by Ellie Gardey
Spectator.org

 

Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota announced Thursday that her state achieved a $19 million surplus for the 2020 fiscal year.

For Noem, one of five governors who did not issue a stay-at-home order, it was a vindication of her hands-off approach to the COVID-19 pandemic, which protected her state’s economy while at the same time safeguarding the health of the people of South Dakota.

“As many states closed their economies, I trusted South Dakotans to make the right decisions for themselves and their loved ones,” said the 48-year-old Republican governor in announcing the surplus. “Our future remains bright because we kept our state open for business and we live within our means.” 

South Dakota experienced one of the smallest outbreaks of the virus in the nation even without the stringent measures imposed on most of the country. This is likely a consequence of the state’s low population density, its rural nature, voluntary social distancing, and the reasonable restrictions Noem did set in place.

Only 116 deaths attributed to COVID-19 have been recorded as of Friday in the state, which has the fifth-lowest population density in the nation and a population of around 880,000. South Dakota has also not experienced a recent climb in cases like many states have — on Thursday, July 16, the state recorded only 42 new cases. 

The surplus is more evidence that South Dakota’s economy has been spared the devastation wrought in other states by the pandemic. 

Across the country, states are facing budgets destroyed by drastically reduced tax revenue and increased spending to fight the virus: Connecticut had a $1 billion deficit for the 2020 fiscal year and New York had a $13.3 billion deficit for the fiscal year, for instance.

Sales and use tax, South Dakota’s largest revenue source, grew 4.6 percent in 2020 over the last fiscal year, according to a press release. 

South Dakota has also recorded the second-smallest contraction in gross domestic product of any state in the first quarter of 2020, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Only Nebraska, which also did not have a stay-at-home order, fared better. 

So much debate over whether or not we should be wearing masks in order to fight C0VlD but multiple scientific studies over the past decade have already settled this question. Not only do medical masks not prevent the spread of virus, but a 1995 study proves that wearing a cloth mask can put you at greater risk for infection. Ben Swann breaks down the science.

By Bill Sardi
LewRockwell.com

MASSIVE OUTBREAK OF PUBLIC STUPIDITY AS MASSES FEARFULLY WEAR INEFFECTIVE FACE MASKS IN NEED TO RELIEVE THEIR COVID-19-INDUCED ANXIETY.

Health Authorities Admit Face Masks Don’t Halt Infectivity But The Fearful Masses Need Something To Handle Public Anxiety. Even The New England Journal Of Medicine Admits The Futility Of Wearing Face Masks To Protect Against COVID-19 Coronavirus.

What is desperately needed are valium-laced face masks with drug-laced inserts to facilitate the continued aerosol delivery of anti-anxiety medications directly into the lungs.  Public anxiety over a contrived threat from a mutated coronavirus has the masses acting like frightened sheep.

You mean face masks aren’t going to protect me from getting the dreaded COVID-19 coronavirus?  Answer: They are not.  Invincible Microbe: Tu... Blank, Alison Best Price: $7.88 Buy New $7.99

You mean face masks don’t really keep me from spreading the infection to others?  Answer: No.

Here are direct quotes from The New England Journal of Medicine April 1, 2020 report on universal face masking to protect against transmission of the COVID-19 Coronavirus:

“We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection…

“The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is… minimal….

“…During the care of a patient with unrecognized Covid-19…. A mask alone in this setting will reduce risk only slightly, however, since it does not provide protection from droplets that may enter the eyes or from fomites on the patient or in the environment that providers may pick up on their hands and carry to their mucous membranes (particularly given the concern that mask wearers may have an increased tendency to touch their faces)…..  

“…Universal masking alone is not a panacea….  

“The extent of marginal benefit of universal masking over and above these foundational measures is debatable….  

“Expanded masking protocols’ greatest contribution may be to reduce the transmission of anxiety.”

  In fact, by wearing masks you may be delaying others from developing memory antibodies for long-lasting protection against viral infection so our society can return to normal.

Editor's Note:  The FACTS explained below have been well known from the very beginning of this SCAMDEMIC, this massive fraud being perpetrated against us all.  We have lunatic and/or totally ignorant politicians who are acting out of "their own mindless fears or worse, purely political motivations," and corrupt conflicted people and institutions like the WHO, CDC, Fauci, Gates, etc., LYING TO YOU ALL TO KEEP YOU IN CONSTANT FEAR to coerce you into complying with their Draconian nonsense about the need to wear masks all the time!!  The only people that you need to be concerned about spreading a coronavirus are people who are displaying symptoms! You DO NOT NEED TO BE WORRIED ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT SICK! And people who are not sick should not be wearing face masks all the time.

Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Era

New England Journal of Medicine

By:

• Michael Klompas, M.D., M.P.H.,
• Charles A. Morris, M.D., M.P.H.,
• Julia Sinclair, M.B.A.,
• Madelyn Pearson, D.N.P., R.N.,
• and Erica S. Shenoy, M.D., Ph.D.

As the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic continues to explode, hospital systems are scrambling to intensify their measures for protecting patients and health care workers from the virus. An increasing number of frontline providers are wondering whether this effort should include universal use of masks by all health care workers. Universal masking is already standard practice in Hong Kong, Singapore, and other parts of Asia and has recently been adopted by a handful of U.S. hospitals.

We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.

The calculus may be different, however, in health care settings. First and foremost, a mask is a core component of the personal protective equipment (PPE) clinicians need when caring for symptomatic patients with respiratory viral infections, in conjunction with gown, gloves, and eye protection. Masking in this context is already part of routine operations for most hospitals. What is less clear is whether a mask offers any further protection in health care settings in which the wearer has no direct interactions with symptomatic patients. There are two scenarios in which there may be possible benefits.

By Micheal Snyder
TheEconomicCollapseBlog.com

Most Americans believe that “the worst is behind us”, but the truth is that we are sleepwalking into an unprecedented economic nightmare.

Week after week we continue to get economic numbers that are absolutely horrific, and it appears that we are heading for a housing crisis that will be even worse than what we witnessed in 2008. 

Back then, millions of Americans lost their homes, but this time around it could be tens of millions.

I know that a statement like that may sound overly dramatic, but I believe that many of you that feel that way may change your minds after reading this entire article.

Editor's Note:  WAKE UP PEOPLE!!  Forcing you to wear face masks IS NOT ABOUT YOUR HEALTH!

By Paul Joseph Watson
Inforwars.com

The same type of face masks that the UK government is mandating people wear in shops from July 24 onwards to protect against the spread of coronavirus specifically state on their packaging that they don’t protect against coronavirus.

Genius.

Earlier this week, the government confirmed that anyone caught not wearing a mask when entering a shop or supermarket will be subject to a police fine of £100, prompting the Chair of the London Metropolitan Police Foundation to complain that this would be totally unenforcable.

However, the law states that cloth masks, scarves or other textile items that don’t require the use of hands to hold them in place are acceptable forms of protection against COVID-19.

One problem with that, the packaging on these kind of cloth masks specifically states that they don’t protect against COVID-19.

“This product is an ear loop mask. This product is not a respirator and will not provide any protection against COVID-19 (coronavirus) or any other viruses or contaminants,” states the packaging on a standard set of cloth masks currently being sold.

Only 'scientists' for hire. The rest say they are useless, as do the manufacturers of the masks... pic.twitter.com/1Wb3F2lSHC

— Cornubian (@Cornubian2) July 15, 2020

Skeptics have also pointed out that people continually touching potentially infected masks and then touching surfaces could even exacerbate the spread of coronavirus.

“Apart from everything else, the only coverings the Government is insisting on are cloth ones, which every man and his dog knows are COMPLETELY USELESS,” writes Toby Young.

“As Allison Pearson says in her excellent comment piece in today’s Telegraph, “anything other than tight-fitting, surgical-grade masks are utterly pointless – like trying to stop a bullet with a chain-link fence”. I mean, the evidence that the gold-standard N95 masks are effective in non-healthcare settings is threadbare at best – and they have to be disposed of after a single use.”

“There is literally no evidence that re-usable cloth masks are effective in community settings. None. It’s like wearing a tin foil hat in case you get struck by lightening – an ineffective way to protect yourself from an almost non-existent risk. What has become of us?”

Health Secretary Matt Hancock said mandating the wearing of masks would “give people more confidence to shop safely and enhance protections for those who work in shops,” however many have reacted to the law by asserting that they will simply avoid shops altogether.

This will lead to yet more economic devastation, more high street job losses and in the longer term, more poverty and death.

Again, genius.

By Michael Thau
RedState.com

As RedState’s very own Sister Toldjah reported earlier today, the doubts President Trump recently expressed about the wisdom of Dr. Fauci’s advice on COVID-19 have elicited a chorus of smug accusation from the usual suspects that he’s “ignoring the experts.”

Sister Toldjah pointed out that it’s hard to know what their complaint even means given how often Fauci and other media-anointed authorities have done total 180s.

But, even putting aside how their advice seems to change with the political winds, the idea that there’s some scientific consensus in favor of the extreme measures inflicted on us in response to COVID-19 couldn’t be further from the truth.

Though you don’t hear their perspectives on CNN, countless scientists and doctors have tried to warn us not only that COVID-19 isn’t nearly as deadly as we’ve been led to believe; they’re also certain that the real threat to public health we’re facing is from the lockdowns.

For example, though the establishment media has somehow failed to make it widely known, in May over 600 physicians from “all specialties and from all states” signed a public letter to President Trump  describing, not COVID-19, but the lockdowns as a “mass casualty incident.” Since the letter first appeared, the number of doctors signing on has grown into the thousands. Their letter warns:

It is impossible to overstate the short, medium, and long-term harm to people’s health with a continued shutdown. Losing a job is one of life’s most stressful events, and the effect on a persons health is not lessened because it also has happened to 30 million other people. Keeping schools and universities closed is incalculably detrimental for children, teenagers, and young adults for decades to come. The millions of casualties of a continued shutdown will be hiding in plain sight, but they will be called alcoholism, homelessness, suicide, heart attack, stroke, or kidney failure. In youths it will be called financial instability, unemployment, despair, drug addiction, unplanned pregnancies, poverty, and abuse.

600 physicians sent a letter to @realdonaldtrump saying a continued shutdown can lead to a "mass casualty incident" with "negative health consequences." It is time to reopen the nation. @gracemarietweethttps://t.co/fg9Z1LzDDm

— newtgingrich (@newtgingrich) May 25, 2020

Similarly, way back in April, two California emergency room physicians gave a press conference in which they rejected basically every single premise used to justify the lockdowns. Moreover, unlike Fauci, they actually gave detailed explanations of the reasons behind what they were saying rather than demanding blind obedience.

And this is just for April, the very beginning of the Pandemic’s impact on housing.

By Wolf Richter for WOLF STREET.

OK, it’s actually worse. Mortgages that are in forbearance and have not missed a payment before going into forbearance don’t count as delinquent. They’re reported as “current.” And 8.2% of all mortgages in the US – or 4.1 million loans – are currently in forbearance, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. But if they did not miss a payment before entering forbearance, they don’t count in the suddenly spiking delinquency data.

The onslaught of delinquencies came suddenly in April, according to CoreLogic, a property data and analytics company (owner of the Case-Shiller Home Price Index), which released its monthly Loan Performance Insights today. And it came after 27 months in a row of declining delinquency rates. These delinquency rates move in stages – and the early stages are now getting hit:

Transition from “Current” to 30-days past due: In April, the share of all mortgages that were past due, but less than 30 days, soared to 3.4% of all mortgages, the highest in the data going back to 1999. This was up from 0.7% in April last year. During the Housing Bust, this rate peaked in November 2008 at 2% (chart via CoreLogic):

By Adam Salazar
Infowars.com

Coronavirus testing numbers are being questioned after hundreds of labs in Florida reported 100 percent of people tested were positive for COVID-19.

On Saturday, Florida Atlantic University professor Rebel Cole released a list of several labs in the state that reported zero negative results for over 3,500 COVID tests, which he called a “scandal begging for press coverage.”

This is a scandal begging for press coverage:

333 FL Covid Testing labs reported 100% positive tests today in State Report for 3,528 tests.

That is 34% of today's 10,360 new cases.

Without these, today's "percent positive" would fall from 12.6% to 8.7%. pic.twitter.com/l4AZJISLim

— Rebel A. Cole (@RebelACole) July 11, 2020

“333 FL Covid Testing labs reported 100% positive tests today in State Report for 3,528 tests,” Cole wrote on Twitter, noting the number accounted for “34% of today’s 10,360 new cases.”

“Without these,” Cole added, “today’s ‘percent positive’ would fall from 12.6% to 8.7%.”

A local media outlet last week also picked up on the questionable results, with one doctor calling the numbers “fishy.”

“We’ve got what’s called a denominator problem – the denominator is the number of negative cases, or negative tests, or total tests, and the numerator is positive tests,” Dr. Jon Ward told WJHG.

“I looked at it and it [PanCare] showed 280 positives and zero negatives, and that just came up really fishy because I knew a lot of people who had gone to PanCare and tested negative.”