Connect with us

Government

Grading The Governors: Who Locked Down And Who Opened?

Grading The Governors: Who Locked Down And Who Opened?

Authored by Michael Betrus via The Brownstone Institute,

Closing schools worked. Closing restaurants worked. Wearing masks worked. We know they worked because the governors that ordered.

Published

on

Grading The Governors: Who Locked Down And Who Opened?

Authored by Michael Betrus via The Brownstone Institute,

Closing schools worked. Closing restaurants worked. Wearing masks worked. We know they worked because the governors that ordered them said so. The CDC said so. The NIH said so. 

We were granted the greatest scientific experiment COVID-19 could offer (except for the cruise ships, which provided the original scientific experiment and was ignored). Many states had (and have) wildly different policies during the pandemic. The question we need to ask and data we need to study is, if the tight restrictions worked, did they result in fewer COVID-19 and moreover total excess deaths? 

Comparing one state to another, cherry-picking low-impacted Vermont to high-impacted Mississippi is dumb; they are unlike one another in geography and demographics, and importantly, obesity. Those two states are as far apart in COVID-19 death ranking as they are in obesity ranking. Mississippi is first right now in COVID-19 deaths per capita and has the highest obesity in the country. Vermont is ranked 50th in COVID-19 deaths per capita and 46th in obesity. Correlated? 

Below are the highest and lowest states in COVID-19 deaths per capita and their obesity ranking.

Do you see a correlation? New Jersey was hit hard early on and many fell victim to healthcare providers learning to treat COVID-19 patients and their nursing home policy. Arizona is an outlier, in part buoyed by foreign nationals sick with COVID-19 and dying in Arizona hospitals (similar results were seen in Texas and southern California). All the lower impacted COVID-19 states are low in obesity. (Is anyone surprised Alaska is not one of the lowest obesity states?)

The least restricted states throughout the pandemic include (no cherry picking here, these are the least) include the Dakotas, Florida, Nebraska, and Oklahoma. Not one of those states are in the top fifteen in COVID-19 deaths per capita.

The takeaway from all of this is that tight restrictions had no measurable impact on COVID-19 deaths. We need to understand that key messaging to those at risk (the elderly and obese; if these alone were removed from the COVID-19 deaths, there was no pandemic, a mathematical term requiring 7.4% of all deaths attributed to a new illness), protecting and advising them to be extra cautious while the population at large continues to function.

Below is an excerpt from a chapter called “The Burden of Proof” from the book COVID-19: The Science vs. The Lockdowns. This compilation is all original data compiled like this for the first time. The data analysis runs from the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020 through April 2021, fourteen months of data to accommodate for seasonality and ensure a long and large sampling. Since this list, some states shifted: for example, the southeastern states moved up in deaths per capita, and the Dakotas went from the top six to outside the top twenty in deaths per capita.

The data around COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths had wild margins of error, up to 40% inaccuracies in some places. A White House data advisor told me it was up to 50%. The working number in this research is 30%. The inaccuracies spawned from mostly two things: the inclusion of untested probable hospitalizations and deaths; including those who died after testing positive within weeks or months but died of something else. Yes, the stories you heard about the gun or car accident victim counted as a COVID-19 death are outliers. What aren’t outliers are the tens of thousands of people that died from real health issues, including issues like cardiac arrests, cancer deaths – things that had nothing to do with COVID-19 but were counted as such. 

The other consequence discussed here is lockdown deaths. There is no doubt that tens or hundreds of thousands of people died prematurely from untreated ailments, avoidance of healthcare out of fear of getting COVID-19, and to a lesser degree things like overdoses and suicides. Because of all the looseness in reporting, the highest integrity data point measuring the pandemic and lockdown impacts is looking at how many people in total died against expectations. If three million people died annually from 2015-2019 and then 3.5 million people died in 2020 and 2021, the increase is obvious. This is how we measure the pandemic and interventions holistically. 

If California had fewer COVID-19 deaths per capita than South Dakota, but 3% more total excess deaths during the pandemic from all causes amidst the strictest lockdowns, was it worth it? Well, that’s a no-brainer. A better comparison may be Idaho and neighboring Oregon and Washington. Idaho was much less restricted, kids were mostly in class if they wanted, whereas the two states to their west were almost California-tight. Idaho had about 14% excess deaths compared to about 8% in Oregon and Washington. Were the mitigations worth it? That’s for you to decide. Here we will show many comparisons that suggest hard locking down produced no better results than doing little more than protecting the vulnerable and letting the populations practice personal responsibility without government mandates.

The burden was not on open states like South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Oklahoma or Florida to do better. The burden was on states mandating a bunch of restrictions to do better. If lockdown measures work, their results should be a lot better. Then we can analyze if certain mitigations are worth it. Hypothetically, if open schools resulted in a 10% increase in pediatric deaths, we have a cause and effect to weigh. Then you decide, are open schools worth 10,000 more kids’ lives lost?  If open restaurants were known to result in 50% more deaths in a community, once again we can analyze if closing was worth it. If either of those things played out and the data proved the cause and effect, closed schools and closed indoor dining would have had a higher approval rating than eliminating taxes.

Fourteen months into the pandemic, the United States was +14% in all-cause deaths, meaning 14% more died than expected. Low-restricted South Dakota, Oklahoma, Florida, Nebraska, Florida and others should have far surpassed locked down states in all-cause deaths. South Dakota was +17% in excess deaths since the pandemic began. States doing worse than South Dakota that locked down harder included New Jersey (+27%), Arizona (+24%), New Mexico (+24%), Texas (+24%), California (+22%), New York (+20%), Maryland (+18%), and a dozen others. Locked down states should have had far fewer total lives lost than those open, and they did not. In many cases they did worse.

State Comparisons

Sources: Wallethub; Covid Tracking Project; Burbio; Worldometers; USMortality.com

The states above are ranked by least stringent to most stringent restrictions as of April 6, 2021 according to Wallethub. Factoring into these rankings are face mask requirements, restaurants and bars open, schools open for in-person learning, stay-at-home orders and other restrictions. The obvious question is, did restrictions result in fewer COVID-19 deaths? That’s the tradeoff. Lockdowns were costly personally and financially, but if the correlation worked, you can make an argument that they were a reasonable strategy. Below are key takeaways from the data chart above.

Politics

The seventeen least restricted states were Republican-led, as were 22 of the first 23 states. There is no doubt restrictions correlated more to the party of the state governor than anything else. Of the 26 most restricted states, 22 were Democrat-led. Of the four most restricted Republican-led states, Massachusetts, Vermont and Maryland are strong Democrat-voting states. Five of the eight states with over 20% all-cause excess deaths were Republican-led, three Democrat-led. 

Hospitalizations

ICU and overall hospitalizations are listed relative to state capacity. The data is directional only. A threshold of 20% is set for comparative purposes only. When communities were met with their COVID-19 surge, it’s likely a handful of hospitals were at or near full ICU capacity of COVID-19 patients for three to four weeks. A hospital is supposed to run at near capacity, like a hotel, in order to sustain. During the pandemic, outside of a four-to-six-week surge, most ran closer to 70%; during the spring 2020 lockdown, nationally most were almost completely empty and going broke. Had the CARES Act not bailed them out, many would not have made it, nor would most smaller healthcare providers. The healthcare industry would have gone broke during a pandemic without government bailouts.

Only seven states out of fifty-one (including DC) ever had more than five weeks of hospital beds occupied with over 20% COVID-19 patients. None of those seven states were among the top twenty least stringent states except Arizona. Only California reached over 20% of the ten most stringent states. 

Some states did not report ICU occupation of COVID-19 patients. Of those that did, 22 exceeded ten weeks with over 20%. 34 states exceeded 20% ICU occupancy greater than five weeks, and that does not include unreported states, of which six states surely did. That means forty states had surges reach their ICUs. 

Below is a comparison of the five most and least restricted states throughout the pandemic and their hospital occupancy:

Schools Open and Closed

Only two of the top ten highest deaths-per-capita states, Mississippi and South Dakota [ranked twenty in January 2022], had over half their schools open for face-to-face learning in the fall of 2020 and early 2021. This is relevant in that open schools did not correlate with higher COVID-19 deaths per capita.

Of the twenty states with 80% of their schools open for face-to-face learning in April 2021, their average COVID-19 deaths per capita were 1,654. Of the fifteen states with 50% or less face-to-face learning, their average COVID-19 deaths per capita were 1,539. The difference was insignificant. Smaller states with closed schools in Hawaii and Maine weighted that down, to where the average would have been near identical.

There was no correlation between more in-person learning and more people getting sick in communities. Hard data shows that tight restrictions did not result in any better results than light restrictions. Closing schools didn’t matter. Closing restaurants didn’t matter. Wearing masks didn’t matter. In the end two mitigation tactics worked: those vulnerable isolating, and social distancing, a form of isolation. The rest of the mitigations seem like they should have helped, but they just did not.

Grading the Governors

Not one governor performed perfectly during the pandemic and lockdowns. With media pressure, a desire to balance their constituents, and a desire to get reelected and move on to federal positions down the road, it was an enormously difficult job for all of them. For every single one, from Governors Newsom and Cuomo to Noem and DeSantis, it was the most challenging policy-making of their careers, and for any governor in perhaps American history. All grading below, like that for kids during their year-plus of remote learning, is on a curve. On that curve, here is how governors performed during the pandemic:

The A’s

Governors Ron DeSantis (FL), Kristi Noem (SD), Pete Ricketts (NE), and Mark Gordon (WY). No governors faced more media pressure than Noem and DeSantis. Noem never locked down her state. She never state-mandated face masks. She held strong during a very difficult surge in November and December 2020. She leads a state populated comparably to a metro Dallas county, and made more headlines for her stance than anyone not named DeSantis. Still, fewer than half the South Dakotan kids were forced out of class in 2020 and local governments were permitted to put up their own restrictions.

DeSantis led the third most populated state with a higher-than-average elderly population. Early on he put in protections in long-term care facilities. He locked down last and reopened in May 2020. He removed state restrictions in September 2020, even as COVID-19 activity rose in the fall. He kept more classes open in Florida than any other large population state. And with that, Florida had no worse results than the national average. The burden was not on DeSantis and Noem to beat the street with their open states. The burden was on the lockdown states to have better results and that did not happen. You could not look at a blank chart of states’ COVID-19 performance and pick out the tightly restricted versus looser states. For that, these bold governors get an A on the curve.

Mark Gordon kept schools open all 2020-2021 and for that he deserves recognition. A brief state mask mandate and allowing Teton County to require masks and close restaurants when we went climbing there in 2020 was frustrating. Still, on the curve, Gordon gets an A. Ricketts does as well, staying under the national radar while making Nebraskans glad to be Nebraskans. 

The B’s

Governors Kim Reynolds (IA), Brian Kemp (GA), Doug Burgum (ND), Greg Abbott (TX), Kevin Stitt (OK), Henry McMaster (SC), Eric Holcomb (IN), Brad Little (ID), Mike Parson (MO), Asa Hutchinson (AR), Kate Ivey (AL), Gary Herbert (UT), and Tate Reeves (MS).

These governors all had state mandates at one point or another. Many of their kids missed school in 2020-2021 overall. Businesses were restricted and most had some mask mandates at one time or another. Still, we’re grading on a curve. These governors presided over fewer restrictions and few of their states ever broke the top ten in deaths per capita. Governor Abbott would have been a C had he not completely opened everything in Texas up without restrictions nor face masks in March 2021, leading the way back. That was the A move of any of these governors. Asa Hutchinson kept more kids in class than any governor not named DeSantis or Gordon.

The C’s

Governors Laura Kelly (KS), Bill Lee (TN), Steve Bullock (MT), Gina Raimondo (RI), and Doug Ducey (AZ). These governors at least allowed some kids to be in class throughout late 2020 and early 2021. Raimondo was surrounded with lockdown warriors keeping kids out of class and businesses closed, and she kept more kids in school than any state in the northeast or mid-Atlantic. Not enough kids, but we’re on a curve.

The D’s

Governors Jared Polis (CO), Ned Lamont (CT), Andy Beshear (KY), John Bel Edwards (LA), Mike Dunleavy (AK), Brad Little (ID), Mike DeWine (OH), and Jim Justice (WV). Few of these governors made headlines with their lockdown moves. None followed actual science, they went along with the pack and the polls. Their low grade is largely based on so few kids in class. Remember, science. [Jared Polis has since come around and made some sensible comments about the value of restrictions, he would be higher if this list was compiled months after my original work]

The F’s

Governors John Carney (DE), David Ige (HI), Janet Mills (ME), Tim Waltz (MN), Steve Sisolak (NV), Michelle Lujan (NM), Roy Cooper (NC), Kate Brown (OR), Ralph Northam (VA), Jay Inslee (WA), Tony Evers (WI), Larry Hogan (MD), Charlie Baker (MA), Chris Sununu (NH) and and Phil Scott (VT). Millions of their students were locked out of schools for over a year, thousands of businesses closed and they were defiant in opening up when it was clear where the science stood. The only salvage for Ige, Mills, Brown, Scott, Sununu and Inslee is that while they kept kids out of class and closed thousands of businesses, they did achieve low relative COVID-19 deaths and all-cause excess deaths. They likely would have anyway had they let kids get educated and let businesses function.

Complete Fails

Governors Andrew Cuomo (NY), Phil Murphy (NJ), Gavin Newsom (CA), Gretchen Whitmer (MI), J.B. Pritzker (IL), and Tom Wolf (PA). There’s a special place for governors that locked kids out of classrooms for a year and a half, ordered sick COVID-19 patients back into nursing homes, did not practice their own orders, shut down tens of thousands of businesses and still couldn’t beat the U.S average in COVID-19 deaths or excess all-cause deaths.

*  *  *

Michael Betrus is the author of COVID-19: Lockdowns on Trial and the upcoming COVID-19: The Science vs. The Lockdowns.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/01/2022 - 10:45

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Nonprofit Blood Donation Service Starts Matching Unvaccinated Patients With Donors

Nonprofit Blood Donation Service Starts Matching Unvaccinated Patients With Donors

Authored by Allan Stein via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Swiss…

Published

on

Nonprofit Blood Donation Service Starts Matching Unvaccinated Patients With Donors

Authored by Allan Stein via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Swiss naturopathic physician George Della Pietra believes people worldwide should be free to choose whether to get a COVID-19 vaccine injection or not.

He believes the same should hold for those receiving transfusions with “vaccinated” blood.

“The problem is right now we have no choice,” said Della Pietra, founder of the nonprofit Safe Blood Donation service in 2021, matching unvaccinated blood recipients with donors in 65 countries.

“It was very clear from the beginning that the COVID hype was way out of control,” Della Pietra said. “It was not as dangerous as they say it was.

“As a naturopath, I can make no sense of this pandemic, which was never really a pandemic. It leaves space for so many explanations.”

Della Pietra believes that an mRNA injection is more dangerous than the pharmaceutical companies are willing to admit. He said the growing numbers of adverse reactions are reason to question their safety and effectiveness.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showed that vaccinated and boosted people made up 58.6 percent (6,512) of the COVID-19 deaths in August—up from 41 percent in January.

We can no longer say this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” Cynthia Cox, the Vice President of the Kaiser Family Foundation told The Washington Post in an article on Nov. 23.

Nearly 70 percent of the world’s 8 billion people have received at least one mRNA injection for COVID-19 since the vaccines began rolling out in 2021 at the height of the virus’s spread.

Each of the three primary mRNA COVID-19 vaccines contains COVID-19 “spike protein” fragments, which bind at the cellular level to stimulate an immune response to the virus.

Della Pietra believes these spike proteins produce “classic symptoms”—namely blood clots—that “horrified” him.

“I’ve never seen anything similar—and I’m not talking only about spike proteins,” Della Pietra told The Epoch Times in a phone interview.

It’s unbelievable because we never had this problem before. It’s been only two years. They want to keep the narrative [that an mRNA vaccine] is not dangerous.”

A man looks at his phone while donating blood at Vitalant blood donation center in San Francisco on Jan. 11, 2022. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Although donated blood and plasma must undergo a cleansing process before transfusion, Safe Blood Donation says this is not enough to remove all mRNA ingredients.

“I’m talking about graphene oxide and non-declared inorganic components in the vaccine, which we can see in the blood. When I see them, I have no idea how we can get rid of them again,” Della Pietra said.

Looking at the abnormalities in vaccinated blood, he said, “OK, we have a problem.” People are receiving the vaccine “more or less through the back door.”

“You can not avoid it anymore.”

In the United States alone, there are approximately 16 million units of donated blood annually. Of those units, about 643,000 are “autologous”—self-donated—and the number is increasing yearly, according to BloodBook.com.

Della Pietra said that, to his knowledge, Safe Blood Donation, based in Switzerland, is the first unvaccinated blood donation service of its kind.

“So, there is no blood bank with mRNA-free blood yet, not even with us,” Safe Blood Donation states on its website.

“And, although we have already asked hundreds of clinics, at the moment—at least in Europe—all of them still refuse to allow the human right of free blood choice with them—or at least do not want to be mentioned because otherwise, they fear reprisals.”

A nurse works as employees donate blood during a blood drive held in a bloodmobile in Los Angeles on March 19, 2020. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Della Pietra said the main goal of Safe Blood Donation is not to start an mRNA-free blood bank. Rather, it is to make it possible to match unvaccinated blood donors and unvaccinated recipients, “which we bring together in a clinic (medical partner) that allows the choice of blood donor.”

Medical website Seed Scientific said that blood banks and biotech companies will offer as much as $1,000 monthly for blood donations.

While Della Pietra said there are no unvaccinated blood banks, he sees the demand for unvaccinated blood rising.

This is why I decided to do [SafeBlood Donation]. I wanted to make a network for unvaccinated people looking for a blood donor because they need it—whether they have scheduled surgery or an emergency,” he said.

Safe Blood Donation began working in the United States about a month ago, building an infrastructure of medical partners.

However, in the current medical environment, central blood banks such as the Red Cross do not segregate their blood donations based on their vaccinated or unvaccinated status.

Rendering of SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins binding to ACE2 receptors. (Shutterstock)

“The American Red Cross does not facilitate designated donations for standard blood needs, as this process often takes longer and is more resource intensive than obtaining a blood product through our normal process,” the Red Cross told The Epoch Times in an email.

In a small number of situations, there is an exception for rare blood types where compatible blood types are extremely difficult to find. A rare blood type is defined as one that is present in less than 1/1000 people.

“We want to emphasize that the Red Cross adheres to all donor and product requirements as determined by the FDA to ensure the safety of the blood supply and is committed to continuing to provide life-saving blood products for patients across the country.”

The National Library of Medicine said that “across study sites, the average hospital cost per unit transfused was $155 and the average charge per patient was $219.”

Still, the Red Cross, which provides 40 percent of the nation’s blood donations, said “no studies” demonstrate adverse outcomes from transfusions of blood products collected from vaccinated donors.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/04/2022 - 20:55

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Pedestrians choose healthy obstacles over boring pavements, study finds

Up to 78% of walkers would take a more challenging route featuring obstacles such as balancing beams, steppingstones and high steps, research has found….

Published

on

Up to 78% of walkers would take a more challenging route featuring obstacles such as balancing beams, steppingstones and high steps, research has found. The findings suggest that providing ‘Active Landscape’ routes in urban areas could help tackle an “inactivity pandemic” and improve health outcomes.

Credit: Anna Boldina

Up to 78% of walkers would take a more challenging route featuring obstacles such as balancing beams, steppingstones and high steps, research has found. The findings suggest that providing ‘Active Landscape’ routes in urban areas could help tackle an “inactivity pandemic” and improve health outcomes.

[A copy of the paper and images can be downloaded here]

Millions of people in the UK are failing to meet recommended targets for physical activity. Exercising “on the go” is key to changing this but while walking along a pavement is better than nothing it causes no significant increase in heart rate so only qualifies as mild exercise. Walking also fails to significantly improve balance or bone density, unless it includes jumping, balancing, and stepping down.

But would adults opt for such ‘fun’ routes if given the choice? A University of Cambridge-led study published today in the journal Landscape Research suggests that with the right design, most would.

Previous research on ‘healthy route choices’ has focused on people’s likelihood of walking instead of using transport. But this study examined how likely people are to pick a more challenging route over a conventional one and which design characteristics influenced their choices.

Lead author, Anna Boldina, from the University of Cambridge’s Department of Architecture, said: “Even when the increase in level and extent of activity level is modest, when millions of people are using cityscapes every day, those differences can have a major positive impact on public health.”

“Our findings show that pedestrians can be nudged into a wider range of physical activities through minor changes to the urban landscape. We want to help policy makers and designers to make modifications that will improve physical health and wellbeing.”

Boldina began this research after moving from Coimbra in Portugal – where she found herself climbing hills and ancient walls – to London, which she found far less physically challenging.

Working with Dr Paul Hanel from the Department of Psychology at the University of Essex, and Prof. Koen Steemers from Cambridge, Boldina invited almost 600 UK residents to compare photorealistic images of challenging routes – variously incorporating steppingstones, balancing beams, and high steps – with conventional pavements.

Participants were shown images of challenging and conventional tarmac routes and asked which route they would choose. The researchers tested out a range of encouraging / discouraging parameters in different scenarios, including crossing water, shortcuts, unusual sculptures and the presence / absence of a handrail and other people. Participants were asked to score how challenging they thought the route would be from 1 (as easy as walking on level tarmac) to 7 (I would not be able to do it).

Eighty per cent of the study’s participants opted for a challenging route in at least one of the scenarios, depending on perceived level of difficulty and design characteristics. Where a challenging option was shorter than a conventional route, this increased the likelihood of being chosen by 10%. The presence of handrails achieved a 12% rise.

Importance for health

The WHO and NHS recommend at least 150 minutes of ‘moderate’ or 75 minutes of ‘vigorous’ activity spread over a week, including a variety of activities aimed at enhancing bones, muscles, and agility to stay healthy. In addition, adults over 65 are advised to perform strength, flexibility, and balance exercises.

Boldina said: “The human body is a very complex machine that needs a lot of things to keep working effectively. Cycling and swimming are great for your heart and for your leg muscles but do very little for your bone density.”

“To improve cardiovascular health, bone density and balance all at once, we need to add a wider range of exercises into our routine daily walks.”

Psychology of choice

Co-author Dr Paul Hanel said: “Children don’t need much encouragement to try out a balance beam but we wanted to see how adults would respond, and then identify design modifications which made them more likely to choose a challenging route.”

“We found that while embarrassment, anxiety, caution and peer pressure can put some adults off, the vast majority of people can be persuaded to take a more challenging route by paying careful attention to design, safety, difficulty level, location and signage.”

The proportion of participants who were willing to pick a more challenging route varied from 14% for a particular balance beam route to 78% for a route involving wide, low stepping stones and a log with a handrail. The least intimidating routes were found to be those with wide, steady-looking balancing beams and wide steppingstones, especially with the presence of handrails.

The researchers suggest that routes that incorporate more difficult challenges, such as obstacle courses and narrow balancing beams, should be placed in areas more likely to be frequented by younger users.

The participants expressed a range of reasons for picking challenging routes. Unsurprisingly, the study found that challenging routes which also acted as short cuts appealed. Up to 55% of participants chose such routes. The researchers also found that the design of pavements, lighting and flowerbeds, as well as signage helped to nudge participants to choose more challenging routes. Many participants (40%) said the sight of other people taking a challenging route encouraged them to do the same.

The participants who picked conventional routes often had concerns about safety but the introduction of safety measures, such as handrails, increased uptake of some routes. Handrails next to one steppingstones route increased uptake by 12%.

To test whether tendency to choose challenging routes was linked to demographic and personality factors, participants were asked to answer questions about their age, gender, habits, health, occupation, and personality traits (such as sensation seeking or general anxiety).

The researchers found that people of all levels of activity are equally likely to pick a challenging route. But for the most difficult routes, participants who regularly engaged in strength and balancing exercises were more likely to choose them.

Older participants were as supportive of the concept as younger ones but were less likely to opt for the more challenging routes for themselves. Nevertheless, across all age groups, only a small percentage of participants said they would avoid adventurous options completely.

The study applies the idea of “Choice Architecture” (making good choices easier and less beneficial choices harder) plus “Fun theory”, a strategy whereby physical activity is made more exciting; as well as some of the key principles of persuasion: social proof, liking, authority, and consistency.

Future work

The researchers hope to run experiments in physical test sites to see how intentions convert into behaviour, and to measure how changes in habits improve health. In the meantime, Dr Boldina continues to present her findings to policy makers.

Critics might question the affordability and cost effectiveness of introducing ‘Active landscape routes’ in the current economic environment.

In response, the researchers argue that installing stepping stones in a turfed area can be cheaper than laying and maintaining conventional tarmac pavements. They also point out that these measures could save governments far greater sums by reducing demand for health care related to lack of exercise.

Reference

A. Boldina et al., ‘Active Landscape and Choice Architecture: Encouraging the use of challenging city routes for fitness’, Landscape Research (2022). DOI: 10.1080/01426397.2022.2142204

Media contact

Tom Almeroth-Williams, Communications Manager (Research), University of Cambridge: researchcommunications@admin.cam.ac.uk / tel: +44 (0) 7540 139 444


Read More

Continue Reading

International

Tesla’s Chinese Rivals Set New Records

Tesla’s Chinese EV rivals are putting pressure on the market leader with monthly records.

Published

on

Tesla's Chinese EV rivals are putting pressure on the market leader with monthly records.

Tesla's competition in the electric vehicle market has been heating up over the past two years as more EV manufacturers ramp up production and deliveries.

Elon Musk's Austin, Texas-based company has seen its share of the EV market shrink from about 79% in 2020 to 75.8% in June 2022 to about 65% today as rival automakers continue to ramp up their factories.

Tesla  (TSLA) - Get Free Report still has a lot of good news to report through the first three quarters of 2022, as it is well on its way to delivering 1 million EVs with 908,000 delivered in the year through Sept. 30 after delivering 343,000 in the third quarter. The company also rolled out its newest EV on Dec. 1 with the delivery of its Semi Trucks.

While Tesla's top competitors in the U.S. hold small percentages of the market -- Ford  (F) - Get Free Report, 7%; Kia, 5%; Chevrolet, 4%, Hyundai, 4% -- these companies and smaller ones are setting records at delivering EVs as they increase production.

Ford reported in November that it had a 103% year-over-year increase in EV sales. Kia in the same month said it had a 133% increase in sales year-over-year. Volkswagen reported in November that it had reached its delivery benchmark of 500,000 units a year earlier than expected after recording  a 25% year-over-year increase in deliveries in October.

Shutterstock

Pressure from Chinese Rivals

Tesla is seeing increased pressure coming from China, and not just from covid pandemic-related restrictions and factory closures. Chinese rivals Nio  (NIO) - Get Free Report, Li Auto  (LI) - Get Free Report, and BYD all had impressive numbers for November.

BYD reported that it sold 113,915 fully electric vehicles in November, which was a 147% increase year-over-year. It also sold 116,027 plug-in hybrids, which was a 164% year-over-year increase.

Nio on Dec. 1 reported it delivered 14,178 vehicles in November, a new record-high delivery amount, for an increase of 30.3% year-over-year. Cumulative deliveries of Nio vehicles reached 273,741 as of Nov. 30.

Nio's November deliveries consisted of 8,003 premium smart electric SUVs including 4,897 ES7s, and 6,175 premium smart electric sedans including 3,207 ET7s and 2,968 ET5s.

Nio said that it plans to further accelerate production and delivery in December.

Li Auto on Dec. 1 said that it delivered a record-high 15,034 EVs in November for an 11.5% year-over-year increase. Cumulative deliveries through November reached 236,101.

Li Auto SUV Sales

“We set another monthly record with 15,034 deliveries in November," Yanan Shen, co-founder and president of Li Auto said in a statement "In particular, Li L9 has been the sales champion of full-size SUVs in China for two consecutive months since it commenced delivery, establishing it as a top choice for six-seat full-size family SUVs in China."

Shen said that the Li L9 SUV in November received the highest safety rating for tests on the driver and passenger sides from the China Insurance Automotive Safety Index.   

NIO and Tencent Holdings on Nov. 28 entered into a strategic cooperation agreement to further deepen partnership in the areas of autonomous driving related cloud services, intelligent driving maps and digital ecosystem to provide users with experiences beyond expectation, according to a statement.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending