If you don't follow Dr Frank's open Facebook Group, you should.  Check out Follow the Data with Dr Frank.  He's the adult in the room which is refreshingly rare on social media.

“The Precautionary Principle”

Watch out for this one. It is irrational, and can be used to justify just about any decision or behavior. It goes something like this:

“Since there is the possibility that something *could* happen, we should take precautions and do x.”

This leads to all sorts of silly behaviors and decisions.

A more rational approach is to ask what is *most likely* or *certain* to happen, and to plan mitigations for those things based upon the best evidence available. Not merely what is possible. Almost anything is possible.

Follow the data. Which risks have the clearest evidence to justify our attention?

For example, for decades I have been telling my students that “global warming” is not nearly as threatening to human life as a *global pandemic* would be... and we were due for one. (Boy, did I call this one.)

So if we were going to spend vast resources on something that *might* happen with devastating consequences, we should be investing in things that are inevitable over things that might potentially be relatively mildly harmful.

This is one way to distinguish which are the scientifically justified investments and which are merely political agendas.

Because pandemics are inevitable. (Eh, hem...)

And so are asteroid impacts. (I always show my students a picture of the back side of the moon at this point in the lecture.)

And volcanoes, and earthquakes, and solar flares, and wars...

And all these things are more likely to disrupt humanity and to claim myriad human lives.
So don’t fall for it.

Recent incarnations are:

“We should close the schools because children might die.”

“We should force otherwise perfectly healthy people to take an insufficiently tested vaccine, because it might save lives.”

Instead, use the science and the math to set priorities. Don’t build a house of cards. Build a solid foundation, based upon the sturdiest facts at your disposal.

Children are far more likely to die in a car accident than from Covid. Better never allow them to ride in cars...

Certainly we will make mistakes, and some unlikely things are bound to occur. But the fact that there are infinite unlikely things that *could* happen makes it impossible to predict which ones of the myriad possible bad things we should protect against.

Because we simply cannot protect against everything.

So go with the science. Follow the data.

And please... “drive safely.”

You may not be aware of what the bastards are doing in the UK.

The UK has been in the clear on the virus for a long time.

Here's a relevant chart:

Well, now they're imposing more restrictions.

With a few exceptions, no social gatherings of more than six people.

That applies to indoors and outdoors.

It applies to your house.

If you have six or more people in your household you are allowed to gather in public or private (how generous!) but not with anyone else.

These rules are expected to last through the spring.

And all because of a modest rise in "cases," a stupid figure that should be savagely mocked.

Forget about the original concerns regarding overwhelming the hospital system. Everybody knows the hospitals will be fine. Now it's just a ban on death itself -- as if the lockdowns themselves don't cause collateral deaths. (Not to mention: who can think this bizarre dystopia is a healthy place for children to grow up and develop in?)

Israel, by the way, locked down hard, and required masks and curfews, and engaged in sophisticated methods for mapping contacts, and...now they're considering another lockdown because of a rise in "cases."

If all that couldn't do the trick, what the hell are we doing?

(I shouldn't say we. You and I have nothing to do with this.)

Here, by the way, is a graphical reminder of the helpfulness of lockdowns.

The UK, Lockdown Central, is in green. That other line is Sweden, the country we're all supposed to hate:
​

I've said in numerous episodes of the Tom Woods Show that there are two parallel societies emerging, each living almost in its own reality. One lives in terror of the virus and almost refuses to acknowledge favorable trends. The other realizes that the virus is in fact manageable after all, and that we cannot continue to destroy people's lives -- lives of both young and old, I might add -- indefinitely, or even "until there's a vaccine."

(Dr. Fauci is saying probably not until the end of 2021 can we maybe have our lives back -- an estimate that could well turn out to be about as accurate as "15 days to flatten the curve.")

My Tom Woods Show Elite represents this second society, the one that understands the ubiquity of risk, and the foolishness of madly uprooting one kind of risk while at the same time increasing countless others (e.g., all the ways the lockdowns have caused collateral damage).

You've been thinking about it.

Today's the day.

Join the reality-based community:


http://www.SupportingListeners.com

Also, if you missed the presentation on making a living that's unshutdownable, a topic that's a teensy-weensy bit relevant to the present day, here's the replay: http://www.tomwoods.com/protectyourself

Tom Woods

Any positive mention of Kyle Rittenhouse is being censored on FB. You know why?

Part of it is so that the officialista class can set the narrative that he was there to hunt protestors, is a murderer, a mass shooter, a racist, all in an effort to make this case as political as possible.

The cracks are already starting to show with the Chicago Tribune releasing an article saying why he will “get off”.

But thats all a means to an end, not the end itself. The truth is that this is the biggest case in the country right now. This is not about Kyle Rittenhouse and what happened in Kenosha that night. The meta case is going to come down to two extremely important things:

1. Are we allowed to defend ourselves from violent rioters, arsonists and looters or not?

2. Given the defense they are trotting out to combat the underage gun charge, are we allowed to form militias to do so?

Whichever side wins this case will be emboldened.

If he’s persecuted, the riots will likely get worse as the precedent between the case and the stand down of police will send the signal that there is absolutely no consequences for violent behavior.

If Rittenhouse wins, people will be emboldened to take a stand. Its not going to take too many events like what happened in Kenosha that night for the message to be crystal clear; Wanton violence is dangerous and engaging in it may well cost you your life.

Thats what this is about and thats why they are blacking out any defense of Rittenhouse when in reality when you observe the facts, look at the statutes in WI around these crimes and what is considered a valid self defense argument, everything is in Kyle’s favor.

The future of the 2nd Amendment argument hangs in the balance of this case.

-Michael Heise