Which is more important your perception of reality or reality?

The answer is your perception of reality. It does not make any difference what the facts are if I can convince you reality is my agenda; I want you to believe. If I can control the information being given, then I control the narrative and debates that you listen to. This information is then fed to the media and your perception of reality is formed by the information you receive.

This achieves the desired behavior I need to control the goal I wish to achieve.  If you wanted to produce the feeling of security, you would broadcast information that was positive toward that goal. If you wanted to produce fear for whatever reason you would take basic negative information and embellish or exaggerate the information to produce fear or alarm. Fear is one of the most controlling tools that can be used to get your desired results.

Remember, it is the unseen information that was left out or discovered that allows you to see the real reality of a situation and not the perception of reality as given by the media or sources who are feeding this information. Most Media personnel are not investigators, they write what they are told, and either are too lazy to do their own questioning or just plainly not allowed to disclose by the station producers or print editors. If they want to keep their job, then either fall in line or go to the unemployment office.

With that said, lets connect some dots here with information you and I were given about the coronavirus and then allow you to see the unseen information left out. We are then going to go after the unseen together at the State of Alabama Department of Health Infectious Division and let’s see what kind of response we get.

First for you to understand the information given in this article you must first know that Epidemiologists routinely turn to models to predict the progression of an infectious disease. But how do they get their numbers and data for their model projections?

What you did not know:  Models are not snapshots of the future. They always describe a range of possibilities—and we the public are highly sensitive to those possibilities, which directly affect us emotionally and financially. Especially if the Mass Media broadcast the most extreme of the models without telling you there is a wide spread of projections, just as hurricane models are broadcast. The Mass Media will broadcast there could be as many as 2,000,000 die from the coronavirus in the United States barring interventions.

What they didn’t say: They fail to also include models that projected way lower amounts.

Imperial College London projected that without drastic interventions, more than 5000,000 Britons would die from COVID-19 and this was widely spread by the mass media.

  • What they didn’t say: There were models that stated around 20,000 would die. 

To make models work, epidemiologists usually look at past data of a disease and this gives them a behavior pattern. When you utilize that pattern and the current information occurring then you get a more accurate prediction of how the disease is going to impact the population.  The model’s robustness depends on how often it gets tried out and tweaked based on current data being entered. Sometimes the data is unknown as in this case China censored its virus information. The results were our Epidemiologists had to estimate (which is a fancy word for SWAG, Simply A Wild Ass Guess) to determine just how dangerous, the Coronavirus -19 was going to be.  

Epidemiological models have “tails”—They’re called tails because, visually, they are the parts of the graph that taper into the distance. Think of those tails as branches in a decision tree. In most scenarios, we end up somewhere in the middle of the tree—the big bulge of highly probable outcomes—but there are a few branches on the far right and the far left that represent optimistic and pessimistic outcomes.

The most important function of epidemiological models is as a simulation, a way to see our potential futures ahead of time, and how that interacts with the choices we make today.

With COVID-19 models, they had one simple, urgent goal:

  • To ignore all the optimistic branches and that thick trunk in the middle representing the most likely outcomes.
  • Instead focus on the branches representing the worst outcomes, and prune them as more current data came in.
  • Social isolation reduces transmissions and slows the spread of the disease.
  • By doing this it chops off branches that represent some of the worst futures.
  • Contact tracing catches people before they infect others, pruning more branches that represent unchecked catastrophes.

At the beginning of a pandemic they have the disadvantage of higher uncertainty, but the advantage of being early. The costs of our actions are greatly lower because the disease is less widespread. As we prune the tree of the terrible, unthinkable branches, we are not just choosing a path; we are shaping the underlying parameters themselves, because the parameters themselves are not fixed.

In the case of the Coronavirus they had the disadvantage of higher uncertainty and the disadvantage of being late because China censored the virus data information. If our hospitals are not overrun, we will have fewer deaths and thus a lower fatality rate. That’s why we shouldn’t get bogged down in litigating a model’s numbers. We are tempted to drown ourselves in endless discussions about the error bars, the clarity around the parameters, the wide range of outcomes, and the applicability of the underlying data.  Let’s not do that. We should instead look at the calamitous branches that presented an unknown on decision tree that our Health Agencies both Federal and State had and must deal with.

As the disease progresses some of the pessimistic branches are removed and optimistic branches are added back to the decision tree. Therefore, we are beginning to see a drastic death rate projection drop.

Breitbart News recently compared projections of the number of regular hospital beds needed to treat coronavirus patients made in the Friday, April 3 iteration of the IHME MODEL for nine states to the actual number of cumulative hospitalizations (a number that includes current regular bed hospitalizations, current ICU hospitalizations, previously hospitalized and released patients, and previously hospitalized and deceased patients) reported by the respective health departments in those states as of Thursday, April 2.

  • The results showed that the actual number of cumulative hospitalizations as a percentage of regular hospital beds needed projected by the IHME model ranged from nine percent in Tennessee to 47 percent in Florida.
  • Even in New York State, the epicenter of the coronavirus pandemic, the actual number of cumulative hospitalizations as a percentage of regular hospital beds needed projected by the IHME model was only 37 percent.
  • The Department of Public Health in Minnesota, for instance, reported of April 2 that 46 out of the 156 reported cumulative hospitalizations in the state for coronavirus are patients currently in regular hospital beds, while only 40 are patients in ICU hospital beds and 70 are formerly hospitalized patients who have been released or are deceased.
    • Here is a breakdown of the actual number of cumulative hospitalizations reported by these nine states as of April 2, as compared to the number of regular hospital beds projected for coronavirus patients in those states on April 2 by the IHME model:
    • Colorado: Cumulative hospitalizations of 710 divided by regular hospital bed projections of 3,141 = 23 percent.
      Ohio: Cumulative hospitalizations of 802 divided by regular hospital bed projections of 2,436 = 33 percent
      Tennessee: Cumulative hospitalizations of 263 divided by regular hospital bed projections of 2,741 = 9 percent
      Texas: Cumulative hospitalizations of 196 divided by regular hospital bed projections of 1,968 = 10 percent
      New York: Cumulative hospitalizations of 20,817 divided by regular hospital bed projections of 56,183 = 37 percent
      Florida: Cumulative hospitalizations of 1,215 divided by regular hospital bed projections of 2,612 = 47 percent
      Georgia: Cumulative hospitalizations of 1,158 divided by regular hospital bed projections of 3,089 = 37 percent
      Iowa: Cumulative hospitalizations of 138 divided by regular hospital bed projections of 384 = 36 percent
      Minnesota: Cumulative hospitalizations of 156 divided by regular hospital bed projections of 823 = 19 percent

Did they overreact and the projected higher numbers made it look like the model was false? Ask yourself the question, why did they deliberately leave out all the models high and low projections?

Was it designed that way to induce more fear so it would be more likely the population would do what they wanted?

Now that you know how you have been manipulated with embellisheded death numbers let's look at what our own State of Alabama Department of Health is not releasing to us.

I have made up a list of information they have withheld from us. As of this date our State has spoon fed us with limited information. We deserve to know the full story whether it be good or bad.

Here is a copy of the list of questions the Pen-N-Sword has sent to the State Health Department as of 4-8-2020.

Division of Infectious Diseases & Outbreaks
Bureau of Communicable Disease
Alabama Department of Public Health
RSA Tower
201 Monroe Street, Suite 1450

Public Relations Department:

Here at the Pen-N-Sword Internet Site, we have been publishing the data you have been issuing daily on the Coronavirus. However, there are a lot of questions we are being asked by our Alabama citizens that are more in detail than presently being released.

I have listed some of the questions we have been and continue to be asked daily. We are requesting the below information so we can pass it on to our readers in Alabama. It would be helpful if you would create additional categories for your news releases that are more specific than general information.

Of the presently reported coronavirus cases what is the following:

  • Total of each Age reported with coronavirus?
  • What is average age of all reported cases?
  • How many were hospitalized?
  • How many have been put in ICU?
  • How many were being treated for other underlying health conditions?
  • What are the statics on the underlying health conditions such as how many had heart conditions, diabetes, high blood pressure and so forth?
  • How many have been sent home after hospitalization?
  • How many were sent home for self-quarantine?
  • How many had cases that were considered mild?
  • Of the deaths reported what was the average age?
  • Of the deaths reported how many had underlying health issues they were being treated for?
  • What is the present Hospital occupancy percentage of coronavirus patients in each county reporting a case of coronavirus?
  • What is that percentage compared to our state’s population?
  • What is the total infected percentage compared to our state’s population?

If they do respond, the answers to this question will be published as soon as they are received.

The Pen-N-Sword believes that "Knowledge is Power". We hope this answered some questions for you.




Be the first to review this item!

Bookmark this

09 Apr 2020

By Trader