain pesticides, unless Competitive Pest Services had branched out during the cisis). This happened "near the Ra-Maung Bridage" and "on the same parameter where WHO’s staff shot and killed and wounded the government health worker on April 20"

The driver again was killed "on the sport" (U Yin Yin Maung), and the "codriver" or passenger (Maung Hin Htet) again was just wounded, and taken to Minbya hospital. They don't say what happened with the truck's cargo.

They say this one was headed the other way, from Rangoon towards Sittwe, but that seems wrong, judging by the provided photo; the sun is moderately high, early afternoon, so coming from the southwest. See how all shadows run to the left, roughly parallel to the road's edge, angling back towards it a bit. The truck is pointed into the sun, so unless it did a U-turn in the cash, the driver's side that was again hit worst was again the side facing the woods AA seems to have constant access to.

photo: regular paramedics, or does AA have its own equivalent of the "White Helmets"? I suppose they're the ones making sure the patient has a mask and gloves on, like they do. The tree it hit seems to have some wooden slat structure leaning against it - part of some kind of amateur roadblock?

The head of local human rights organization that monitors COVID 19 outbreak in Rakhine Said, “I assume Myanmar army is intentionally attacking the COVID 19 related vehicles and health workers because the army wants our people die by the coronavirus infection whereas they believe massive Rakhine population are infected and then killed will make the army to win the war against AA as Aung San Suu Kyi has ordered the army to crash it.” He continues, “When they are losing the war in Rakhine, they target all kinds of civilians for revenge including the WHO staffs and now again over attack on Antiseptic Solution supply vehicle.” He does not want to publish his name for security reason.

Friday, May 1, 2020

Accelerated Nonsense on COVID19

May 1, 2020

Among the COVID19 experts cited by lockdown critics, perhaps only these two are seen in medical scrubs, as if pausing from their front-line response. They did take off any PPE they were wearing … and they seem well rested and relaxed.


Drs. Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi are co-owners of Accelerated Urgent Care (AUC) in Bakersfield, California, which I read has the city's only "private walk-in COVID-19 testing site." Let's consider that. COVID19 testing is important right now, but there are others doing the bulk of it, if not all these days. The other services they provide ae also valuable, but have generally been classed as optional while people focus on containing the virus. As such, private "walk-in" businesses are have largely been closed. It seems AUC is open, but in the video, Dr. Erickson mentions reduced "volume" of patients, people staying home out of fear.

Drs. Erickson and Massihi (hereafter the "AUC doctors.") became famous for an April 22 video presentation posted on Youtube, wherein they argued essentially that COVID19 doesn't kill anyone, and the tens of thousands it hasn't killed so far isn't that bad, being comparable to a regular flu season. And so they're clear there's no good reason for a lockdown, and in fact that might accelerate the spread in at least two cited ways, aside from creating other and deadly problems they're gravely concerned about. As far as I can tell, they're even less expert in these areas then they are on the reality of COVID19, making for a pretty worthless comparison.

Early in the video, Erickson describes his presentation as offering an "ER physician entrepreneur perspective." That might have saved you, dear reader, from more over-explaining than I would otherwise squeeze into this post.

The April 22 video has now been pulled by YouTube over an unspecified "community guidelines" violation; either for being a public health danger or for exposing the truth, opinions differ. I decided to finally have a look to help answer that question. At least two other postings of the video I found had been removed. But there's a later one from 4-29 I didn't watch yet, if it's still available. And the first one, and a transcript of what's said are still available here:
"Open Up Society Now, Say Dr. Dan Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi" Edward Peter Stringham, American Institute for economic research (right-wing free-market stuff, maybe not so good with the science)
https://www.aier.org/article/open-up-society-now-say-dr-dan-erickson-and-dr-artin-massihi/

For this article, I'll cite that and the following rebuttal articles, but will mainly make my own points:

The Prepared
https://theprepared.com/blog/dr-ericksons-viral-covid-19-briefing-video-is-dangerously-wrong/

ACEP-AAEM Joint Statement on Physician Misinformation
https://www.acep.org/corona/COVID-19/covid-19-articles/acep-aaem-joint-statement-on-physician-misinformation
"ACEP feels strongly the traction and popularity of these dangerous conclusions had the potential to lead to bad policy decisions and public health outcomes."

Washington Post via Yahoo News (video, includes segments)
https://news.yahoo.com/two-doctors-became-central-push-183302182.html

KQED
https://www.kqed.org/news/11814749/bakersfield-doctors-dubious-covid-19-test-conclusions-spread-like-wildfire
Dr. Carl Bergstrom, a University of Washington biologist who specializes in infectious disease modeling: “They’ve used methods that are ludicrous to get results that are completely implausible.”

Bakersfield.com
https://www.bakersfield.com/news/two-bakersfield-doctors-cite-their-testing-data-to-urge-reopening/article_eb1959e0-84fa-11ea-9a07-2f2bea880bf9.html

Flu Comparisons
KQED: the AUC doctors found "12% of Californians tested so far have been infected. Extrapolating that to the general population, they estimated that as many as 5 million Californians have likely contracted the virus. They then used the total number of COVID-19 deaths statewide (roughly 1,200, as of last week) to calculate a death rate of just 0.03% - similar to the average death rate from seasonal flu." That's from the statewide data published by the World Health Organization; they cited 33,865 COVID19 cases, out of a total of 280,900 tested, which is about 12%.

Bakersfield.com: "Does that (low death rate) necessitate sheltering in place? Does that necessitate shutting down medical systems? Does that necessitate being out of work?" Erickson asked." An  associate professor of public health at UC Irvine, Andrew Noymer, answered: "The people tested in California were not a random sample; they were mostly people who were symptomatic, Noymer said. Therefore, extrapolating the positive test rate across the entire population of the state is not an accurate way to arrive at how widespread the virus is. And even if 12 percent of the state has had the virus, that still leaves 88 percent vulnerable to it, Noymer said." (if the surviving majority of that 12% were then immune).

A "death rate of just 0.03%" as put in the KQED article is an incorrect reading. That would yield just 10 dead (rounded off). Erickson actually says "you have a zero point zero three chance of dying." That's 0.03, where 1 is 100% certainty. In those terms, he's giving a rate of 3%. By his numbers, that comes out at 1,227. The actual toll recorded for April 22 is a bit higher: 1,419 dead vs. 33,743 cases. So 4.2% of confirmed cases wound up lethal at the time. And the number of dead just a week later is 50% higher: 2,050 fatal out of 50,463 cases. That's about the same: 4.06% are fatal so far (more of those cases are still dying).

So their "96% of people in California who get COVID would recover" may not be that far off, noting it refers just to confirmed cases. But the flipside is 4% of those will die. Considering how extremely contagious it is, that percentage could be applied to an enormously wider population - the 88% he estimates still remain susceptible. How does up to 4% of all Californians dying before this is all over sound? Like … a cash register to some?

Erickson: "the deaths the United States were 43,545 — similar to the flu of 2017-2018. We always have between 37,000 and 60,000 deaths in the United States, every single year. No pandemic talk. No shelter-in-place. No shutting down businesses..." Implicitly, this flu-corona season is done (spoken of in past tense) and shaped up to be about average. If he just meant that was the toll last he checked, that didn't come through clearly. The number of deaths had reached 47,750 on the 22nd as he spoke.
see: https://bing.com/covid/local/unitedstates?form=COVD07

A week later, it's risen nearly 20% to 65,603 dead - so far. We're still far from the end or even the peak, and it's already worse than any prior season. And that's WITH lockdown measures as they exist. The peak here is the steepest rise followed by a clear turn to more horizontal angles, eventually becoming horizontal = 0 new cases or deaths. This is a cumulative graphing, so there's never a downslope, just a plateau, eventually. You don't see much of that here, but try to honestly imagine what it would be if everyone had been running around all this time, punching the clock at work, hitting all those bars, and high-fiving each other over their amazing freedoms.

Here's how it had played in the UK by April 24, as deaths hit 20,000. The UK situation much worse than California's and not much better than New York's, and also reflects some lockdown limitation. since then it's hit 27,000 and still climbing steadily, if a bit slower. 2017/18 is the bad year people compare it to, and that had just 14,000 UK deaths in the end.
https://twitter.com/MichaKobs/status/1253275576493899776

In the end, the US death toll will probably be at least 50% higher than it is now, maybe 2-300% or higher if it keeps going. Without lockdown ... it could easily be twice what it is now, headed for 4-6x or more in the end. Will it end after flu season? probably not, judging how it hasn't ended yet, and how it recently STARTED in many nations NOT in flu season, and has accelerated badly in Brazil, which has only used local lockdowns; the national government headed by Jair Bolsonaro, "the Trump of the Tropics" only  frustrates such efforts, ordering people back to work and firing his health minister. Over 5,000 have died and it's just getting started.

"95% of those around the globe" would live if they all got it, Erickson says at one point, and just 5% would die. That would only be 390 million people. But he meant 4% and we all understand the actual infection rate is much higher, with the light cases not reported. The proportion is unclear, but likely at least doubles the case number and halves the lethality. Something like 1-2% is more likely. And as not everyone will get it, with most of the most vulnerable protected, the averaged global death toll is unlikely to surpass 1% of everyone. And that would only be 78 million dead. That's still a bit high, but it's not hard to see 50 million perishing before this is all over.

"Seasonal Flu Deaths More Common Worldwide Than Expected. Between 291,000 and 646,000 people die each year globally from seasonal influenza-related respiratory illnesses" https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/890082

By Dr. Erickson's reckoning, 78 million would be no big deal, just some 100-150 times more deadly than a seasonal flu. That is comparable; I just compared them.

Furloughed Doctors?
Aside from the death toll, hospitals will be swamped with most of those who die and many of those who will recover, all taking several intensive days to decide, and coming in far faster than they can be released. This, again is an issue the AUC doctors don't have to deal with as they worry more about some downturn that might be effecting them (Decelerated Urgent Care?). They're not an ICU hospital swamped with patients on ventilators struggling to survive. They have time to put on their clean scrubs costumes and hold a long BS session on video.

Video, part 1, 1:25 "severe disruption for Accelerated ... our volumes has dropped significantly. The hospitals, their ICUs are empty, essentially. And they're shutting down floors. They're furloughing patients. They're furloughing doctors. So the health system has been evacuated in certain places. In New York, the health system is working at maximum capacity. In California, we're really at a minimal capacity, getting rid of doctors and nurses because we just don't have the volume. The hospitals don't - I've met with our CEOs twice in the last wee we don't as well."
Transcript "One of the most important things is we need our hospitals back up. We need our furloughed doctors back. We need our nurses back. Because when we lift this thing, we’re gonna need all hands on deck. I know the local hospitals have closed two floors."

What is he talking about? Orthopedics, cancer, plastic surgery? Are doctors that can help being sent home? How hard would it be to call them back in if needed? ICUS are closed? Just to close them, or maybe to have space ready if COVID19 spreads more sharply, due to idiots?

In New York, as I've read around, it IS "all hands on deck," working long shifts, and they're using volunteers (some of those "evacuated" from other areas) to help meet the intense demand, and still can't keep up, contributing to a higher death toll. Some of the reasons are described by an Idaho nurse volunteering on the frontlines in New York: “For people back home, it’s hard to grasp what is happening … We have a very high mortality rate. I definitely stay inside after seeing what I’ve seen.”
This is the "volume" AUC seems envious of, as they urge the virus to be set free. https://inland360.com/top-headlines/2020/04/lewiston-nurse-shares-her-experience-at-ground-zero-of-the-us-pandemic/

COVID19 doesn't kill?
AUC doctors: "we think [COVID19] has nothing to do with the actual cause of death. The actual cause of death was not COVID, but it’s being reported as one of the disease processes and being added to the death list. COVID didn’t kill them, 25 years of tobacco use killed." It killed them right after getting COVID19 - coincidence? A lot of people were set to croak in a mass die-off that was coincidentally about to keep getting worse? No, that's absurd. Clearly, they'd agree, the virus ravaging their systems at least hastens their death. And dead is dead, and today vs. weeks to decades from now matters greatly. End of discussion on died-from vs. died-with.

Natural Immune Defense?
Dr. Erickson argues people need exposed to germs so their bodies can fight the germs; "I don’t want to hide in my home, develop a weak immune system, and then come out and get disease." In general, I like that idea and live by it, whatever scientists say. I never get sick, or very sick. But in this case, all kinds of immunity levels have been tested worldwide, and far too many prove inadequate. That was the friggin' problem to begin with, but he didn't seem to catch that detail.

It seems when you get exposed to COVID19, you get sick, not immune. Some don't even feel it, some struggle, and others die, and all of them tend to spread it. If you live, it seems you have at least temporary immunity, though some evidence says people can get re-infected, and to bad effect. With the wrong mutation, that problem could get worse. At the moment, lysol and avoidance are good ideas. Get your general immune system back up later. It might do no good here, and risks harm if people think they're immune now but aren't.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/coronavirus-immunity-reinfection-get-covid-19-twice-sick-spread-relapse-a9400691.html

https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/24912/20200226/covid-19-reinfection-is-possible-experts-say.htm

The AUC doctors note COVID19 lingers on plastics for up to 3 days, and points to all the possibly contaminated things in your home. If those water bottles were packed or handled by a sick person 2 days ago and you can't wait another day to unpack it, well … it may be safer to run outside and start grabbing things to build up that immunity. Or, wait … can't you build up immunity inside with all those germs? Are they being logically consistent here?

"There’s two ways to get rid of virus: either burns itself out or herd immunity." What virus "burns itself out" except - allegedly - this one? And if those are the only ways, which way did Ebola's spread stop? Did it burn out, or did we get herd immunity? Or is there a third way where you stop transmission so it vanishes when the last case clears up? Yes, there is. COVID19 is unlikely to go that easily, but every limit we can put on its spread will help.

Cause-and-effect
Bakersfield.com Erickson asked "Does that (low death rate) necessitate sheltering in place ... being out of work?" He should ask if the low rate REFLECTS that, relies on it to exist, for him to lean on in suggesting and end to the rule. As they used to say in the TV commercials: "Head and Shoulders? But you don't have dandruff!" The idea is "exactly, and that's why."

The AUC doctors claim "we’ve never, ever responded like this in the history of the country why are we doing this now?" Check response to "Spanish Flu" 1918: "San Francisco had the 1918 flu under control. And then it lifted the restrictions. A cautionary tale about the dangers of reopening too soon."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/san-francisco-had-1918-flu-under-control-then-it-lifted-n1191141

San Francisco had public gathering places closed, and masks required in public (the first but not last city to do this), enforced with fines and arrests. Even churches were closed - people gathered outside them if at all. This article says nothing about shelter-in-place orders or "quarantining the healthy," nor such a wide shutdown of business as we see now, but similar concepts. When cases dropped after a few weeks, the orders were lifted in November:
"A blaring whistle alerted gratified residents across the city and, as the San Francisco Chronicle reported at the time, "the sidewalks and runnels were strewn with the relics of a torturous month," despite warnings from the health department to maintain face coverings. As celebrations continued and residents flocked to theaters, restaurants and other public spaces soon thereafter, city officials would soon learn their problems were far from over."
Three weeks later, the article continues, a clear resurgence and then spikes of cases and deaths had the rules re-imposed. An "Anti-Mask League" was formed to protest. They probably cited outsider opinions by the 1918 versions of these AUC doctors. That flu was finally licked globally by early 1920, no thanks to some people. Some 50 million were killed by then, or more by some counts.

Weighing the Costs
The AUC doctors were sudden experts in various areas besides epidemiology, ready with a list of ills lockdown has contributed to horribly, just in its few weeks of existence: "child abuse, alcoholism, loss of revenue—all these are, in our opinion, a significantly more detrimental thing to society than a virus that has proven similar in nature to the seasonal flu we have every year." - "Child molestation is increasing at a severe rate. We could go over multiple cases of children who have been molested due to angry family members who are intoxicated, who are home, who have no paycheck. Spousal abuse: we are seeing people coming in here with black eyes and cuts on their face. It’s an obvious abuse of case [sic]. These are things that will affect them for a lifetime, not for a season. Alcoholism, anxiety, depression, suicide. Suicide is spiking; education is dropped off; …"

Does this feel a bit heavy-handed to anyone else? What data shows increased child molestation in the last couple weeks? Are they reporting the clear abuse cases? This will happen, and even if it's not common, the scale is huge so it will add up. But then there are others who beat their children to take out the stress of their work, who'll be beating them less now. There suicides from stress, workplace accidents, school bullying and school shootings that have dropped off, and a lot of traffic fatalities will have been prevented. And I don't think I'm the only one enjoying a paid staycation, so far. These differences might be small, but again the scale is huge, so they would add up and partly mitigate the downsides.

I wouldn't ague that they balance out for everyone - lockdown is a lesser of two evils. It's surely saved thousands of lives, and allowed medical systems to keep up, but only at a high cost.

The spread of COVID19 should have been aggressively contained early on, but it wasn't. It spreads like hell to very many people, and a lot of those wind up too sick to be anywhere but the hospital. So we are all in some kind of crash here. The idea, as I gather, is to slow that down and control it, spread the load so each sector takes a hit and no sector breaks. The "herd" can hardly be kept from getting it and becoming partly immune, at least. But whatever degree, it's best done in shifts - its natural speed is just too great. No world government wants broken sectors, medical or economic. None of them wants too many of their useful people sick at once, or too many dying. A scant few governments have been ambivalent and risked it, while the vast majority have enacted variations of "lockdown." These include "Communist" China (with the most "repressive" and effective response yet) to the Islamic Republic of Iran, their allies in in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and their arch-enemies in Saudi Arabia and Israel, in Egypt, Tunisia, Russia, India, Singapore, South Africa, Italy, Spain, Germany, France, Netherlands, Norway, even Sweden and Turkey to some degree, UK, US, Canada, Mexico, and most of the other countries that exist. Even Brazil and Belarus to some degree and on some levels have told people not to do things they'd rather do. This is not all for the fun of it, and not I think for some global conspiracy. They consulted their experts in health, epidemiology, economics, and other fields, between them all surely forming a better view than these two … let me just be the asshole here and risk overstating it … these two fairly young, apparently inexpert, disgruntled businessmen in work uniforms that, in context, serve as misleading doctor costumes.

Back to Dr. Erickson's exploration of lockdown's downside: "...economic collapse. Medical industry, we’re all suffering because our staff isn’t here and we have no volume. We have clinics from Fresno to San Diego and these things are spiking in our community. These things will affect people for a lifetime, not for a season." There we go - lost volume, lost revenue. THIS is something they'll be in a position to really know about. It's the one area they mention where I'd trust their expertise. AUC wants it more like New York, more "volume" where they're operating at full capacity. But something in California was keeping people from getting massively sick with COVID19, and other classes of business had dropped of as well; unwarranted fear, as Erickson paints it, was keeping a lot of AUC's patients away. That fear - along with direct orders to avoid "walking in" to places you don't need to - is the same issue faced by so many BUSINESSES. In their case, maybe being a walk-in clinic for largely symptomatic people wanting tested for COVID19 might add the valid concerns of other patients even more than any government fearmongering.

Don't we Humans make the economy? Does it control us? Yeah, it does, but still … it can be recovered, re-built as needed (keep an eye on the HOW). It's true some businesses may not recover from this crisis, even after people do get mobile again. I think I can name one in Bakersfield, California that just increased the danger of that.

Thursday, April 30, 2020

COVID19: UK Peak in Mid-March?

April 30, 2020
rough, incomplete

COVID19 lockdown critics in the UK have frequently argued that infection rates or related deaths
had "peaked" very early, in mid-March. I've encountered four reasons to say this, as offered by three experts some find trustworthy, and by circumstance:

1) Prof. Paul Heneghan called peak infections on 3-16 because it's 21 days before peak deaths on 4-8 and he notes infection rates of some kind halved after that.

2) Isaac Ben-Israel decided the virus spreads to a peak in 40 days, declines to near zero in 70 days, no matter where or what people do. By that, UK peak infections would be around March 13.

3) Math hoaxer Andrew Mather finds March 16 has the highest increase of … daily total death vs. prior total given as a percentage? ... which ... means something? This is the one I consider in most detail here.

4) What I suspect is the real reason: A peak then would be just before social distancing suggestions gave way, between Mach 18 and 23, to the controversial lockdown of most commerce and stern admonitions to "stay home, save lives". They and/or their fans in the public wanted to see the crisis set to resolve naturally before lockdown, to prove that hated policy was a scam they can look heroic for fighting, or even that, as 21st Century Wire put it, UK Ministers "knew" the pandemic was wrapping up when they acted, clearly for some other reason.

1) Carl Heneghan is the Director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, based at Oxford University, and professor of same, at the same. I don't know how well he handles evidence to base medicine on, aside from these arguments about COVID19, and that doesn't seem encouraging. But his center is at Oxford, not in some strip-mall, so maybe I'm missing something.

Back on March 11 at just 456 cases and eight deaths in the UK, Henegan noted "the seasonal peak in winter respiratory illnesses has occurred; the normal year on year trend would see a continued downturn in infections and deaths. However, it is too early to tell: the next few weeks will determine whether the trend for a reduction in deaths is maintained, or whether the Covid-19 outbreak takes hold and leads to more infections and rising mortality." A few weeks later, we could see it had taken hold, but he seems to argue it had peaked about then and was declining, as cited in a Daily Mail article of April 20: "[Heneghan] refers to a delay in the time it takes for an infected person to fall seriously ill and die - three weeks on average. He claims that if the Government accepts that deaths peaked on April 8, then it must mean that infections were at their highest around three weeks prior." He presumes that was a high, IF the 8 April peak was a real high (the 10th was the actual peak: 980 dead in one day) followed by a real decline (followed, with a long delay, staying around 800/day on average for nearly two weeks after - that whole thing is the long peak, IF there's just one peak). If March 16 was the peak of new cases (it wasn't), then rates would have dropped since then, and logically might continue. There's no mention of his checking actual data and seeing such a drop, and as it happens there isn't one.

The time he guesses should be around March 15-16, and the 16th came up especially as a point where rates of something dropped, which is taken as suppoting the guess. "Data shows the rate of Britons with upper respiratory tract infections dropped from 20 per 100,000 people on March 15 to around 12 per 100,000 just six days later. The figures do not relate solely to coronavirus but may be a good indicator because so few people were being tested for the deadly infection." That's clearly lame, and apparently the figures don't relate AT ALL to COVID19. The article included this image, captioned "Royal College of GP data shows the number of people with flu-like illness in England and Wales dropped by 50 per cent when hand-washing and social distancing was encouraged on March 16. Professor Heneghan says this is evidence full lockdown was not necessary." In fact the same vague numbers (green line) show coronavirus cases increasing sharply at the same time - presumably less sharply than they would have, but still rising to 5 per 10,000. I haven't checked this against the data, but the flat week April 5-12 looks perhaps too flat, and I don't know about the start and the rise, but it's clear there was a rise abut then, while prof. Heneghan insisted it "must" have started declining then.

But it turns out there's a kind of COVID19 infections number - one of no relevance - that DID roughly halve after the 16th. We'll come back to that in point 3.

2) Times of Israel reported on April 14 the findings of Isaac Ben-Israel, "a prominent Israeli mathematician, analyst and former general," "head of the Security Studies program in Tel Aviv University and the chairman of the National Council for Research and Development" and he also "heads Israel’s Space Agency." Wow. Another mathematician, but one presumably dedicated to the safety and well-being of the nation he serves, and highly competent. And here he slams economic closures in Israel and elsewhere as disproportionate responses to a virus that apparently gets bored and stops bothering people in a certain country after a few weeks. Maybe he's hoping the idea catches on in Iran. He "claims simple statistical analysis demonstrates that the spread of COVID-19 peaks after about 40 days" (and thus, 40 nights) and then "declines to almost zero after 70 days - no matter where it strikes, and no matter what measures governments impose to try to thwart it." He completely fails to explain why this would happen, simply claiming that it does, according to the numbers, which don't lie.

But if 40 days to "play out" means after he first reported case, it's pretty well disproven as a general pattern, even checking against the nations he cites as examples (Sweden, Singapore, Taiwan). If he has another measuring point, it's unspecified and would probably prove wrong as well. Taiwan is the most fitting to his description, with no others close to conforming. And in Taiwan as everywhere, it's impossible to separate natural progression from human-imposed limits.
https://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2020/04/covid19-experts-and-fake-curve.html

As it happens, in the UK 40 days in is March 13. That's a rough and variable number (about 40 days - unless he meant divinely-ordained 40-days/40-night, which I guess would be exact). So this could be seen as fitting the other indicators pointing to a mid-March peak. To Ben-Israel, that would have nothing to do with the distancing and hygiene measures taken then, as Heneghan suggested. He'd say it's just how this virus works, with some never-before seen self-destruct mechanism that kicks in just early enough to make counter-measures seem unneeded. How that maps out against actual data is included in the big UK graphic at top, in the blue-gray boxes.

3) More from Andrew Mather or Math(hoax)er. I spent too long in my last post re-explaining the logarithmic optical illusion he passed off as showing some real declines in every nation's infection rates - the artificially flattened curve he gets with this trick looks similar to China's aggressively contained spread, so he slapped them together misleadingly to suggest a natural mellowing akin to what Ben-Israel imagines, and at least in the UK, coming out on a similar timescale.

His latest video includes a few more confusing graphics ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjyhGboI4C0
https://peerlessreads.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/CV19FNF_NoMoreLiesItsOver_200425a.pdf

At 3:15 he shows "ONS registered deaths, COVID19 involved" labeled "Daily Growth" but also, on other slides, it's "rate of decline for new-daily deaths" or "the death and case new-growth rates" which "just keep going down, as they have done since day one." (meaning since this peak of something on March 14 or 16, not since first confirmed cases on Feb. 2). I admit I'm a little hazy just what these and other figures are supposed to show, but here are two cropped slides from the PDF version that I decided to try and explain. In both cases, the jagged blue line shows the falling UK number(s), and come with reminders that the peak deaths and cases has passed, suggesting the graphs show the decline from that point.
The smooth curves above seem to trace the low vs. high trends of the blue curve later, the reddish ones marking the same earlier. He suggests the data changes later to avoid showing the natural decline he keeps pretending is real. As I'll show below, it's not clear what the blue line actually represents and how accurately it's plotted.

The smooth curves here just the high, middle, and low trends. The blue curve is different from the one above, but similar and, as I'll show below, is probably based on the same data.

Whatever this number is shown by the jagged blue lines, it visually seems to decline on balance, from a high at graph's start on 3-16 to the present, where it seems both much lower and more stable, likely to settle at zero any time now. But is a zero "decline for new-daily deaths" good, bad, or just dependent?

In this presentation, Mather says - as he has before - the same curves include numbers "breaking through 100% (peak deaths) on the 10th/11th April, in line with 11th Peak in Cases." But the visual shows an apparent high on March 16. That's on a scale given in percentages. Is it % compared to April 10/11 as 100%? No, because no other day should have more than 100% of the peak (highest day), or that other day would be the peak. But April 10 itself plots out at 15%, not 100 (and that 15% represents 980 deaths that day). Then March 16 plots about 165%, and that refers to just 34 new deaths. 34 clearly is not 165% of 980. This whole thing has some meaning other than the one visually suggested.

...
Main data source: https://bing.com/covid/local/unitedkingdom?form=COVD07
This seems to use the same WHO numbers everyone else does, although I've seen smaller tallies in some spots, etc. I used each day's increase AS a percent increase over the prior total for the orange plots on a scale ranging from 0 to 170% … working manually with my cell phone's calculator,  I might have a point or two wrong - anyone can check - the list below has all the numbers I used - possibly with wrong spots as well. In these two example entries, you get the orange plot by dividing the 10 on line 2 by the 11 on line 1, for a 91% increase.

date - new total - daily - %
3-14   11      +1       10%
3-15   21      +10     91%

This I overlaid with the blue curves from Mather's slides 1 and 2, lined up by dates and somewhat by value. As noted, his start point ~165% has the same basic number I found for that day (162%) and should line up as here. If the lows are also aligned, a middle peak on 3-28 also lines up. But between these points, all his numbers and lines come out different, seeming more "plausible" than my orange plots, Note these blue curves don't even match each other, but all three seem to share a general pattern dropping from about 160 to about 5% over the same time, just variously distorted. that says to me he's using this base method, along with some other math trick that mellows out the wild dips and rises of this irrelevant number, or maybe he's just drawing in "plausible" lines between the real highs and lows.
...

notes:
* At one point, Mather says the plotted data was "delayed 4 days to best reflect WHO data." The best pattern match-up comes from lining up the dates directly, with no 4-day shift.
* At another point, he says the peak % increase was on 15 March when 2 deaths jumped to 11. But on my end 11 was reached on the 14th after climbing to 3, 6, and 10. The jump is on the 16th, from 21 to 55, and that's the 162% he shows as the start point in slide 1.
...
date - new total - daily + - %
3-6  0
3-7  1  +1 inf.%
3-8  2  +1  100%
3-9  2  +0  0%
3-10  3  +1  33.3%
3-11  6  +3  100%
3-12  10  +4  66.7%
3-13  10  +0  0%
3-14  11  +1  10%
3-15  21  +10  91%
3-16  55  +34  162%
3-17  71  +16  29%
3-18  104  +33  46.5%
3-19  144  +40  38.5%
3-20  177  +33   23%
3-21  234  +57  32.2%
3-22  282  +48  20.5%
3-23  335  +53  18.8%
3-24  422  +87  26%
25  465  +43  10%
26  578  +113  24%
27  578  +0  0%
28  1,028  +450*  77.9%
29  1,228  +200  19.5%
30  1,408  +180  15%
31  1,789  +381  27%
4-1  2352  +563  31.5%
4-2  2921  +569  24.2%
4-3  3611  +690  23.6%
4-4  4313  +702  19.4%
4-5  4932  +619  14.4%
4-6  5373  +441  8.9%
4-7  6159  +786  14.6%
4-8 7,097  +938 15.3%
4-9  7,978  +881  12%
4-10  8,958  +980  12%
4-11  9,875  +917  10%
4-12  10,612  +737  7.5%
4-13  11,329  +717  6.8%
4-14  12,107  +778  6.9%
4-15  12,868  +761  6.3%
4-16  13,729  +861  6.7%
4-17  14,576  +847  6.2%
4-18  15,464  +888  6.1%
4-19 16,060  +596  3.9%
4-20  16,509  +449  2.8%
4-21  17,337  +828 5%
22  18,100  +763  4.4%
23  18,738  +768  4.2%
24  19,506  +768  4.1%
25  20,319  +813  4.2%
26 20,732  +413  2%
3-27  21,092  +360  1.7%
3-28  21,678  +586  2.8%
--- graph end
3-29  26,097  +4,419** 20.4%
3-30  26,771 +674 2.6%

* a clear 2-day tally following a blank day
** adds previously excluded deaths in care homes, etc. (outside NHS hospitals) + unclear daily tally
...

Sunday, April 26, 2020

Forensic Medicine vs, Lies in Syria

April 26, 2020
(rough, incomplete)
adds 4-30

The War Through the Eyes of Forensic Medicine (Part 1) is a fascinating documentary from Lebanese Al-Mayadeen's From the Ground program (which previously did an awesome show on the 2013 Latakia Massacres) This is filed by the same reporter, Ugarit Dandash, and was aired in March, now hosted by Arabi Souri and SyriaNews.

al-Mayadeen page
https://www.syrianews.cc/the-war-of-terror-on-syria-through-forensic-medicine-graphic/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/bnL6vYMzOR5W/

This seems to be a part 1, suggesting there is/will be a part 2, which might cover the "Caesar photos," in which case I'll be very interested.
4-30: Michael Kobs, who alerted me to this show's existence, had to point out part 2 was already up and linked. That's here, with content (not covering the Caesar photos) to be worked in below.
https://www.syrianews.cc/the-war-of-terror-on-syria-through-forensic-medicine-2-graphic/

Dr. Zaher Hajjo
In part 1, Dandash speaks mainly with two informed experts:
- Dr. Zaher Hajjo - head, general association of forensic medicine, Syria (right)
- Dr. Bassam Muhammad - head, general association of forensic medicine, Homs (below)
In part 2 ...
- At least one other, female doctor ...
- ...

Dr. Bassam Muhammad, Homs
Dr. Hajjo especially is clear in underlining how forensic medicine has blocked lies against the state, helped them learn of emerging dangers, from professional snipers with better weapons than the Syrian army, to helping decode the ominous signs emerging in the torture and mutilation of citizens. Dr. Muhammad shares some harrowing stories from the early days in Homs, 2011.

Marie Colvin
The famous case of the journalist Marie Colvin is highlighted here. Dr. Muhammad explains how her body was found "buried" in Baba Amro in early March, 2012. This is shown, with little or no soil on her clothes (so lightly buried, and not for very long - she was killed on Feb. 22, in the last days before the government defeated all militants and restored order there). The photographs were interesting to me, but maybe unnecessary for the general public. Hence, no need to re-show them here. But what they show is important. As I'll try and read it for you:

- a messed-up seeming right eye, left eye invisible - it was the left eye she always covered with a patch, so this is part of her fatal injuries.
- partial dentures (or what is it, a bridge? the bolted-in kind, but now loose)
- small pock-mark injuries as from "shrapnel" (primary explosive fragments), apparently coming mainly from her right side
- a severe excavating injury to the left shoulder, now blackened with decay (and/or burnt?)
- some kind of redness, abrasion, and maybe breakage of the upper right arm, possibly explosion-related
- a cracked upper skull with a large (entry?) wound on the upper right side.

X-ray slides are also shared, showing no collarbone on the left, and a skull crack all along the front, besides an apparent nail in her skull that's said to show a "home-made grenade" (or nail-bomb?) killed her, not a weapon of the Syrian military. Otherwise, just small fragments are evidenced on her skin and in her leg x-rays (shattered bone at the worst of it), with fewer marks at all to the face and head, and those perhaps being upward from a low angle. I see no other nail impacts suggested, except perhaps in a longer gash to the right forearm. Something sizeable and round lodged in her right shoulder? Anyway, it's for more expert people to say what this all means.
Marie Colvin x-ray images

I haven't studied the Colvin story that much, except to assess the legal case made based on the "Assad Files" and mainly on the claims of defector "Ulysses." By this, Syria was tipped off by "Lebanese sources" as to Colvin's crossing, and Assad issued an order to "do the necessary." He may have, but that's allegedly a code-phrase meaning arrest her but also to kill if necessary. So Colvin's location at a media center was pinpointed, the regime tried arresting her by shelling the area around the media center (presumably with some kind of mortars), then closer, then on it. Then once people were killed an maimed, they stopped, let the media activists bury Colvin, and evacuate Paul Conroy, etc. Assad had gotten himself in deep trouble murdering a high-profile foreign journalist, mission accomplished. Was that really "necessary"? Also, there was no reflection of this whatsoever found among the million pages of "Assad Files," even the plausible order to "do the necessary" which - in documents that do exist - seems to means arrest them, monitor them, nothing else specific.)

Jisr al-Shughour massacre
At about 20:00 in they discuss the June 5, 2011 Jisr al-Shughour massacre (ACLOS page), which the reporter, Ugarit Dandash was eager to get to. There, just across the Turkish border, an unnaturally strong force of a nascent "Free Syrian Army" ... allegedly did little as soldiers and/or Hezbollah guys massacred each other in a major controversy over shooting some unarmed protesters. The death toll remains a bit unclear and disputed, including civilians killed in a general rampage, besides soldiers, police, postal workers, and other civil servants. Dr. Hajjo adds previously unknown details including how one man was cut in half longitudinally (which would take something like a chainsaw if I visualize that right), and another was forensically proven to have been buried alive. 90 bodies were found by a team including Hajjo, as he says, and at least another 15 are believed killed but were never found.

Robert Ford blocking the stench on a "sanitized" visit to JaS
At 22:00 Hajjo says how hostile powers had their experts come and ty to discredit the Syrian narrative, picking out supposed discrepancies - but he says their medical explanations were so convincing no one could challenge it; a Gulf Arab news channel's reporter said the Syrian case seemed to be true, and was simply replaced with a more compliant reporter. I'd already seen a BBC report conclude the same. The story was described as "sanitized" by a state-arranged visit for media and others, including US "ambassador" Robert Ford, who was criticized for even attending. Yet the Syrian government has still never been held to account for their alleged massacre of their own troops. No one's in trouble at all. If you haven't already, ask why.

The perpetrator, as Damascus sees it, was Lt. Col. Hussein Harmoush, a Salafist-leaning defector who headed the local FSA. After the massacre, he wound up in Turkey, talking to their intel service MIT, who were apparently backing and tracking his actions. But his own MIT handler was so personally sickened by the crimes he was forced to keep track of, he defied Erdogan to kidnap Lt. Col. Harmoush and have him smuggled back into Syria to face justice, which he apparently did. And there's an unusually happy ending to a still-tragic tale.
https://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2015/10/hussein-harmoush-fsa-defector-profile.html

Note: the footage used at 20:17 of bodies dumped the river, is from Hama some 6 weeks later; Al-Qaeda-linked militants there had kidnapped and slaughtered at least a dozen "secret police" officers the night of July 31/August 1. That story that plays into this amazing article I wrote for 21st Century Wire that just destroys the fake "Assad Files" narrative of the "Committee for International Justice and Accountability."
https://21stcenturywire.com/2018/10/11/revolution-unraveled-assad-files-now-an-achilles-heel-for-war-crimes-narrative/

Hamza al-Khatib
At 25:40 both doctors speak to the pivotal story of the boy Hamza al-Khatib, said to be arrested from a peaceful march on April 29, 2011 and killed on May 25 after a month's torture. Both of them emphasize how the "bruises" on his body said to show beatings was actually decay, as I've also said (bruises ae blue then yellow-brown, while these spots are green-going-on-black). The activists lied; he was fatally shot on 29 April and spent the next month slowly decaying under refrigeration, not suffering torture in a jail cell. The gunshot wounds that killed Hamzah were called cigar burns in some accounts, because they turned black ... with unacknowledged decay). As I've noted, he also lacks the shackle marks he should have if hanged by his wrists for a week, as alleged.

Other issues:
- Age of about 16 proven by forensic medicine? He's always looked to me younger than that, was noted by initial examination to lack body hair that's usually there by 16, is said to be 13, and his ostensible grave marker has him as 13 when he died or still 12 if it was on April 29, as I believe. He did appear unusually tall for that age, besides heavyset - clearly older than shown in his famous school photo - and Dr. Hajjo says the boy was more like 16, based on dental and skeletal details. I'll leave it disputed (maybe tall and 15-16 skeletally, but 12-13 otherwise?) Note that still no one has said he was in his 20s except in a mistranslation of "second decade" (age 10-20) and repetitions of that.

- Shot while defending the housing compound at Saida? It seems this is what Dr. Muhammad says here. Otherwise Hamzah is said to be among the people who walked there from other towns. Some 50 other men and boys were also reportedly killed in a "Saida massacre" - some shot that day and others arrested and tortured to death later. One woman was listed as killed by "shooting" by the opposition VDC (whereas the marchers seem to be exclusively male). She and the captain of the guard also listed by VDC at least seem to have been killed from within the compound, presumably by the attackers. Was Hamza as well? I still don't think so. His family seemingly lived elsewhere, in Jeezah. In fact that might have just meant shot during the defense of the base, in line with prior, vague claim-guesses. But to me the three gunshots suggests a strange sort of close-up execution, not accidentally gunned-down at random; it appears he was shot through each arm and into each side of his chest (from the left and the right), probably while bound hands-behind (why else would his arms and sides both line up like that?), as well as in the middle of the chest from the front. The other victims we can see on video have sporadic signs of execution, including stab wounds and likely torture. They also tends to have patches of green like Hamza suggesting that violence all happened on April 29.
- Severed penis: this was the most extreme of the claims against the Syrian government, and always denied by their official examinations and statements. The visuals - let's just skip the details - were always ambiguous to me, allowing for that denied mutilation (while far from proving it). The circumstances also allowed for it; the terrorists hiding in that "protest march" may have brought him, shot him, and dumped him all to demonize the state. Adding such a horrible mutilation would only make sense. It might have been denied in 2011 to ease tensions/because no one outside Syria would buy it. But I don't see these doctors now avoiding the charge on either basis, considering all the other incendiary crimes they discuss freely. So I'll defer more than I have - apparently even the terrorists refused to make that mutilation real.
Background: http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2016/04/re-considering-hamza-al-khatib-and.html

More Horrors
I'll cover other points more in brief (especially as I should cover part 2 here as well - unless it's super-interesting, which it might be.

Around 34:00 Dr. Muhammad relates a tragic story of a civilian kidnapped in Homs and tortured, including a bizarre surgical procedure to prevent him urinating. Three days after he disappeared, they set him loose in a car rigged to explode (on a signal? a timer? His rising from the seat?). As the story goes, he drove to security checkpoint, maybe on instructions or to seek help. As the story goes, on seeing the lone guard coming to greet him, he changed plans and backed the car up some ways before the bomb was detonated, killing only the tormented driver. Dr. Muhammad says this story was kept quiet at the time to avoid anyone copying the idea, but was reported to a UN-Arab League mission (the mission was initially sympathetic, but later re-staffed and made more hostile to Syria.)

At 40:00 Dr. Hajjo tells of a civilian accused of supporting the state who was kidnapped (region and time unclear) and then tortured so badly over a span of time that his wife paid the terrorists a hefty ransom just to have him killed so it could end.

Finally for me, at 37:15 Dr. Muhammad describes how the terrorists had (in Homs, 2011), carved all the flesh off one victim's face, head, and body from the chest up, most of which - if not all - should be done after he had died. I presume a forensic doctor knows this was done with blades, and extra-sick terrorists were at work in Homs; they did mutilate bodies and they might carve the flesh off people, and even eat it for all we know. The famous "FSA cannibal" Abu Sakkar (killed 2016) founded the Farouk brigades early on in Homs, and was perhaps active at the time of this episode, though he only became infamous in 2013 for a video-recorded bite into the (liver?) of a killed soldier. But FWIW that was a symbolic bite, a twist on mutilation - he didn't truly chew and eat any of it, that we see, and didn't spend much time carving out more than the one organ. And just to be a know-it-all, I'll suggest this - when I've seen skeletonized bodies or faces (where neither fire nor advanced decay is involved) - and they were left outdoors for any time - my first presumption is predation; feral dogs or wild animals ate their flesh as food. They have better motive for such a hassle of an operation. If his body was more covered or less appetizing from the chest down, that would fit the bill. But that should have been considered, and it's not what Dr. Muhammad concluded, so I defer, but only after mentioning the other option, just in case.

Saturday, April 25, 2020

More COVID19 Reality Checks

April 25, 2020

People are still debating if there's any serious danger from COVID19 to justify the widespread "lockdown" anti-mobility measures taken by a majority of the world's governments. They see a death toll not so high, imagine that's got nothing to do with the lower levels of human contact (direct and indirect). That's exactly how diseases have spread in the past, but they think this one is different - it either doesn't spread much, or spreads just as well through walls as it does through close air or skin contact.

At least, these are the sort of implications underlying the conclusions of morons pushing to end the tyranny of lockdown. Here I'll share again some infographics I've been working on - possibly final updates to make my case so I can move on to other things. They're all a bit big to read on-page, sorry. But they can be popped-out in a new tab, etc.

United Kingdom
Coronavirus lockdown opponents in the UK especially are inspired by some arbitrary and heavy-handed enforcement of distancing rules, and at least one alarmist prediction of half a million dead which they found laughably off. This has left them plenty of choice, but still they formed and firmly hold a mistaken idea the virus presents no real danger; it's a myth invented to facilitate their enslavement. They've been zealous in defense of the economy, privacy, liberty, and the mental health of cooped-up people, calling the cure worse than the disease, which they say is comparable to any annual flu.

As they all-but predict the end Western Civilization (maybe Eastern + middle too?), they've been less interested in the details of the danger that's mobilized their government and nearly every other on Earth to impose these unprecedented measures. Several of these sudden armchair experts have been quite certain the virus would get unusually "exhausted" in its tangle with the Brits, the death toll would be minor, the peak had already passed, etc. Over here, I thoroughly illustrate how a favorite claim that WHO data supports those view is based on an optical illusion and a lot of deceptive branding. Others have reached similar conclusions based mainly on wanting there to be no danger. They seem not to notice they're proven more wrong every day that the UK lodges another couple thousand cases and loses on average 800 lives, as I gather just in NHS hospitals (or perhaps that refers to the even-lower tallies I see in some places - admittedly hazy on that). A sizeable number also die in prisons, at home, in care homes, and wherever else. The official death toll now stands at just over 20,000, but (if it is so exclusive) the real toll might be 50% above that or even higher. Just the 20k puts the UK at the moment at #5 worst rate of deaths per population (behind Belgium, Spain, Italy, and France. They come out just ahead of the Netherlands, then Sweden - the other two initially joining the UK in a "herd immunity" approach)

Sweden
The lockdown critics often cite shining examples of less intrusive methods, first and foremost being Sweden. Their strategy based on "herd immunity," a policy initially taken but quickly abandoned by the UK and Netherlands. But this is not as uncontrolled as some think, and seems to be less effective than those same people think. A range of anti-mobility options were suggested and largely employed by a fairly astute populace, keeping the spread under control with a sort of voluntary, partial lockdown that may not work so well in other countries. Even in Sweden, it's allowed 18,177 confirmed cases so far, and 2,192 deaths, so Sweden ranks 7th worst in the world for deaths - doing just better than the Netherlands and UK (#6 and #5).

Belarus
Some have pointed to the former Soviet Republic of Belarus as an even better example of non-interference, where the government suggests normal routine, vodka, and visits to the sauna (besides quiet containment measures) would suffice. A slow start in a less-populous county let that seem feasible in Belarus, but they're currently just above 10,000 confirmed cases, likely with low confirmation so true rates are more like 20,000 or higher. In a populace of just 9.45 million, that's at least 0.11% or infected, and it's rising fast - what was 600 confirmed cases/day is more like 800 in recent days.  President Lukashenko has publicly named and rejected the same kind of NWO conspiracy theories held by so many lockdown opponents. These love to suggest people don't die from COVID19, but from other things - in large numbers, shortly after contracting it. They might embrace President Lukashenko's Stalinist decree that in Belarus, no one will die from COVID19, but instead from those other things. So far 72 deaths are reported by WHO as linked to the illness, but he would dispute that. It's hard to say how many patriots have died quietly at home, with vodka in hand but nothing confirmed. I also noted a delay in reportage for 2 days, shortly after that announcement - Belarus may have stopped reporting to/cooperating with the WHO, but if so they got back on, but still may avoid learning and reporting the true number of cases and deaths.

Brazil
Less people cite the example of Jair Bolsonaro, the "Trump of the Tropics" as he leads the 210 million people of Brazil though this "little flu" that might get worse come flu season there. He too senses a conspiracy and rejects it, trying to override local lockdown orders, even firing his health minister - managed to get TWO false-negative tests to confuse a first and fourth test showing he DID have the virus and should have avoided spreading it around Brazil, in Miami, etc. As Bolsonaro understands Brazil's economy, it's like that Fukushima reactor: it "can't stop." They're digging mass graves now.


Turkey
Turkey ... on average perhaps similar to Sweden, but with more heavy-handedness that's sporadic and based on an even more muddled relationship with real-world science. All-in-all control measures here are moderate in scale and effectiveness, but that's little help with Turkey's dense and mobile population. By 7 April they had the world's fastest climb of new cases - more than 3,000 per day. By later April they has racked up more than China or Iran despite the head start both had. Now at 108,000 they have more cases than any nation outside Europe and the US. As for "we're all in this together" - Erdogan finally gave up his plans to forcibly inject "millions" of partly-infected refugees into Europe via Greece. But then Tukey is also accused of stealing ventilators headed for hard-hit Spain. They deny that, and checking into it now (Reddit) ... seems a deal was made with a Turkish company that makes the machines, payment was made, but it ignored a standing export ban which authorities enforced, blocking the transfer. Then under pressure, they agreed to send the machines rather than return the money, as if to say "we're all in this together and we don't want any more PR that's that bad." Okay, that also makes sense.

Top Ten Worts Death Tolls Considered
from https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/

Belgium: I haven't looked into this much, but heard they had an early care homes epidemic that skewed death toll unusually high. They should also have a bad general spread that would be wosre if not for the control measures they've taken.

Spain: not sure how it got so bad there and why - they're in "lockdown" - it's bad - cause-and-effect?

Italy: more so than Spain or anywhere but China, it hit Italy by surprise, before anyone could take measures, and has been hard to rein in after that. The initial phase would be extra-deadly, leaving a high toll others would only catch up to later (as happened - see above entries, and the ones below are still getting there)

France: not sure in general, but the last thing allowed before they started lockdown was the biggest ever gathering of Smurfs - some 3,500 people gathered in Landerneau, France had their skin smeared in blue paint (that everyone shared, probably) and posed together in giant white hats. Note these aren't social-distancing boxes used in some street markets now, but to cram a certain number into for easier tallying. In a pool that size, plus workers + others, it's possible there were no COVID19 infections and no spread, but otherwise ... they giggled at early coronavirus worries - Smurfs are immune! (should be a lot of Belgians there too, maybe taking it home, kick-starting things there?)

United Kingdom: initial response was "herd immunity" - let it spread, because it's hard to contain. The rapid spread and number of hospital cases piled up quickly and they changed course, found it hard to rein in. Even under lockdown it spreads in a slowed, incomplete herd-immunity, at a speed that's difficult but manageable.

Netherlands: same basic story as UK - herd immunity policy swiftly abandoned, but the early start gave the virus a wider spread that's harder to slow. And however exactly it happens, they get a high death toll proportionally almost the same as the UK's.

Sweden: same as UK, NL but for keeping the faith with herd immunity, probably because it kept seeming manageable - lower initial cases and slower spread, because the people went into half-lockdown mode with less compulsion required (a smart herd - probably smarter than most). Being low to start with, lockdown-type measures are on the increase now in Sweden as they try to slow the spread - others who already did are now looking at decreasing measures. Sweden has put itself 'behind the curve' in that sense.

Switzerland, Ireland, not sure.

US: sizable country, not the brightest, didn't take it seriously, and we have New York. Other details, but that's good enough for me.