With Trump Gone, So Are the Old COVID Rules
A Commentary By Brian C. Joondeph
What a difference an election makes, one president leaves and a new one takes over, with COVID rules changing on a dime.
Imagine if at the end of the Super Bowl, NFL rules suddenly changed and some other metric like yardage, first downs, or time outs determined the game winner. Sounds absurd but what if all the COVID reporting suddenly changed at the end of President Trump’s term using new metrics?
Many predicted this would happen, and it played out as expected, leaving a question of how much of COVID was about the actual virus versus a political club to hurt Trump and prevent his reelection.
Look at one interesting coincidence. The day the first case, of what was then called the novel coronavirus, arrived in the US, members of the House walked articles of impeachment to the Senate. A year later, also in January, the House has again impeached Trump, accusing him of insurrection over a pre-planned riot at the Capitol, just as Congress was to deliberate certifying, or not, the Electoral College votes. In politics, there are no coincidences.
As another coincidence, the World Health Organization, on President Biden’s inauguration day, released a notice that the COVID PCR test was overly sensitive based on its cycle threshold. Simply amplifying viral fragments well beyond what’s clinically meaningful creates false positive cases, driving up the case numbers constantly reported on Fox News and CNN, these networks dutifully blaming each case on Trump.
This notice was written on January 13, but not released until inauguration day, a week later. What a coincidence!
Did the epidemiologists and virologists at the WHO just suddenly realize that the test was overly sensitive? This is the same test used to justify business and school closures, constant mask use, social distancing, and other measures which destroyed America’s economy and her peoples’ spirits.
The New York Times knew last summer that the test was too sensitive, reporting that 90 percent of patients testing positive “carried barely any virus” based on cycle thresholds, meaning that the vast majority of positive tests were bogus.
The all-knowing Dr Anthony Fauci knew this as well, acknowledging last summer, “A sizable proportion of patients may have been unwittingly receiving positive test results that have little bearing on either their individual health or their risk of spreading the virus to others — suffering, in the process, much avoidable anxiety and disruption to everyday life.”
Yet he said nothing, except to cast stones at President Trump and flip flop numerous times on how many, if any, masks should be worn and for how long. It seems they all knew the COVID test was spewing false results but said nothing, until Biden was in the White House.
The media also changed its tune at the same time as the health authorities, another coincidence of timing.
On Jan. 11, Reuters ran this headline, “U.S. sets COVID-19 death record for second week, cases surge.” Or The Hill on Jan. 12, “Overwhelmed by COVID-19 surge, California is turning stadiums into mass vaccination hubs.”
Yet post inauguration, COVID is magically under control. From Bloomberg, “COVID cases fall in 46 States, but Biden warns of more death.” Of course he does, his “dark winter,” not from COVID but from his slew of executive orders. The New York Times agrees, “U.S. Coronavirus cases are falling, but variants could erase progress.” Variants are mutations, normal among viruses, explaining why the flu vaccine is less than 50 percent effective and needs to be repeated each year.
Elected officials also had a revelation that their lockdowns may be causing more harm than good, again timed perfectly with Biden’s inauguration.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo tweeted on Jan. 11, “We simply cannot stay closed until the vaccine hits critical mass. The cost is too high. We will have nothing left to open. We must reopen the economy, but we must do it smartly and safely.” Ya think? Did this suddenly occur to him as Trump was exiting? After his lockdowns all but destroyed New York City economically? Another coincidence.
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot joined the chorus at the same time, deciding, “I want to get our restaurants and our bars reopened as quickly as possible.” Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer agreed, confirming “that restaurants in the state will be able to open starting Feb. 1 with restrictions.”
Was this ever about the virus or just about the election? The curious timing of the changing rules and guidelines suggest an answer to that question.
Death counts are also now being questioned, specifically the distinction between death with or from COVID. Dr Deborah Birx acknowledged as much last spring, but death counts were reported artificially high to hurt President Trump.
It seems the CDC used new reporting methods for COVID, unlike what they used in previous viral illness. From Science, Public Health Policy, and The Law, “Why would the CDC decide against using a system of data collection & reporting they authored, and which has been in use nationwide for 17 years without incident, in favor of an untested & unproven system exclusively for COVID-19 without discussion and peer-review?”
Why indeed? Unless COVID reporting was more political than scientific, with a goal of preventing Trump’s reelection rather than the public health of the nation.
What next? Now that Trump is out of office, will hydroxychloroquine and ultraviolet light be given a second look? New president, new rules.
How convenient that now the case numbers can suddenly drop, all because of Joe Biden’s brilliance compared to the buffoonery of his predecessor, ignoring the fact that Biden is mostly continuing Trump’s COVID plans. Was it ever about the virus or just about the election?
Brian C Joondeph, MD, is a physician and writer. He is on sabbatical from social media.
See Other Commentaries by Brian C. Joondeph.
See Other Political Commentaries.
Views expressed in this column are those of the author, not those of Rasmussen Reports. Comments about this content should be directed to the author or syndicate.
Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information.
We conduct public opinion polls on a variety of topics to inform our audience on events in the news and other topics of interest. To ensure editorial control and independence, we pay for the polls ourselves and generate revenue through the sale of subscriptions, sponsorships, and advertising. Nightly polling on politics, business and lifestyle topics provides the content to update the Rasmussen Reports web site many times each day. If it's in the news, it's in our polls. Additionally, the data drives a daily update newsletter and various media outlets across the country.
Some information, including the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and commentaries are available for free to the general public. Subscriptions are available for $4.95 a month or 34.95 a year that provide subscribers with exclusive access to more than 20 stories per week on upcoming elections, consumer confidence, and issues that affect us all. For those who are really into the numbers, Platinum Members can review demographic crosstabs and a full history of our data.
To learn more about our methodology, click here.