Sunday, December 13, 2020

New York Times Columnist: 'It’s Time to Scare People About Covid'

The New York Times contributing Opinion writer Dr. Elisabeth Rosenthal provides a great example of how to intensify dread risk fear in the country over a virus that is not of severe consequence to 99.9% of the population.

In her latest column she writes:

 It’s time to make people scared and uncomfortable. It’s time for some sharp, focused terrifying realism.

“Fear appeals can be very effective,” said Jay Van Bavel, associate professor of psychology at New York University, who co-authored a paper in Nature about how social science could support Covid response efforts...

[M]aybe we need a P.S.A. featuring someone actually on a ventilator in the hospital. You might see that person “bucking the vent” — bodies naturally rebel against the machine forcing pressurized oxygen into the lungs, which is why patients are typically sedated...

Another message could feature a patient lying in an I.C.U. bed, immobile, tubes in the groin, with a mask delivering 100 percent oxygen over the mouth and nose — eyes wide with fear, watching the saturation numbers rise and dip on the monitor over the bed...

These P.S.A.s might sound harsh, but they might overcome our natural denial.

Natural denial?

This is madness. The country is already in fear because of a virus that is not of severe consequence to 99.9% of the population.

Rosenthal is thinking like a blunt instrument central planner who holds the view that nothing matters other than the bizarre attempt to prevent COVID-19 from spreading. Maybe we should start blasting videos to Rosenthal of the suicides, spousal abuse, child abuse and depression that have exploded since the fight to "protect" the country against a virus that is not of severe consequence to 99.9% of the population.

Even though Rosenthal was an emergency room physician before becoming a journalist, she is not thinking like a scientist. She is thinking like a crazed propaganda power freak. 

Her "thinking" taking hold is what I fear.



  1. I lost my dad last month to Covid, I was told. It really was like that. Tubes and tubes and him bucking the ventilator as they tried easing him from sedation. Quite scary. He was 79 and healthy; practiced law for half a century and was out eating seafood the week before his demise.

    Docs never tried HCQ, opting for experimental drugs. Then came intubation (ventilators) and weeks of a torturous looking demise. Unfortunately I wasn’t in charge of any of this.

    He went in initially with pneumonia, double pneumonia ‘due to Covid’, and the process began. I wonder if he could have been treated for pneumonia alone and lived without all the Covid tactics. May he Rest In Peace.

    1. Well, SOMEBODY has to comprise the 0.4% fatality rate (5% for his age group). The question is: Should everyone be subjected to government policy treating everyone as if they are in the highest-risk age group? No, of course not.
      Sorry about your dad, BTW. The Covie-19 isn't a scam, but the reaction to it is.

    2. Sui Juris I think I need to make a tshirt out of this as its the most truth I have seen in a long while

      Covie-19 isn't a scam, but the reaction to it is. Says it all.

  2. Please substantiate your 99.9% claim with actual data, rather than wishful thinking.

    1. The article below explains and also links to the actual CDC data that only 6% of the deaths attributed to covid 19. When you look at the 6% that died from covid 19 (vs the large "with" number" you'll see that the majority are old and have 2.6 other comorbidities. So when you exclude the elderly with multiple coomorbidities (the population that should be using caution) the rest of us have less than a 99.9% chance of dying from Covid 19. Furthermore, these deathrates would be reduced further if Fauci and the faux media didn't demonize and make it difficult for doctors to use things think the Zelinko protocol with HCQ, zinc and an antibiotic. I guess none of this matters to you though if CNN doesn't report it as factual. Good luck with that.

    2. To The Contractor: Ah, very persuasive. I can see why Libertarian thinking in making such strong in-roads politically and culturally.

    3. Lol libertarian progress is your concern. Now I really am laughing.

      Don't you have a death cult you should be hunkering down with? Only people enjoying life here. Go hump your mask while your governor humps your partner.

      Or dont. No one cares.

      David B.

    4. Gosh unknown, I am disappointed that you didn't present some compelling data on the virulence of this variety of coronavirus, or other evidence that the recovery rate is not as high as stated. Or you could have supported the professor's case that grim scenes of ill people struggling for their lives helps prevent infection or promote general health. No just attack Libertarianism.

    5. This MD seems to have a good sense of the data and estimates the IFR is 0.12%, right in line with the CDC's estimate of 0.13%:

  3. CCLS we not only follow science from the CDC we even know which science the CDC provides that isn’t correct. You have to try so hard to stayed scared these days. Whatever happened to a good Ol fashioned pandemic where everyone knew someone close to them that succumbed to the sickness?
    Blake I am very sorry about your father, you make a great observation that isn’t talked about enough, how many people are dying from the flu, pneumonia, and other diseases because the hospital only focuses on the Covid -19 virus once the patient is diagnosed with the virus, and treatment then focuses on not what the patient was admitted for, but only focused Covid-19 “treatments”, and which ends up not being what kills the person.