Covid-19, Norway and Sweden

 A little while back I came across an interesting research paper:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.11.20229708v1.full.pdf

The title is “Mortality in Norway and Sweden before and after the Covid-19 outbreak: a cohort study”. A cohort study involves studying a group of people who share a defining characteristic. In this case Norway and Sweden are two countries that while they share a border also share a lot of other characteristics with regards to population. More specifically: “Norway and Sweden are similar countries regarding ethnicity, governmental and administrative systems, socioeconomics and public health care systems, and both countries have reliable, timely and complete registration of deaths.” The one difference though is that each took a different path when it came to dealing with Covid-19. This study set out to determine what differences there were between these two types of actions for two populations that show little difference other than what country they are in.

They “compared all-cause mortality and Covid-19 associated deaths in Norway and Sweden, before and during the epidemic, in light of the different measures against Covid-19”. The researchers compiled weekly number for all causes of death for the last 5 years for both countries. They then broke out the data into five 12-month periods ending on July 26^th, 2020. Besides the whole populations of each country, they also broke the data down based on the following age groups: 0-69, 70-79 and ≥80. The data were also normalised by population to make sure they were comparing equal data types.

They calculated the average mortality rates per week as well as the highest and lowest number of deaths through out each 12-month period. In addition, they calculated mortality rate ratios (MRR). They also calculated all-cause mortality rates and all Covid-19 associated deaths. All data is publicly available and thus easily verified.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, primarily because it can show complex data in a form that is easy to understand. Thus, I am not going to cite any more of the text. If you want to, feel free to follow the link above and read the report yourself. So, without further ado here are the summary figures, along with their captions, followed by any comments I make.

The dashed lines are the average for the previous 4 years. Note the following: a) the mortality rate is slightly higher in Sweden than Norway but both parallel one another quite well; b) beginning about elate November-early December the most recent data set shows a below average death rate until March; and c) Sweden experiences a spike that ended in early July.

To recap what it says in the text description, A shows the age group 0-69. See the COVID-19 spike? It is there in early April but just barely. For the next age group, the same spike but a bit more prominent. And then for the 80 or over group it is obvious. Of special note is that No obvious anomaly is present for Norway!

To date (February 11, 2021) Norway has had 109 deaths per million of population, while Sweden has had 1,220, approximately a 10-fold difference!

What conclusions can we draw? One possibly is that as Norway imposed much more restrictive measures then lock downs work. If that is the case, then every country that imposed a lockdown should have low number of deaths from COVID-19. Here is the COVID-19 deaths for Canada from last spring up to mid August:

Not flat like Norway’s yet we went into a full lock-down like Norway did, yet we experienced a different result! While not as high as Sweden, it is still not that different. I hope they continue with the study as much more can be learned form the last half of 2020.

Here are the COVID-19 deaths for Norway to date followed by Sweden’s:

I suspect that the big difference is due to the same primary reason as many island nations that also have low COVID-19 deaths. When Norway shut down, they included a complete shutdown at the border. Neither Canada nor Sweden did that. If you don’t let a pest into the house it is unable to do any havoc.That should be one lesson that could be learned, but I suspect that will not be the case.

Skepticism

 

 A friend of mine directed me to someone else’s blog post whereby they discussed “Why being skeptical will make you see life sharply”. It is a good read and I highly recommend it! I note too that that person has a far nicer layout on their blog and maybe, if I feel up to it, I may have to try a new layout for mine inspired by his.

Instead, at least for now, I want to take some time to explore some of the ideas he presents.

“Being under attack rapidly affects our logic. Anyone is guilty until proven innocent — not the other way around, as it should be. That’s how the desire for certainty can cripple our lives.”

How true, especially now! Down south of the border they are “impeaching” a President who is no longer in office and telling him that he is guilty until he proves himself innocent. And if you get accused of child abuse or a man is accused of sexual abuse of a woman? The same thing. In my lifetime never has basic justice been so topsy turvy. When will it end? Likely not until something so grossly bad that people come to their senses. Something like Eugenics (“The study or practice of attempting to improve the human gene pool by encouraging the reproduction of people considered to have desirable traits and discouraging or preventing the reproduction of people considered to have undesirable traits.”) that was a concept gaining ground until Hitler showed the world what it really involved with his gas chambers and death camps. Only then did the proponents of Eugenics quietly move onto other topics of interest.

“When we overreact, things get out of hands. The medicine becomes more dangerous than the disease we are trying to cure.

The opposite to the need for closure is skepticism. Rather than taking the first answer for real, you challenge the truth. You don’t let irrational fear dictate your answers.

Skepticism is not nihilism or being negative; it’s adding an extra filter. Rather than taking anything for granted, you want to validate the truth. You don’t take social constructs as true no matter how strong peer pressure is.”

Much of my writing as you likely have observed is based on skepticism. But I never really appreciated why until I read the above. For sure I have never let irrational fear dictate my actions! Whether it be Y2K, “global warming”, “climate change” or Covid-19. Each attempt to encourage fear in the populace I have met the same way. I can not explain why other than I do not tolerate being bullied and fear mongering in my books is no different. As I have previously written I was subjected to being bullied when a kid. Note that I do not say I was a “victim”. The reason is simple, I always fought back and never backed down. We are genetically predisposed to react by either fight or flight when faced with potential danger. My predisposed reaction is the former.

In similar fashion I was never one to succumb to peer pressure, or at least to a point. I dress in a fashion that is neat, even if not following fashion trends or being over dressed. As a result, I must admit freely I do keep peer pressure in mind in not standing out one way or the other. But for sure I do not let it control me. I do not fall over myself trying to make friends with strangers. That does not mean I am not friendly, but neither can you call me a sycophant.

As the second last line in that quote says, I do not take anything for granted and just want to validate the truth. Whether it be my first impression of others or of anything else that comes along that potentially could be a threat.

“Being skeptical doesn’t mean being rigid, dogmatic, hypercritical, or obtuse. You simply understand that you cannot react to the first answer, you want more evidence before buying into it.”

At the back of your mind always should be “what if they are right”? That is why a skeptical person must be cautious and not dismiss any warning that, while it may be fear mongering, is a real warning. When someone shouts “fire!” I will go as calmly as I can to the nearest exit while continually taking measure to whether to escalate my flight response or not. That is the prudent thing to do because seldom, if ever do you know all the facts. Being a geologist has honed that ability as seldom does one have enough facts to be certain on just about anything. Over time as you do research and observe more your position can most certainly firm, but at the start at least caution is always warranted.

“You can be a skeptic without being a cynic.”

Another truism. While I do find myself cynical at times it is not about issues I am skeptical of. For example, I am a cynic of a lot of human reactions to things. There is no question that as a species we treat each other terribly! We call ourselves “civilised” yet in so many ways act as savages. Again, as I have previously written about, we have attained a level where poverty is rare and that the vast majority live now like kings of old yet too many of us do not see that. Which reminds me, one book I must read from start to finish yet never have, yet I refer to it a lot, is “Don Quixote”!

“The Greek word ‘skeptikos’ means ‘thoughtful.’ “

Learn something every day, even for words one uses often!

“Ulric Neisser, the father of cognitive psychology, conducted the “Challenger study” to question what he called ‘flashbulb memories’ — how shocking, emotional events leave a vivid imprint on the mind.”

Makes sense! A lot of my memories fall into that category, they are like snapshots or photographs of moments in time. For me they are of the world around me. For example, I still have vivid memories of outcrops I have seen in the bush decades ago and often can return to the same spot many years after. Names and faces? Not so much but I am better with faces!

“Turn challenging the truth into a habit.”

Anyone who knows me would attest that is most certainly a habit of mine! Some say it is a “bad” habit, but for one who has been skeptical for so long, I just cannot help it!

“It’s okay to believe something and then, after reviewing the facts, realize that either you were wrong or your memory was playing tricks.”

Another truism! One that comes to mind is when I first arrived in Thompson, I was told that the rocks represented refolded nappe structures (refolded recumbent folds). Having been exposed to isoclinal folds everywhere else I had been I was, “skeptical”! A decade later I did a 3D model using magnetic inversion data combined with surface mapping. The only way those two data sets worked flawlessly together was by using refolded nappe structures! I became a believer! Go where the data leads you, I keep telling others and who was I not to do just that?

As I said at the start, a great essay! The closing line of that essay:

“Life is about discovery, not about being certain. Being skeptical will prevent you from taking things for granted — you will see life sharply.”

The RT-PCR “test”

 

 A common method used when studying Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) is Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). This is a method that repeatedly duplicates strands of DNA, like using a photocopier to amplify the quantity present in a sample to a level where there is enough material to work reliably with. The method relies on mixing the DNA with an enzyme to aid in the “chain reaction part”, specifically DNA polymerase, “primer” fragments of DNA (fragments characteristic of the DNA we want to duplicate), “probe” fragments (fragments of DNA that react to an excitation source by fluorescing, the glow of which can be captured by a photo detector), and DNA nucleotides, or “building blocks”. The latter consist of 4 specific nucleotides: adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine, typically referred to by the letters A, C. G and T. The DNA nucleotides combine in pairs to form the ladder rungs of the DNA double helix. Each pair is a specific sequence as for example G only pairs with C and A with T.

But a virus does not contain DNA but instead a single strand of Ribonucleic Acid (RNA). This is where the RT (Reverse Transcription) comes in. By using another enzyme, reverse transcriptase, we can create a complimentary DNA strand which then can be multiplied using the above Polymerase Chain Reaction method.

When a piece of DNA, in a fluid that includes the polymerase enzyme, is heated to 94-96°C the DNA helix separates into two individual strings where the enzyme acts as a catalyst. When cooled the primers and probes combine with the matching segments of the individual strings and the DNA nucleotides fill in the blanks thus resulting in a doubled number of DNA double helix strands. The heat/cool cycle is repeated until there are enough pieces of DNA that the light emitted when fluorescence is activated can be measured by the photo detector.

So, how many cycles are needed before there is enough material to generate a readable signal? Obviously the more of the target DNA the sooner a measurable fluorescence can be detected. Just to set the table so to speak, keeping in mind the process is exponential, a single strand in our input sample will result in 1.07 billion strands after 30 cycles, 34.36 billion after 35 cycles and 1.1 trillion after 40 cycles. All from a starting single strand!

According to a report by the UK Public Health England titled “Understanding cycle threshold (Ct) in SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR” the threshold line (Ct – cycle threshold) should be 26 cycles (67 million strands using our base case of 1 starter strand). Unfortunately, while it could be used as a means of measuring how much viral material was in the sample it would need to be calibrated using standards which is typically not done. So, an arbitrary cycle threshold is used and that varies from lab to lab and country to country.

From that same report a direct quote: “Ct values cannot be directly compared between assays of different types due to variation in the sensitivity (limit of detection), chemistry of reagents, gene targets, cycle parameters, analytical interpretive methods, sample preparation and extraction techniques. Additionally, Ct values are not provided for all SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection methods. Some commercial RT-PCR techniques are closed 'black box' systems whereby the operator cannot observe the reaction in real-time and the result is interpreted by software into a qualitative non-interrogatable positive or negative result.“

Still, while the more material being amplified in the original sample the sooner (a lower Ct) that a fluorescence signal can be detected. That still does not answer the question of how much material is required to get a “positive” result. Obviously the higher the number of cycles done the more likely a signal will be received even though the initial quantity was quite small. This is important as one should realise with our base case example, what if that single strand was from contamination? As indicated from the quote above there are a lot of other factors that come into play.

Personally, I have learned a lot about the RT-PCR process and much better understand what is being done, it still leaves a lot of unanswered questions. While proponents assert it is a very species specific “test” they do not provide, or at least I have not found, any definitive proof that the template used is only present in the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Thus, are the “primers” being used appropriate? What is the maximum threshold being used? Never reported. What care is taken to ensure no contamination? For other true testing methods, it is expected that duplicates, standards, and blanks be run at the same time as the regular samples to catch various sources of error. I have yet to see any documentation that these kinds of controls are included. Similarly, it is common with other testing methods to do a repeat analysis of an anomalous result, in this case a positive, to show reproducibility and therefore establish confidence in the result. I have yet to see any evidence that this is done on any basis.

Note in the previous paragraph in referring to RT-PCR I used “test”. This is because it really is not a true test, a “measure” of the viral load. It is, as previously used here merely a method of amplification. If anything can be called a “test” it is the evaluation of fluorescence which is merely used to determine if an artificial threshold is reached; if at any time, there is measurable fluorescence up to and including the maximum number of cycles used then it is classed as “positive” with no other apparent validation and checking done.

Things may be a lot better now but back in the spring there were two case histories involving large ships quarantined and virtually all tested using RT-PCR: the Diamond Princess cruise ship, and the US aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt. In both cases approximately 20% of all personnel tested “positive” yet only half of those positives ended up with symptoms. The other half were written off as being “asymptomatic” with not a thought given that some or even all were false positives as a result to the issues identified above. As a result, this is one “test” I personally do not put much faith in. Too bad it is being used indiscriminately for purposes it should not be.

My Recent Reading List

 

I do various things to expand my knowledge of what interests me, whether it be topics of the day or more general things. I read a lot, whether it be on the web or books on topics of interest. Here is a list of what I have read over the past 2 years along with a brief explanation of why I chose these books and, if relevant, thoughts on each.

2021

Jan. 13, 2021 “COVID-19 The Politics of a Pandemic Moral Panic “ by Barry Cooper, Marco Navarro-Génie

•  Since it first made the news back in December of 2019 I have been learning anything and everything I can about Covid-19, or more correctly SARS-Cov2. This was my latest acquisition. An interesting read that independently confirms much of what I have observed.

2020

Dec. 21, 2020 “Getting Fired Up (Arturo Sandus Book 3) ” by Peter Rhodan

Dec. 21, 2020 “Raising Steam (Arturo Sandus Book 2) ” by Peter Rhodan

Nov. 21, 2020 “On The Rocks (Arturo Sandus Book 1) ” by Peter Rhodan

• It was time to take time off and just read for enjoyment! These are the first 3 in a longer series of science fiction based on the premise that a military person from the future is sent back in time to Northern England during the waning stages of the Roman republic and how he tries to adapt.

Oct. 31, 2020 “The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense ” by Gad Saad

• Since early on with Covid I had become convinced that the real threat is not this virus but a disease of the mind as that was the only explanation I could come up with to justify the irrational and chaotic things being tried to “fight” Covid-19. Then I heard of this book. In short, I much better understand what I was seeing but now through the eyes of an evolutionary psychologist. Highly recommended.

Oct. 26, 2020 “COVID Operation: What Happened, Why It Happened, and What’s Next ” by Pamela Popper and Shane Prier.

•  Pam is a naturopath with a PhD and has a channel on YouTube where I have watched several of her videos. Like me she is skeptical about the actions taken to “fight” covid so I bought a copy of her book to get a better handle on her arguments. I was not disappointed!

Oct. 19, 2020 “Gardeners vs. Designers: Understanding the Great Fault Line in Canadian Politics ” by Brian Crowley.

• I think I saw this book mentioned first on The Rebel and wanting a Canadian viewpoint on politics I bought a copy. While overly simplistic at times Crowley, an economist who is the managing director of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, makes some good points. Here is one quote from the book I agree with: “What makes Canada great, then, is in part that we do not care where you came from. What we care about is where we can go together.” In short, a recommended read.

Aug. 30, 2020 “Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth ” by Stuart Ritchie

•  Like many of my purchases this was an attempt to delve deeper into a topic that has bothered me and so I wanted to get a interesting view point. And Stuart does a good job of exposing more fully the signs I have observed as well will excellent documentation.

Aug. 19, 2020 “Love Your Enemies: How Decent People Can Save America from the Culture of Contempt ” by Arthur C. Brooks.

• This was a mistake. I should not of bought it but I was intrigued by the title and wanted to see their point of view. I did not get far. Poorly argued and highly biased such that it turned me right off after only a few pages. Maybe I will try again at a later date.

Aug. 4, 2020 “Democrat to Deplorable: Why Nine Million Obama Voters Ditched the Democrats and Embraced Donald Trump ” by Jack Murphy.

•  I was really intrigued with the viewpoint being delivered. I was a mild fan of the Democrats and once believed they were sensible people. But everything from when Trump announced he was running for president made me question myself and the fact I liked what Trump’s message was. This is a good example of demonstrating what “populism” is all about. Highly recommended!

July 25, 2020 “How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps “ by Ben Shapiro

• I have watched Ben on YouTube and some of his videos on his Daily Wire web site. I was curious as to what his arguments would be. I was not impressed. While I read it from start to finish his prose was at times illogical and poorly stated, and this for a person considered to be a particularly good debater.

May 22, 2020 “Fascism: The Career of a Concept “ by Paul Gottfried

•  Anyone who has read my blog knows that I see a lot of parallels with Fascism from the first half of the Twentieth Century. I wanted to learn more as to what Fascism really is and how it came about. This book turned out to be a waste of time. Within a few pages it was obvious that the authour just assumes everyone thinks as he does as to what Fascism is without even defining it. I do not think I even finished the first chapter. Another waste of time. Disappointed.

April 18, 2020 “Hoaxed “ by Mike Cernovich, Jon du Toit, Scooter Downey

•  A series of essays and interviews that illustrate the many examples of terrible journalism. Well worth reading!

Apr. 14, 2020 “Don't Burn This Book: Thinking for Yourself in an Age of Unreason “ by Dave Rubin

• I really like Dave’s interviews as he does not berate his guests but allows them to talk and expound on their ideas. He has introduced me to several people who, to paraphrase Kanye West, I like how they think, whether it is Candace Owens, Larry Elder, and Thomas Sowell as just a few examples. And his book did not disappoint. Highly recommended!

Feb. 11, 2020 “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion “ by Jonathan Haidt

•  Of all the books I have read in the last few years this is the most thought provoking! So much so I have just started to read it again to better understand the incites given.  Highly recommended!

2019

Dec. 21, 2019 “The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity “ by Douglas Murray

• While a good read and well presented, out side of the title which says a lot in a few words, I can’t really put my finger on the most enlightening part of his story other than his style of prose, while readable, leaves the mind, at least mine, in a partial fog. Take for example this brief quote: “By contrast, anybody who got in the way of this direction of travel found themselves mown down with astonishing vigour. The weapons to hand (accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia and finally transphobia) were all too easy to wield and there was no price to pay for wielding them unfairly, unjustifiably or indeed frivolously. Critics of the emerging orthodoxy, including scientists, were accused of being propelled by the most base motives.” Still, if you haven’t read it I recommend that you do.

Dec. 18, 2019 “25 Myths That Are Destroying the Environment: What Many Environmentalists Believe and Why They Are Wrong “ by Daniel B. Botkin and Alfred Runte

•  An exploration on a topic I have followed for quite some time. Well worth it!

Dec. 7, 2019 “Trumponomics: Inside the America First Plan to Revive Our Economy “ by Stephen Moore and Arthur B. Laffer

• I was curious to see what a couple of economists had to say about things Trump had done by two who are highly respected in their field. One of many reasons I have come to appreciate the fact that he in no way matches the rhetoric the media have directed his way.

Dec. 2, 2019 “The Road to Mars: A Post-Modem Novel “ by Eric Idle

• It was time for a diversion! Saw mention f this novel by an alumnus of Monty Python, read it and was not disappointed! A very good read for science fiction.

Dec. 2, 2019 “Trump vs. the Media (Encounter Broadsides Book 51) “ by Mollie Ziegler Hemingway

• A real journalists’ view. Another good read as her arguments are well supported by facts, exactly what one should expect from a real journalist.

Nov. 14, 2019 “The Midnight Line - A Jack Reacher Novel Jack Reacher - 22” by Lee Child

Nov. 14, 2019 “Night School - A Jack Reacher Novel Jack Reacher - 21” by Lee Child

•  Another aside for purely entertainment purposes! I have read pretty much everything Lee Child has written as his stories are well paced and entertaining.

Oct. 13, 2019 “Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know Is Wrong” by John Stossel

• John Stossel made his career as a consumer reporter, first with ABC. He freely admits that as he investigated the more he became skeptical of the perceived narratives of the day. So, I had to check out hist book. It is beautifully written with excellent examples and highly recommended!

May 7, 2019 “The Homelanders” by Andrew Klayvan

• Another entertainment interlude. While I have listened to Andrew Klayvan’s pod cast a few times and find him rather good at describing a situation and then peeling off the layers I noted that he is more famous for being a screenwriter and authour. So, I picked up one of his stories and, not bad!

March 2, 2019 “Enlightenment Now - The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism and Progress” by Steven Pinker.

•  A former Canadian who holds a prestigious teaching post as a cognitive psychologist at Harvard who has published quite a few books. This one was highly recommended. I started reading it and got about 2/3’s of the way through until he got to talking about climate change. There he lost me as he accepted that as being factually correct with absolutely no question or skepticism. If he is that foolish, and I have written extensively on this subject as to why I am very skeptical, how is his opinion to be trusted on any other subject? Maybe I will go back and finish. But how can I take his word on anything if he is that careless on what he believes?

March 2, 2019 “The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote” by Sharyl Attkisson

• I never really understood what was meant by being “smeared”. After reading this book I now do. Sharyl is one of those rare breed of real journalists that are out there. While few and far between they use facts to build the story. In the future I will have to revisit this book!

July 4, 2019 “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist “ by Patrick Moore

•  I freely admit, I detest “Greenpeace” so I had to read this biography of one of the founders who saw the light and parted company with them. In doing so I have now a great respect for Patrick as he is truly a scientist and lets the data lead him where it may. Another great read!

 

A Privledged Life

 

For a little while I have been reminiscing on how things have changed since I was a naïve youth to now. Growing up, while we were not rich money wise, we always had food on the table so that we did not starve and a roof over our heads. I still have fond memories of those times. I now appreciate why so many talk about “the good old days”. Then life was simpler in that we focused on just a few items. Would we find a job? For a loner like me would I ever find a woman who would take me for her husband, and would we have children of our own? Simple things that we just let time determine our fate.

Then I would compare then to now. Things I took for granted back then I can no longer do. I remember well buying a BB gun so I could go hunting. I was maybe 12 or so in age. When I saw the BB’s bouncing off the roughed grouse I hoped to take home to eat I managed to take my meagre savings and then bought a used single shot pellet gun. Much more effective! With some of my school class mates I would somehow find my way to the Fish and Game club to target shoot using .22 rifles. This at a time when my parents had only one vehicle and ferrying my younger brother and I around for teenage activities was not high on their priority list. Yet it happened. I do remember when I was 15 and took the hunter safety course over, I think 2 or 3 evening sessions with the final oral and written exams. During the oral exam I saw friends of mine fail for, to me, obvious reasons. Like taking the rifle they were handed and asked to make sure it was unloaded by pointing the muzzle in the wrong direction (toward others). Even then I took the lessons to heart and passed both parts. I do not recall if I made any mistakes on the written part, but I did not on the oral exam. Then when I was 17 and having saved up money from my summer job, I bought a brand-new firearm; a Browning T-bolt .22 rifle from a sporting good store in Thunder Bay. I was in heaven!

Why do I talk about this? Because it is next to impossible for that to happen anymore. Politicians have used firearms, as one example, as a scapegoat to restrict our freedom. All in the name of better public safety yet never providing any evidence that was the case. Rhetoric was more important than facts.

These days issues of 50 years ago that made sense are bandied around as if they are still relevant. Or make an issue of things that do not warrant it. What happened? Why is rhetoric far more important than facts and why issues are no longer relevant to simply basic things that really make a difference in our quality of life.

While I was still mulling it over, I have come across a few things of late that have helped crystallise my thoughts. Things like how now we have “poor” people who are obese as one obvious example. A half century ago if you were truly poor you suffered from malnutrition as every day was a struggle to find anything to eat. Then yesterday I came across this article that had been written almost 2 years ago:

https://alphanewsmn.com/thoughts-from-a-hipster-coffee-shop/.

In brief the authour, in her mid 20’s, looked around and saw that her generation and those somewhat older than her, were living a privileged life and didn’t even realise it. Here are just two paragraphs from that article that bring it all into focus:

“Our unappreciation is evident as the popularity of socialist policies among my generation continues to grow. Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently said to Newsweek talking about the millennial generation, “An entire generation, which is now becoming one of the largest electorates in America, came of age and never saw American prosperity.

Never saw American prosperity. Let that sink in. When I first read that statement, I thought to myself, that was quite literally the most entitled and factually illiterate thing I’ve ever heard in my 26 years on this earth. Now, I’m not attributing Miss Ocasio-Cortez’s words to outright dishonesty. I do think she whole-heartedly believes the words she said to be true. Many young people agree with her, which is entirely misguided. My generation is being indoctrinated by a mainstream narrative to actually believe we have never seen prosperity. I know this first hand, I went to college, let’s just say I didn’t have the popular opinion, but I digress.”

Prosperity. That is the difference from my youth to now. As I said at the beginning, I grew up in a family that, while we never wanted for the basics (food and shelter) we were NOT prosperous. My mother handled the family financial affairs and for her it was a constant struggle. Using credit when ever possible to get us by. And why I and my siblings to this day value a dollar and have worked hard to have a better life than how we grew up.

I am pretty much “retired” now. I am not “rich”, but neither am I “poor”. I can live a comfortable life all because for a significant part of my life politicians focused on making this country a place where prosperity could thrive. But no longer. For reasons that, thanks to that article I better understand, we are blindly striving to undo our prosperity. By killing whole industries through the application of nonsensical regulations and replacing real issues such as job creation with imaginary ones such as “fighting climate change” and fighting a virus that is no more dangerous than the common flu as two examples. We have become so entitled that few any more even know what “reality” is. We see monsters everywhere just like Don Quixote in seeing large windmills thought he saw “giants”. We battle these imaginary monsters and take no care for the damage we do to our selves and the society we have built. We are self destructing to the point that rather than embracing the advances that have been made we find mythical targets for us to chase at the detriment of the society and prosperity we worked so hard to build a better life from. People like me can only look back at simpler times with envy as hard fought freedoms are stripped away and we do nothing about it.