"There's No Science Claim On This" - O'Leary Lashes Out At State Lockdowns As CNBC's Sorkin Does Damage Control

 From Zero Hedge:

CNBC's Andrew Ross Sorkin appears to be doing a bit of damage control, when after a heated Friday debate about lockdowns in which he justified small businesses being shuttered by claiming it was "science" that people were safer at big box stores than at churches and restaurants because of masks, a photo of Sorkin from 6 weeks ago eating "outside" at a restaurant, maskless, surfaced on Twitter.

Sorkin claimed on Friday he was offering a "public health and public service announcement" for the audience when he took on fellow anchor Rick Santelli's claims that there was a negligible difference between going out to establishments like churches, versus going to stores like Wal-Mart. 

Sorkin spent time over the weekend sparring with various Twitter trolls and trying to defend his line of reasoning, but that didn't seem to be enough. On Monday morning, Sorkin still needed to have his say on the issue. He brought on Dr. Scott Gottlieb to "end the debate" and then, after Gottlieb appeared to agree with him, Sorkin put out a Tweet to tell people to "stay healthy out there" and to quietly suggest that he was right and Santelli was wrong:

But it was hardly the KO that Sorkin made it out to be. Even Gottlieb admitted during his own PSA that indoor restaurant settings could be optimized and safe, stating:

 "Could there be indoor restaurant settings that are optimized? Where they have taken steps to reduce the risk? Possibly."

More like, of course.

Shortly after the exchange, Kevin O'Leary railed against the lockdowns, asking the one key question that seems to be eluding Sorkin: why do the big box retailers get priority over small businesses?

"How is it possible when I've spent 60 or 80 thousand dollars on the back of the restaurant and the front of the restaurant to provide seats and heaters - and complied with city ordinances - and was just about to re-open - no tents, this is not tented, this is outside - I'm shut down. And right across the street there's a big box retailer across the street that has people inside that's open?" he asked.

O'Leary added:

"There's no science claim on this... people are making 'calmative' science statements... how can 'outside' be less safe than 'inside'..."

and... "All my employees have to be laid off - a third time!"

"I'm not even saying open them inside! I'm only asking 'How can it be fair?' and 'How can it be right'?" O'Leary claims.

Andrew Ross Sorkin eventually chimes in by telling O'Leary:

"I very much agree with you," before saying "the rules should be applied across the board". 

But O'Leary wasn't done:

"There's something really wrong here. You're picking winners and losers," he added.

"It's total chaos out there."

Recall, it was Friday morning when Sorkin tangled with Rick Santelli about Covid lockdown rules in a clip that has now gone viral across most of FinTwit. The argument began when Santelli took exception with Democratic leaders who have been found breaking their own lockdown rules while forcing their respective local businesses to bear the brunt of increasingly draconian and complex lockdown rules. 

Santelli raised the question of why big box retailers were allowed to stay open, but small businesses weren't:

"Therefore, there is actually and should be an ongoing debate as to why a parking lot for a big-box store like by my house is jam-packed, not one parking spot open. Why are those people any safer than a restaurant with plexiglass? I just don't get it. I think it's really sad that when we look at the service sector in all of the discussions we've had about job losses that that particular dynamic isn't studied more, isn't worked more, we don't put more people in a room and try to figure out ways so that these service sector employees and employers could all come back in a safer way."

A clearly galled Sorkin then launched into a patronizing diatribe about the differences between big box retailers, restaurants and churches, and why Santelli was doing viewers a "disservice" by disregarding the science"

"The difference between a big box retailer, and a restaurant - or frankly, a church - are so different it's unbelievable," Sorkin insisted.

Santelli shot back: "500 people in a Lowes aren't any safer than 150 people in a restaurant that holds 600...and I live in an area with a lot of restaurants that have fought back...and they're open."

After some more jawing, Santelli concluded: 

"I think our viewers are smart enough to make those decisions on their own! I don't think I am much smarter than all the viewers... like some people do."

"I don' think I am much smarter than all the viewers... like some people do."

Which was repeated this morning by O'Leary, who exclaimed:

"we are restricting poeple from making their own choices..."

Sorkin continued to insist that he was merely trying to educate viewers about "the science" of COVID-19.

As we said Friday, we'd really enjoy hearing Sorkin explain "the science" of how Big Box stores are "completely different" from restaurants and churches. All three can be found in interchangeable strip malls across the country.

The solution offered by the great and the good statists on CNBC was simple - "we need a policy of masks for all... and that will give people confidence to make a come back in the economy."

The only problem with that utter falsehood is that most of California has been wearing masks outside for months... as have numerous other states with mask mandates... and it's not helping!

And at least as far as masks are concerned, research has painted what is in reality a pretty fraught picture, as one recent study out of Denmark showed.

The same goes for lockdowns, as the balance between the high cost and time-limited efficacy are still not well understood.

All of which does make one wonder if HumanEvents' Ash Staub had a point last week when he questioned: if one were to consider the upward transfer of wealth and market share to Big Business since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, one would think such economic changes were intended. After all, it’s no secret that the interests of politicians and the corporate elite align more often than not.

As we near a year of lockdowns and sheltering in place, the long-term effects of pandemic policy on the economy are becoming clearer. Almost every piece of legislation ostensibly designed to curb the spread of the coronavirus and protect workers has wreaked devastation on small businesses—while benefiting the largest corporations. Roughly 100,000 small businesses have permanently closed due to COVID-19, while big-box retailers, tech giants, and pharmaceutical manufacturers have seen record profits.

America’s small businesses currently face an attack on all fronts.

• First, there are the more visible policies (e.g., lockdowns, mask mandates, and social distancing requirements) that strongly discourage people from patronizing brick-and-mortar retailers and restaurants. These policies impact small businesses more than large chains and corporations. Small retailers, for example, may not have the space to effectively implement social distancing policies, and often lack an online infrastructure to support curbside pickups of retail goods.

• Second, the cost of complying with health and safety guidelines, and the corresponding fines if businesses don’t comply, have forced businesses to incur additional expenses while their revenue declines. According to the Small Business Administration, the cost of compliance disproportionately impacts small businesses, who lack the funds and infrastructure of large corporations to adapt to new regulation. Overhauling a business to accommodate remote work, for example, requires a flexibility and an investment of resources that many small businesses simply do not have. For dine-in restaurants, the vast majority of which are small businesses, switching to outdoor dining is often not even possible given the business’s location.

• Lastly, there are ever-evolving COVID-19 employment regulations that disproportionately expose small businesses to lawsuits and the subsequent legal expenses and damages that may result. The conspicuous absence of liability protection also disadvantages small businesses, as the largest corporations can spare the capital required to fight lawsuits and painlessly pay out any damages. For example, Publix, a large supermarket chain, has so far managed to avoid paying damages to the family of an employee who died of COVID-19 due to the fact that he wasn’t allowed to wear a mask at work.

Despite the fact that these policies are explicitly harmful to small businesses, they can be justified on the basis of “public health” and thereby shielded from criticism. Practically unlimited regulation (that always seems to benefit the corporate elite) can be defended, because such policies are said to be designed to ensure the health and safety of the public. Opposition to these onerous restrictions can therefore be conveniently characterized as “anti-science,” or worse, reckless and/or malicious endangerment of one’s community. As a consequence, policies that explicitly disadvantage small businesses, such as the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), can be passed under the guise of public health and worker protection without raising any alarm bells.

US Pension Money Flows Into ‘Malign’ Chinese Companies: State Department

 From Epoch Times:

WASHINGTON—U.S. investors are unwittingly financing companies tied to the Chinese communist regime and its military through major index funds, according to a fact sheet released by the U.S. State Department on Dec. 5.

The report, titled “U.S. Investors Are Funding Malign PRC Companies on Major Indices,” lists the names of publicly traded companies that present a national security threat to the United States.

“The Chinese Communist Party’s threat to American national security extends into our financial markets and impacts American investors,” the fact sheet says.

Many major stock indexes developed by index providers Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI) and Financial Times Stock Exchange Group (FTSE) include Chinese companies that are blacklisted by the Pentagon and the Department of Commerce.

MSCI and FTSE Russell are among the largest index providers in the world that influence how investors deploy their funds. Securities of many Chinese companies are embedded in exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and other passive investment funds benchmarked against these major indexes.

The pension assets of American workers and retirees are supporting these Chinese companies as a majority of pension funds use the MSCI Emerging Market (EM) index as their investment benchmark, according to the fact sheet.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), through its aggressive national strategy called “Military-Civil Fusion,” uses Chinese companies to strengthen the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Meanwhile, the Department of Defense this year blacklisted 31 Chinese firms that are owned or controlled by the PLA.

According to the fact sheet, at least 22 of these military companies have affiliates whose securities are included on the MSCI EM index or FTSE Emerging index. Some of them also have bonds that are included in the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Bond index.

Among the Chinese companies on the indexes are the Aviation Industry Corp. of China (2357.HK) and China Unicom (0762.HK), which are known for supporting Beijing’s aggressive military activity in the South China Sea.

China’s biggest telecommunications giants, China Mobile Ltd. (0941.HK) and China Telecom Corp. (0728.HK), are also on the list and their stocks are traded on both the Hong Kong Stock Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).

Another well-known company tied to China’s military and whose shares are included in both the MSCI and FTSE indexes is surveillance equipment manufacturer Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Co. Ltd. (002415.SZ). The company was accused by the U.S government last year of being implicated in human rights violations in China.

The fact sheet also provides the list of all 68 affiliated entities of these military companies. Most of them have stocks that are included in various MSCI and FTSE indexes.

“Under Chinese law, Chinese companies and researchers must–under penalty of law–share technology with the Chinese military. The goal is to ensure that the People’s Liberation Army has military dominance,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated in the fact sheet.

In addition to the military companies, at least 13 PRC firms on the Commerce Department’s blacklist (Entity List) had affiliates or parent companies included in the MSCI or FTSE indexes.

Hangzhou Hikvision, Dahua Technology, IFLYTEK, and FiberHome Technologies Group are prominent examples of Chinese companies “with widely recognized ties to the oppression of Uyghurs that benefit from inclusion in the MSCI and/or FTSE stock indices,” according to the report.

In addition, “the MSCI emerging market index included 230 A-shares Chinese stocks incorporated on the mainland, quoted in renminbi, and listed on Chinese Communist Party-controlled Shanghai and Shenzhen exchanges.”

MSCI and FTSE didn’t immediately respond to requests by The Epoch Times for comment.

“Some of the Chinese companies (on MSCI Index) present significant national security and humanitarian concerns for the United States, which increases the risk that they could be subject to sanctions, public protests, trade restrictions, boycotts, and other punitive measures that jeopardize their business and profitability,” White House national security adviser Robert O’Brien and White House chief economic adviser Larry Kudlow stated in the fact sheet.

FTSE Russell announced on Dec. 4 that it would drop shares of eight Chinese companies including Hangzhou Hikvision, China Railway Construction Corp., and China Spacesat. These companies’ shares will be removed from its FTSE Global Equity Index Series and several others effective Dec. 21.

Index providers MSCI and JPMorgan also may take similar actions against the Chinese blacklisted companies as they’re currently in the process of collecting investor feedback, The Wall Street Journal reported on Dec. 4.

The U.S. House of Representatives last week unanimously passed legislation that will block Chinese companies from the U.S. stock market if they fail to be transparent and meet American accounting standards. The measure is headed to President Donald Trump’s desk to be signed into law.

The bill affects companies listed on U.S. exchanges, but doesn’t address issues related to securities embedded in ETFs and other passive investment funds benchmarked against major indexes.

Based in New York, MSCI Inc. recently announced, “the assets in ETFs linked to its indexes crossed the $1 trillion mark on Nov. 16.”

Last year, the firm quadrupled China’s weighting in the emerging-markets index. The company announced in December 2019 that it increased the number of China A-share companies and as a result, China’s weight in the index rose to 33 percent from 28 percent in 2017.

In February last year, The Wall Street Journal reported that MSCI came under heavy pressure from the Chinese regime, which threatened to cut the company’s business in the country.

The index provider, as a result, had to increase the weighting of Chinese shares in its global benchmarks, leading billions of dollars to flow into Chinese shares, the report said.

For The First Time, A US State Will Require Disclosure Of PCR 'Cycle Threshold' Data In COVID Tests

 From Zero Hedge:

We have detailed the controversy surrounding America's COVID "casedemic" and the misleading results of the PCR test and its amplification procedure in great detail over the past few months.

As a reminder, "cycle thresholds" (Ct) are the level at which widely used polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test can detect a sample of the COVID-19 virus. The higher the number of cycles, the lower the amount of viral load in the sample; the lower the cycles, the more prevalent the virus was in the original sample.

Numerous epidemiological experts have argued that cycle thresholds are an important metric by which patients, the public, and policymakers can make more informed decisions about how infectious and/or sick an individual with a positive COVID-19 test might be. However, as JustTheNews reports, health departments across the country are failing to collect that data.

Here are a few headlines from those experts and scientific studies:

1. Experts compiled three datasets with officials from the states of Massachusetts, New York and Nevada that conclude:“Up to 90% of the people who tested positive did not carry a virus."

2. The Wadworth Center, a New York State laboratory, analyzed the results of its July tests at the request of the NYT: 794 positive tests with a Ct of 40: “With a Ct threshold of 35, approximately half of these PCR tests would no longer be considered positive,” said the NYT. “And about 70% would no longer be considered positive with a Ct of 30! “

3. An appeals court in Portugal has ruled that the PCR process is not a reliable test for Sars-Cov-2, and therefore any enforced quarantine based on those test results is unlawful.

4. A new study from the Infectious Diseases Society of America, found that at 25 cycles of amplification, 70% of PCR test "positives" are not "cases" since the virus cannot be cultured, it's dead. And by 35: 97% of the positives are non-clinical.

5. PCR is not testing for disease, it's testing for a specific RNA pattern and this is the key pivot. When you crank it up to 25, 70% of the positive results are not really "positives" in any clinical sense, since it cannot make you or anyone else sick

So, in summary, with regard to our current "casedemic", positive tests as they are counted today do not indicate a “case” of anything. They indicate that viral RNA was found in a nasal swab. It may be enough to make you sick, but according to the New York Times and their experts, probably won’t. And certainly not sufficient replication of the virus to make anyone else sick. But you will be sent home for ten days anyway, even if you never have a sniffle. And this is the number the media breathlessly reports... and is used to fearmonger mask mandates and lockdowns nationwide...

All of which is background for an intriguing decision made by Florida's Department of Health (and signed off on by Florida's Republican Governor Ron deSantis).

For the first time in the history of the pandemic, a state will require that all labs in the state report the critical “cycle threshold” level of every COVID-19 test they perform.

All positive, negative and indeterminate COVID-19 laboratory results must be reported to FDOH via electronic laboratory reporting or by fax immediately. This includes all COVID-19 test types - polymerase chain reaction (PCR), other RNA, antigen and antibody results.

Cycle threshold (CT) values and their reference ranges, as applicable, must be reported by laboratories to FDOH via electronic laboratory reporting or by fax immediately.

Full press release below:

So, why is Florida doing this? There appears to be three options:

1) Pro-Trump - Florida is attempting to pre-empt the Biden Team's plan to slash the Ct used by labs for COVID "case" which will eliminate the false positives and show "cases" plunge "thanks to Biden's mask/lockdown/vaccine-confidence" rules.

2) Pro-Biden - Florida is beginning the 'fake rescue' plan outlined here (and above)

3) Pro-Science - Florida is the first state to actually pay attention to the real 'science' of PCR tests.

We hope, for the sake of Americans' livelihoods it is Option 3 and the 'casedemic' will collapse on itself and allow we, the people to go back to some sense of normality.

Top Scientist Warns Covid-19 Vaccine Road 'To Your Doom'