New Study: Millennials Think Their Risk From COVID-19 Is Exponentially More Than the True Threat

There is no vaccine, effective treatment, or herd immunity for the virus of panic and fear sown by the media that is propagated straight to people’s brains from their smartphones. And unlike with coronavirus, the young are more seriously afflicted with this intractable disease than seniors, according to a new study.

Four researchers published a working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research studying people’s perceived personal health risks associated with COVID-19. The most striking result of their survey of 1,500 Americans from May 6 to May 13 is that the younger the age of the respondent, the more the individual seemed concerned about the virus being deadly to them – the exact inverse of the true threat assessment of the virus.

It’s reflective of a generation that is inundated with Apple, Google, and Yahoo’s sensational news headlines on their phones and, unlike their parents and grandparents, have no minds of their own to decipher the information and interpret it with the proper context.

When asked by the four researchers, who hail from Harvard, Oxford, and Università Bocconi, out of “1,000 people very similar to you” how many would die from COVID-19 over the next nine weeks, the median estimated guess by respondents aged 18-34 was 20, or 2%. In other words, the average Millennial thought that 2% of everyone like them would die within nine weeks from the virus. In contrast, in contrast, the respondents aged 70 years or older, which is exponentially more at risk, asses their risk of dying at about 1%.

What is the infection fatality rate (IFR) for younger people? The CDC estimates a 0.05% IFR for everyone in the age cohort of 0-49. Other estimates based on Spain serology tests broken down by age suggest an even lower IFR for those 18-49.

But that is only the risk once someone contracts the virus. When you couple the chance of not getting the virus together with the chance of not dying from it once infected, the rate is even lower. Four infectious disease doctors in Canada estimate that the individual rate of death from COVID-19 for people under 65 years of age in Canada is six per million people, or 0.0006% – 1 in 166,666, which is “roughly equivalent to the risk of dying from a motor vehicle accident during the same time period.” Those numbers are even lower for people under 35. In other words, the respondents in this study overestimated their risk of dying by at least a factor of 3,000.

According to the CDC, the IFR for those over 65 is 1.3%, although it is heavily skewed by nursing home deaths in the numerator. For seniors in better health, the numbers are much lower. Thus, the senior respondents in the survey are much closer to reality in their thinking.

According to the CDC, there have been 944 COVID-19 deaths among those aged 15-34. And that is with a liberal definition of a COVID death that has included young people who died of alcohol poisoning, gunshots, and drug overdoses, which, incidentally, are increasing because of the panic and social isolation, which in itself is exponentially disproportionate to the threat of the virus itself.

Now consider the top causes of death for youngsters, courtesy of a table published by Avik Roy last month. In 2016, there were 37,879 deaths by unintentional injury among those 18-34, which obviously is very much influenced by car accidents. That is 40 times the number of deaths from the virus. There were 10,548 deaths by homicide, more than 11 times greater than from the virus.

How many Millennials do you know who think twice before getting into a car or engaging in a fun-seeking activity that could result in injury or death? And remember, while accidents are more likely to occur among reckless people, they can and do end lives of all people. The few virus deaths for those under 35, on the other hand, are almost all among those with specific serious heart conditions or comorbidities.

The answer is very simple. People’s phones are not blowing up with news of people dying in car crashes every second. Smartphones and the information that pings their users are like the Bible for this generation of American youth. The same source of their anxiety over catching the virus is the same source that made them temporarily suspend that anxiety to protest in the streets in large crowds. They are the same people who believe black youth are more likely to be killed by police than by gang members. For Millennials, the media is like a game of Simon Says. It’s an amazing contrast from the youth of the 1960s who wore T-shirts saying, “Question authority.”

This disproportionate degree of panic and fear sown by herd mentality and magnified by technology is not cost-free. When you have young people thinking their risk of dying is thousands of times greater than the actual threat, they can resort to extreme behavior that is more dangerous than the virus. Perhaps this is why drug overdoses are spiking in some states.

This point was driven home in a paper co-authored by D.A. Henderson, the former dean of Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, who is widely credited with helping to eradicate smallpox. In that 2006 publication from Johns Hopkins, Henderson and three other authors note that lockdowns would produce so many negative effects that “this mitigation measure should be eliminated from serious consideration.”

Perhaps the most destructive element of lockdown is the panic and fear that such severe measures help confirm, in this case, wrongly so, in the minds of the young and impressionable. As the paper concludes, “Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted.”

In other words, we need to flatten the fear. (For more from the author of “New Study: Millennials Think Their Risk From COVID-19 Is Exponentially More Than the True Threat” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump Endorsed Tommy Tuberville Defeats Jeff Sessions in Republican Runoff for U.S. Senate

Former Auburn University football coach Tommy Tuberville defeated former Attorney General and US Senator Jeff Sessions for the Republican nomination for US Senate to face Democratic Sen. Doug Jones.

Jones was elected in a December 2017 special election to replace Sessions, who vacated the seat he represented for over 20 years to become President Donald Trump’s attorney general. Now, as Jones is up for re-election for a full term, Sessions is fighting for his old US Senate seat in what could make or break his political career.

Sessions and Tuberville advanced to a runoff, which was delayed to July 14 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, after the March 3 primary.

The race largely played out into a fight over which candidate is more loyal to Trump, who won the state by a margin of 27 percentage points in 2016 and remains highly popular in the state.

While Sessions had tried to tie himself to Trump, both Trump and his campaign have actively repudiated Sessions in the run-up to the runoff in addition to Trump endorsing Tuberville. (Read more from “Trump Endorsed Tommy Tuberville Defeats Jeff Sessions in Republican Runoff for U.S. Senate” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

White House Adviser Pens Scathing Op-Ed Blasting Colleague Dr. Fauci

Peter Navarro, White House director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, publicly declared his distrust of fellow Trump administration official Dr. Anthony Fauci on Tuesday, penning a column condemning the infectious disease expert over his guidance amid the coronavirus pandemic. . .

In a piece published by USA Today, Navarro said of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director: “Anthony Fauci has been wrong about everything I have interacted with him on.”

Navarro slammed Fauci for fighting against President Donald Trump’s ban on flights from China back in January, for “telling the media not to worry” about the pandemic the same month, for “flip-flopping” on the use of masks by the public, and for insisting “that there was only anecdotal evidence in support of hydroxychloroquine to fight the virus” despite studies indicating otherwise. . .

The trade adviser’s op-ed blasting Fauci comes the day after Adm. Brett Giroir, assistant secretary for health in the Department of Health and Human Services, said during an interview on NBC News, “I respect Dr. Fauci a lot, but Dr. Fauci is not 100 percent right, and he also doesn’t necessarily — and he admits that — have the whole national interest in mind.”

(Read more from “White House Adviser Pens Scathing Op-Ed Blasting Colleague Dr. Fauci” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Iran Official Jokes About U.S. Navy Fire, Alludes to Nuclear Site Attack

A senior Iranian official has joked about the “interesting” fire that ravaged a U.S. Navy amphibious assault ship in San Diego, quipping that the incident may be claimed by a supposed domestic dissident group like recent explosions in Iran.

. . .According to Iran’s state-controlled PressTV channel, [Foreign ministry spokesperson Seyed Abbas] Mousavi added, “It’s interesting how quickly U.S. destroyers catch fire,” referring to the Bonhomme Richard, which is capable of carrying a mix of fighter jets and helicopters.

“I have no stance,” Mousavi told reporters. “But just search news sources to see if ‘American Panthers’ have claimed responsibility.”

This remark alluded to a series of recent mysterious explosions in Iran that have prompted suggestions of a broad sabotage campaign by a foreign power or a domestic dissident group. One group calling itself the “Homeland Cheetahs” claimed responsibility for an explosion at a sensitive nuclear site in Iran earlier this month. (Read more from “Iran Official Jokes About U.S. Navy Fire, Alludes to Nuclear Site Attack” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Goya Outrage Shows Cancel Culture Out of Control

. . .To hear them tell it, expanding the opportunities for minorities has always been their party’s idea. But when President Donald Trump took a stab at it, announcing a business and educational project aimed directly at Hispanic people, the left wasn’t about to cut him some slack. And worse than that, they’re out to destroy anyone who does.

For Goya CEO Robert Unanue, Thursday’s executive order had been a long time coming. Like most Hispanic Americans, he was eager to work with the administration to improve his community’s way of life.

When Trump invited Unanue to join his Hispanic Prosperity Initiative, he eagerly accepted. And, at the signing ceremony, he praised Trump, saying: “We are all truly blessed … to have a leader like President Trump who is a builder. We have an incredible builder, and we pray. We pray for our leadership, our president.”

No sooner had he spoken the words than the cancel culture, led by ringleaders like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., started the hashtag #BoycottGoya.

. . .“You’re allowed to talk good or talk praise to one president but … all the sudden that’s not acceptable,” Unanue told Fox News. “If you’re called by the president of the United States, you’re going to say, ‘No, I’m sorry, I’m busy, no thank you’? I didn’t say that to the Obamas, and I didn’t say that to President Trump.” (Read more from “Goya Outrage Shows Cancel Culture Out of Control” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

GOP Lawmakers Urge Attorney General to Defend Couple’s Gun Rights After Firearm Confiscation (VIDEO)

GOP lawmakers wrote a letter to Attorney General William Barr Friday, urging the protection of the firearm rights of the St. Louis couple that saw their guns confiscated after they went viral for defending their home against demonstrators, according to reports.

Mark and Patricia McCloskey were seen in a video brandishing a M16A2-style rifle and small handgun outside of their home as demonstrators broke through a private gate and encroached on their property line in June. Police executed a search warrant Friday and confiscated the couple’s rifle, and later their pistol, despite not yet filing any known charges against the pair, according to KSDK News.

The dozen Republican congressmen who signed the letter to Barr said the decision to commandeer the family’s guns could leave a “chilling effect” on all Americans, according to Fox News.

“At this crucial time in history, our nation needs the Department of Justice to exert strong leadership to ensure that none of our constitutional protections are eroded by mob rule,” the lawmakers wrote in the letter, according to Fox News. “Charges against this couple will have a chilling effect on the entire nation, sending the message that American citizens no longer have the right to protect themselves at their own homes.”

The signers of the letter were Reps. Louis Gohmert and Brian Babin of Texas, Paul Gozar of Arizona, Andy Harris of Maryland, Mo Brooks of Alabama, Greg Steube of Florida, Alex Mooney of West Virginia, Ted Budd of North Carolina, Steve Watkins of Kansas, Steve King of Iowa, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, and Jody Hice of Georgia, according to Fox. (Read more from “GOP Lawmakers Urge Attorney General to Defend Couple’s Gun Rights After Firearm Confiscation” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

WATCH: Bernie Says Biden’s Proposals Aren’t Extreme Enough

On Tuesday’s “PBS NewsHour,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) stated that 2020 Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden’s proposals are “a significant step forward,” and, if implemented, would make him “the most progressive president since FDR.” Sanders also stated that he doesn’t think Biden’s proposals “go far enough” and that the solution is to elect Biden and then “strengthen our grassroots movement to make sure that…we have a government that represents all of us, and not just the few.”

Sanders said Biden’s proposals are “not only a significant step forward, but are going to win widespread support from the progressive community.”

(Read more from “WATCH: Bernie Says Biden’s Proposals Aren’t Extreme Enough” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Canadian PM Faces Third Corruption Scandal

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau apologized on Monday for granting a federal aid program to a private organization that has paid his family at least $220,000, Canadian newspaper the Globe and Mail reported on Tuesday.

On Tuesday, Trudeau faced increasing calls from both sides of the aisle for him to testify before parliament over his involvement in the federal government’s decision to grant a now-canceled $664 million federal contract to We Charity, an organization that has paid his family members on multiple occasions for speaking engagements.

“I made a mistake in not recusing myself immediately from the discussions, given our family’s history, and I’m sincerely sorry about not having done that,” Trudeau said at a press conference.

Both Trudeau and Canadian Finance Minister Bill Morneau apologized on Monday “for not recusing themselves from a cabinet decision about [the We] contract despite their personal and family ties to the organization. Mr. Trudeau’s family members, including his wife, mother, and brother, have been paid to take part in WE Charity events and Bill Morneau’s daughter is a contract employee there,” the Globe and Mail reported. (Read more from “Canadian PM Faces Third Corruption Scandal” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Lost Cause: A Special Forces Soldier’s Case for Leaving Afghanistan

. . .Several factors have allowed this conflict to become the longest war in American history. Through advances in equipment, medicine, and technology, the survivability rate for American soldiers is the highest on record. According to the Department of Defense casualty statistics, 20,354 American service members have been wounded in Afghanistan, with 1,868 killed in action — a 90 percent survivability rate for those wounded in combat in Afghanistan.

. . .In October 2001, 88 percent of Americans approved military action in Afghanistan. The military objectives at the time were to bring al-Qaida leadership to justice, prevent them from using Afghanistan as a safe haven, and remove the Taliban from power. From a practical perspective, all of these objectives had been accomplished by December of 2002.

. . .But instead of turning the country over to the Afghanis that U.S. Special Forces had fought alongside to defeat the Taliban, the U.S. military began increasing its footprint and became tasked with assisting the new Afghani republic with establishing effective governance. The mission changed from a clearly defined and realistic military objective to one beyond the scope and expertise of the entities involved. According to a letter by Army Chief of Staff Mark Milley, the stated mission is of the U.S. military is, “To deploy, fight, and win our Nation’s wars by providing ready, prompt, and sustained land dominance by Army forces across the spectrum of conflict as part of the Joint Force.”

While the U.S. military can help provide security to the frontiers of warzones, it is simply not designed to help establish civil governance. Even if its post-Taliban role in Afghanistan is defined as providing security assistance to the new government, this in itself is not an objective with a tangible end state but a recipe for the perpetual conflict the U.S. military finds itself mired in.

. . .Predictably, with increasing U.S. troop presence, casualties, and costs, members of Congress have occasionally attempted to clarify stated military goals and create some measure of accountability to the leaders of the war effort. But in December 2019, the publication of the so-called Aghanistan Papers revealed that high-ranking military and public officials lied to the American people for years. (Read more from “Lost Cause: A Special Forces Soldier’s Case for Leaving Afghanistan” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Another Historically Violent Weekend Strikes Major U.S. Cities

Violence continues to rise in some of the United States’ largest cities while pledges and calls to defund or cut the police department budgets become louder. In the last few months, cities such as New York City, Chicago, Portland, Minneapolis, and Houston all saw an uptick in violence, murders, and domestic abuse cases. . .

According to the New York Post, the city suffered another bout of “astronomical” violence after over 17 people were shot in multiple boroughs Monday. . .

Shootings claimed the lives of at least 11 people and injured over 64 as the summer violence levels continue to rise in Chicago. According to ABC 7 News, at least six of those injured were teenagers. One 15-year-old was also fatally shot over the weekend. . .

According to Fox 12 News, Portland has also had a recent uptick in violence as the Portland Police Bureau (PPB) began investigating at least 4 homicides in three days over the last week.

Earlier in the month, the PPB reported a 240 percent increase in shootings in the city since July 2019. (Read more from “Another Historically Violent Weekend Strikes Major U.S. Cities” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE