There was a interesting article published a wee bit ago entitled  “12 Steps to creating your own pandemic” by Nils Nilsen over at off-guardian.org. Please consider the following three snippets:
Hopefully the above will get the wheels turning a bit towards a goal of appreciating how relatively easy it is - particularly in light of the technological tools available in the so called modern age - to paint a picture that appears real but in truth is simply an illusion, a trick by word and number, a bamboozle. Further, appreciating how easy it is to disseminate that faulty picture on a global scale. As far as covid is concerned, we've also demonstrated how easy it is to get small vocal groups of a population to do all the heavy lifting. It's well known in ‘conquering circles’ that the conquer bit is tough messy business. Aside from the damaged humans who enjoy that shit show, it's also well known in those circles that the more you can get a population to voluntarily, meaning not at the point of a gun, adopt what yer sellin' on their own, the better chance of success, cheaper on all levels and a much better chance of longevity. The bonus is if you can get small vocal groups of the population to do the sellin' for you…mask shriekers come to mind here as an example.

In recent months, accelerating seemingly by the week, there has been an obvious shift in emphasis away from what really matters in any health related situation, legitimate hospitalizations & fatalities, and on to the so called 'case'. IMHO, and I explain my reasoning in a separate article, the manner in which the corp media, govt groups et al are using the term case is a complete misrepresentation of the meaning of the word. IMHO this is obvious simply by examining some dictionary definitions so I can only conclude that we're not looking at random chance here, incompetence or simply 'the evolution of a story' but rather a conscious decision to do so. Example: for pretty much everyone in the Northern Hemisphere, most assuredly in Canada at least, the colour orange has signified warning/caution and the colour red has signified danger/threat. I think it would be hard to effectively argue against the extremely pervasive use of this colour scheme in exactly this manner. I also think it would be hard to argue against this scheme having been used this way for literally generations.

Why then, during a time they themselves are incessantly promoting as active danger, active threat, would the CBC choose to use orange to represent fatalities and red to represent cases? I'm highly skeptical that this can be attributed to incompetence for example; the choice really suggests narrative promotion instead. Interestingly enough, an earlier image on the page (right) could be considered 'use appropriate' given cultural norms:



Another trick, tests: how about downplay or don't even mention the amount of tests being completed and/or any issues at all with the tests themselves. Second point first: promote the overall public impression that these tests are like pregnancy tests: pee stick, simple, it either is or isn't and one of two results means something major is going to happen in the life of the testee. Further, give the public the impression that these tests are common, ‘tried, tested and true’, easy to execute and performed by trained professionals thereby suggesting in the mind an automatic assumption of effectiveness and high accuracy. For starters, a RT-PCR is NOT a test and has never been a test. Secondly, a RT-PCR Assay tells nothing about illness or potential for illness, that's not its function and yet the clown parade would love you to believe otherwise…I wonder why…rhetorical.

First point second: let's look at some real world data provided by the Ontario govt group and reporting municipal public health agencies. [Side note: consider how you would perceive these agencies and their staff if the media and govt did not continuously refer to them as ‘authorities’; hava peak a ‘Halo Effect’ and ‘Appeal to Authority’.]

To the left is the past 10 days during which there were a few separate days of govt/media shouting the covid equiv of fire. This is a sample of the data which has been used as justification to once again infringe on your rights and reimpose social restrictions:

Not 100% accurate in methodology and result to be sure but close enough to correlate the point:

Total test increase: 64.85% (65%)
Total test decrease: 39.44% (39%)
Difference: 26%


So, in just the last 10 days alone, there has been an overall 26% increase in the amount of testing performed. Now, it only stands to reason that if one is looking for something that is potentially scattered throughout a group, a group of almost anything really, there is an increasing probably of finding what you are looking for as a ratio of the amount of anythings that were tested.

Look at it from the point of view of the game of Battleship. Not knowing where your opponent has placed their battleships, you are safe to include in your assumptions that they have been randomly scattered about the board. Now, from a purely statistical standpoint how many ships of theirs do you think you stand a chance of finding if you only had 5 total turns? How many ships if you had 10 turns and so on? Stripping right back to the studs: compare the battleship piece which takes 5 board positions vs the destroyer/patrol boat piece which takes 2. Statistically you have a better chance then of hearing Hit! on the battleship: increased number of positions used on the board not only increases the ‘exposure’ of that piece but also results in a decline in the number of empty positions, those positions that would have potentially resulted in a Miss!.

Let's use the same analogy to look at another glaring omission in media reporting: where the reported tests were performed. Your opponent is playing with two boards instead of just one. The first board is the same as above but the second has 20 ships instead of the usual 5. Now, on which board do you stand a better chance of hitting a piece? How about your opponent being one of those clustery type players that likes to try and psych-out their opponent by clustering their ships close together. If you limit your ‘calls’ to grid spots in that same small area, how does this affect your chances of “Hit!”?

In the context of SARS-CoV-2 testing, assays performed from folks in hospitals, LTC (Long Term Care), any institutional based setting really, stand a much better chance of returning positive simply due to the nature of the setting. For example, LTC is close quartering in facilities that concentrate possibilities: incontinence in the case of transmission and aged immune systems in the case of fatality as a couple of examples. People are presenting at hospital and being admitted to hospital because they are exhibiting the published symptoms…or having anxiety attacks. What we need to remember is that the average Joe and Josephine are not in those groups and I would wager that there's not a lot of secondary contact(s) with those groups either.

The overall testing point is, the way to even begin to come close to painting an accurate picture of a public health scenario via a testing regime would be, among other important considerations, to start with the same number of individuals being tested and staying with that number throughout. But really though, that's still not enough. It would need to be every individual in a designated geographical area every day at the exact same time as the previous day just for starters. This is really knocking on the door of impossibility and, given the data we've seen so far from the covid fiasco, it is not even remotely warranted.

Time to really dig in! Was that a groan I heard, the clicking of an X perhaps? Honestly, I really appreciate you hangin' in this far, thank-you!

Here is the statistic I'm going to use:


At 5.7%, this is the highest number of assays returning a positive result since May 24th. In the context of the current media dramatics, this then represents a best case scenario for them because it's representative of a worst case scenario of sorts for us. Further, it can't be explained as easily by testing increase since it is only a 2.5% (724) increase over the previous day. Second last finally, a note on results prior to May 24th: there are many instances of higher positive percentages than 5.7%, however, these occur during the time frame when sanity still prevailed somewhat and testing was limited to those presenting symptoms or working in high(er) risk settings thereby rendering a comparison of that time frame moot: it paints an entirely inaccurate picture of what could be occurring in the general population. It's like testing for eyesight issues among those who wear glasses; any results from these tests cannot accurately be used to determine overall eyesight issues in the general population. For our purposes here, I'm going to assume that the 29,125 PCR assays completed where taken from a reasonably wide sampling of the general population and that each of these were performed on separate individuals ← NOT the case in Ontario; recorded test results can be from the same individual tested multiple times.

First thing we need to do then is grab 5.7% of 29,125 which is 1,660. Remember, all this means is as a result of running a certain number of cycles of a amplification/multiplication/manufacturing tool called RT-Polmerase Chain Reaction and using a sampling of 29,125 individuals, 1,660 of them returned a positive indicator for the presence of RNA material believed to be from a virus that has been given the designation SARS-CoV-2. It means nothing other than this, period. Here's another reason why any meaning derived from these assays is very limited in scope, from the insert of a PCR manufacturer: “Positive results do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.”

Let's keep rollin'! Since the govt group of Ontario uses ‘cases’ like the rest of ‘em, I will too but for consistency purposes only. In additions to the 5th Of November, please also remember remember that a ‘case’ in absolutely no way means illness so even the terms ‘Recovery/Recovered' are being grossly misused. (Interestingly, in the raw data-set it is entered as ‘Resolved’ which is a far more accurate term if one need be used at all.)

So, using the average of the recover percentages, 92%, of the 1,660 positive assay results, 1,527 will recover leaving 133 fatalities. For some context, on average last year 2019, ~2056/week died in Ontario.

To arrive at the most accurate picture possible with the data at hand and the context with which it is being used, we have to remove the high risk group from the list. This is justifiable given what we know about the disproportionately high mortality rates among the elderly, particularly in LTC, rates which are not reflected in the data of the 0-69 age group.

Further, with LTC only, this segment of the population does not circulate among the general population to a significant degree; they're approaching a closed loop when compared to the general population.


Using only the data from the 0-69 age group then, the average recovery rate becomes 99.25% should one have a positive assay result. Of the 1,660 positive results then, 1,647 will recover leaving 13 fatalities.

Just for shits ‘n giggles, let’s take this out across the entire population of Ontario in the 0-69 age bracket. According to the 2016 census, there are 1,814,990 folks in Ontario 70 and over. The entire population was 13,448,494 so our sample for this exercise is:
13,448,494 - 1,814,990 = 11,633,504.
Using the 99.25% average recovery rate, conversely a 0.75% fatality probability (yes you read that right, only 3/4 of one percent), this translates into 87,251 fatalities out of a possible 11,633,504. Even removing the 0-20 age group still leaves a statistically insignificant fatality rate!

A govt group infringement on rights is never justifiable as far as I'm concerned but for many it's OK, even in that context though, does this really seem like a data reality that can justify the draconian actions taken by gov/media, the same actions they are threatening to take again?

For any thinking so: this is why people avoid you in life if they can, delusional ends justify the means type thinking tends to do that.