War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Obesity is health:

You don’t have to be old to die from COVID-19 — not if you have a preexisting condition. Obesity is among the most dangerous:

Public Health England estimated that having a BMI of 35 to 40 could increase a person’s chances of dying from covid-19 by 40%, while a BMI greater than 40 could increase the risk by 90%.

Dying of WuFlu isn’t the only health problem linked to being overweight. According to the CDC, increased risks include:

• All-causes of death (mortality)

• High blood pressure (Hypertension)

• High LDL cholesterol, low HDL cholesterol, or high levels of triglycerides (Dyslipidemia)

• Type 2 diabetes

• Coronary heart disease

• Stroke

• Gallbladder disease

• Osteoarthritis (a breakdown of cartilage and bone within a joint)

• Sleep apnea and breathing problems

• Many types of cancer

• Low quality of life

• Mental illness such as clinical depression, anxiety, and other mental disorders

• Body pain and difficulty with physical functioning

Diabetes, heart disease, and cancer are among the leading causes of death.

The CDC also says that 42.4% of the US population is obese as of 2017–2018. Cosmo has a strong financial incentive to tell people it’s good to be fat. We have an even stronger incentive not to swallow anything the mainstream media tries to feed us.

On tips from Henry.

This might help alleviate doubts about the safety of a ChiCom virus vaccine. As Liz Wheeler reports, some leftists want conservatives and whites at the back of the line to get it:

With this, the prosecution could rest its case against letting politically driven bureaucrats control the healthcare system.

On a tip from KirklesWorth.

The COVID-19 crisis will be over when the government admits that we have achieved herd immunity — that is, when a certain percentage of the population is immune to the virus, either because they have already had it or because they have taken an effective vaccine. What might that percentage be? Don’t ask the liberal establishment’s favorite expert Anthony Fauci; he admits that he has been lying.

From the New York Times:

In the pandemic’s early days, Dr. Fauci tended to cite the same 60 to 70 percent estimate that most experts did. About a month ago, he began saying “70, 75 percent” in television interviews. And last week, in an interview with CNBC News, he said “75, 80, 85 percent” and “75 to 80-plus percent.”

In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on … his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks.

When the little people aren’t ready for the truth because we are too dumb to understand it, our rulers have to lie to us for our own good.

Hard as it may be to hear, he said, he believes that it may take close to 90 percent immunity to bring the virus to a halt — almost as much as is needed to stop a measles outbreak.

Fauci lies and unapologetically admits to lying with astonishing arrogance. You can see why Democrat Pols would want to create a holiday in his name.

“When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci said. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.”

Then he admitted,

“We really don’t know what the real number is.”

By the time we get to 90%, he will have raised the bar to 101%, knowing that if this is ever allowed to end, he will go back to being just another bureaucrat in a country that has far too many of them.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for a reporter like Jon Karl to ask, “Why did you lie to the American people, and why should we trust what you have to say now?”

Speaking of lying about herd immunity, this is how the World Health Organization, with which we are not allowed to disagree on pain of being banned by YouTube, defined it recently:

Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection. This means that even people who haven’t been infected, or in whom an infection hasn’t triggered an immune response, they are protected because people around them who are immune can act as buffers between them and an infected person. The threshold for establishing herd immunity for COVID-19 is not yet clear.

The page has been updated so as to strongly imply that herd immunity can only be achieved through vaccination:

‘Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached.

Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it. …

Achieving herd immunity with safe and effective vaccines makes diseases rarer and saves lives.

The World Health Organization is headed by a communist who has been accused of war crimes and has served as a pawn of Chinese Communist Party. The “experts” have far more political clout than they have credibility.

On tips from DCGere, Lyle, Jodie, Henry, and Stormfax.

You don’t have to be a pervert who repeatedly raped his 10-year-old daughter to get special favoritism from the liberal ruling class. Any enemy of society qualifies — because racial justice:

Democratic Rep. Ayanna Pressley said she would work to make it a priority for prisoners to get the coronavirus vaccine, as Massachusetts reportedly announced that inmates would be among the first to be inoculated after health care workers and the elderly.

Barks Pressley:

“I’m going to continue to fight for our most vulnerable communities who have been disproportionally impacted by the virus, for our health care workers, for our essential workers, for incarcerated men and women to be prioritized in the distribution of the vaccine.”

Note she did not list older people, the major demographic for which COVID-19 is more deadly than the flu. As has been established, older people do not deserve to be protected, because they are more likely to be white. Convicts, on the other hand…

Massachusetts, according to the New York Times, said its decision to prioritize inmates was made to provide equal access during the pandemic, as the coronavirus has taken a larger toll on people of color, who make up the majority of people incarcerated.

This is because blacks are vastly more likely than whites to commit crimes, explaining why blacks more often get into violent confrontations with the police. However, to liberals, it proves that criminals are not criminals at all, but merely victims of racism who have been imprisoned for no reason other than the color of their skin. Whether moonbats like Pressley and her supporters really are crazy enough to believe such nonsense is unclear.

What is clear is that we do not want these people to be in charge of who gets medical care and who does not, as they will be if healthcare continues to fall under government control.

On a tip from Varla.

Do authorities really think that preventing people from visiting their elderly relatives in nursing homes results in better health? It seems doubtful:

On a tip from Wiggins.

The racial hatred that is conspicuously fashionable among the liberal intelligentsia has crossed the line into advocating genocide in the debate over who should be prioritized for a COVID-19 vaccine.

Is it better to save a lot of older people, who are vastly more vulnerable to the virus, or a handful of “essential workers,” for whom the virus is generally no worse than the flu?

According to chin-pulling “experts” cited by the New York Times, the answer is essential workers. Their reason should shock the last decent liberals into switching sides.

Older people are more likely to be white; therefore, they should be allowed to die. No kidding, that is their argument.

Healthcare workers and the extremely frail elderly in nursing homes will get the vaccine first, according to the CDC. A committee of medical experts has convened to advise the CDC on who should go next.

From the Flagship Publication of the Liberal Establishment:

In a meeting last month, all voting members of the committee indicated support for putting essential workers ahead of people 65 and older and those with high-risk health conditions.

The racial motive was as explicit as anything out of the Third Reich:

“To me the issue of ethics is very significant, very important for this country,” Dr. Peter Szilagyi, a committee member and a pediatrics professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said at the time, “and clearly favors the essential worker group because of the high proportion of minority, low-income and low-education workers among essential workers.”

Should teachers be prioritized over vulnerable older people? No; here’s why:

Marc Lipsitch, an infectious-disease epidemiologist at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, argued that teachers should not be included as essential workers, if a central goal of the committee is to reduce health inequities.

“Teachers have middle-class salaries, are very often white, and they have college degrees,” he said.

This got some pushback from Elise Gould, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute.

“When you talk about disproportionate impact and you’re concerned about people getting back into the labor force, many are mothers, and they will have a harder time if their children don’t have a reliable place to go,” she said. “And if you think generally about people who have jobs where they can’t telework, they are disproportionately Black and brown. They’ll have more of a challenge when child care is an issue.”

If letting teachers die would inconvenience the sacred “Black and brown” people, maybe we should let them live even if they are white and middle class.

Harald Schmidt, an expert in ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, said that it is reasonable to put essential workers ahead of older adults, given their risks, and that they are disproportionately minorities. “Older populations are whiter,” Dr. Schmidt said. “Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.”

In this context, “leveling the playing field” literally means killing people for being white. Everyone agrees that withholding the vaccine from people likely to die (i.e., older people) so as to give it to “essential workers” who are not likely to die will result in more deaths, assuming the vaccine is effective. These self-righteous fiends are literally advocating racially motivated genocide.

Click their names above and you will see they are white themselves, like most of the liberal ruling class. Yet they don’t want to die. They want faceless, nameless white people of the hated middle class to die. They want you to die.

As Big Government moves us ever closer to socialized medicine, these people will increasingly determine who receives medical treatment and who does not.

On tips from Henry and R F.

Exploiting COVID-19 to enhance government power is a matter of ruling by fear, and no one is more fun to frighten than children. Looks like Santa is on the verge of dying from the ChiChom virus in a brutally maudlin commercial for Britain’s socialized medicine:

The advert “celebrates NHS staff and volunteers” by showing them nursing Father Christmas back to full health so he can deliver presents.

Entitled The Gift, the ad shows paramedics giving Santa oxygen as he looks to be at death’s door while being transported to a medical ward…

When government is big enough to take over healthcare, it isn’t only medicine that gets politicized. Even Santa becomes a tool.

On a tip from Lyle.