Connect with us

International

North America Playing Catch Up on Battery Megafactories Front

A look at North America’s EV battery megafactories plans, raw materials supply and what’s next for the region.
The post North America Playing Catch Up on Battery Megafactories Front appeared first on Investing News Network.

Published

on

Electric vehicles (EVs) have become mainstream this past year, with sales in some regions increasing despite the COVID-19 pandemic, which put a pause on economies around the world.

As demand for EVs surges, the buildout of battery megafactories around the world is following suit as automakers and governments push for shorter supply chains and higher control.

China leads the way in megafactories, with Europe also taking sound steps to build these facilities, but North America has a long way to go to lead in this space.

 

Profit from resource markets this year

   
Read our new report to get started!
 

Here the Investing News Network (INN) looks at North America’s EV battery megafactory plans, plus raw materials supply and what’s next for the region.

State of play in North America

North America’s EV industry is lagging behind other regions, even though Elon Musk’s Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) has been a pioneer in the US, providing high-end offerings for quite some time.

Speaking with INN about EVs in the US, Simon Schnurrer, partner and automotive expert at Oliver Wyman, said there are some segments in the US that are hard to push toward EVs, but original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) are planning for EVs in volume.

“It’s not just a high-end market for the rich, it should be a market accessible for everybody,” he explained. “This is a task that the industry is still working on — to make EVs less expensive and more attractive for a wider spectrum of customers.”

When looking at the entire EV supply chain for any region, taking ownership of every step seems to be equally important, but it is becoming increasingly clear that governments and automakers are moving to have further control upstream. To reduce costs and improve security, among other reasons, the buildout of battery megafactories around the world is picking up pace.

At present, Benchmark Mineral Intelligence is tracking 211 lithium-ion battery megafactories, but only 12 are in the US, while 156 are in China and 22 are in Europe. According to the firm, China is building a battery megafactory at the rate of one every week compared to the US at one every four months.

“While we have seen some considerable commitments from cell producers in the region, there is still a long way to go for it to become self-reliant for cells in the medium to long term,” Caspar Rawles, head of price assessment at the firm, told INN.

Benchmark Mineral Intelligence’s current forecast is for 410 GWh of capacity in North America by 2030.

“From Benchmark data, the region will need to see at least an additional US$30 billion to US$40 billion invested in cell production between now and then to meet regional demand,” he added.

Battery megafactories Europe

Chart via Benchmark Mineral Intelligence.

North America has been moving slowly to supply its own battery needs, Kevin Shang of Roskill told INN, but the firm expects more battery megafactories to come.

Roskill forecasts that the US and Canada will occupy around 10 percent of global lithium-ion battery cell production capacity by 2030.

According to the firm’s research, 16 battery megafactories will be in operation in the US by 2030, far behind the number in China — but that is not to say the situation will remain the same.

“Automakers like GM (NYSE:GM), Ford (NYSE:F) and some startups have ramped up their electrification ambitions. Importantly, the (President Joe) Biden team has been moving very quickly,” Shang said.

In the short time since the new US administration took office, it has proposed an investment of US$174 billion in EVs, pledged for a new national goal to reduce carbon emissions by 50 percent by 2030 and called for more battery megafactories in the US.

“All of this would stimulate more battery megafactories to be built in the region,” Shang added.

Catching up to China and Europe

When asked about why the US has lagged behind China in the battery megafactory space, Shang highlighted that the automotive industry in the US has only recently started to embrace EVs, and the national policy was not in place to support the transition.

“By contrast, back in 2009, the Chinese government vowed to become a global leader in EVs,” Shang said.

Similarly, Rawles said it has largely been down to a lack of political impetus up until now.

“In China this has been a national priority for many years, and Europe acted more quickly than North America to bring in battery-related policies and subsidies,” he said.

However, the expert didn’t dismiss the possibility of North America catching up with Europe.

“I think a key lesson would be to share the focus across the value chain and not just on downstream cell and EV production,” Rawles said. “Raw material processing and cathode/anode production are fundamental to a healthy domestic lithium-ion economy, and this is something that needs to be ramped up in Europe.”

Roskill’s Shang was also optimistic about the opportunity that North America has going forward.

“Personally, I am positive that the US can catch up with Europe if regulation, investment and the industry work together effectively,” he said. “Back in 2017, there was little (in terms of) lithium-ion battery facilities in Europe. In the past three to four years, Europe has made impressive progress.”

Shang highlighted some key factors that have pushed Europe forward in this space, including strategic action and a unified strategy for batteries. Additionally, the EU is introducing a new batteries regulation with sustainability requirements for the whole lifecycle of EV batteries.

“This would make sustainability a competitive advantage for Europe’s batteries, compared with Asian products,” Shang said.

Another key factor that has helped Europe is its ability to attract public, private and industrial financing.

 

Are You Investing In Gold Yet?

   
What Happened To Gold In Q1? Which Gold Stocks To Watch In 2021?
Exclusive Information You Need To Make An Informed Decision.
 

“The lithium-ion battery production capacity in the US is very Tesla-centric,” Shang said. “By contrast, the battery megafactories in Europe are more diverse, including East Asian battery makers, startups and auto-battery alliances.”

For his part, Schnurrer said there’s a good level of know-how in the EV space in the US.

“I would also like to think that at least the industrialization of the batteries and building the complete value chain will be a little bit smoother than Europe,” he said. “The US could learn some lessons that might help it spare some situations that we had in Europe, when due to non-availability of battery cells, vehicles couldn’t launch in time or couldn’t be sold in volume that they were planned for.”

However, for the expert, in terms of the role of the different players, the US will be different from Europe and will stay different from Europe. “The US, of course, has to find its own way, it cannot just copy paste mechanisms as they are in Europe,” he added.

Localizing supply chains in North America

Roskill believes that the American-made approach could become a challenge for the buildout and/or securing of raw materials and chemicals for battery megafactories in the near term.

“Although capital keeps flowing into the supply chain, the time gap between the investment and the completion of the facility, especially in mining and refining segments, which normally takes longer time, must be taken into consideration,” Shang said. “In addition, it takes several years, particularly for new entrants, to steadily produce high-quality materials to feed in EV battery manufacturing.”

Some parts of the North American supply chain have secured raw materials, but they are in the minority — those that haven’t will need to act quickly if they want secure supply, Rawles explained.

“We are starting to see longer contract terms in the battery supply chain, typically up to five years, but in some cases longer,” he said. “This means it is becoming increasingly difficult to enter into such agreements with tier one suppliers as less and less material is available.”

However, this is not a North America-only challenge. “It’s the same for the global supply chain, with the whole world vying for these critical minerals,” Rawles added.

Cathodes and anodes in North America

In 2020, North America only accounted for 1 percent of global cathode materials manufacturing capacity, according to Roskill data.

“We will see more cathode production in the region,” Shang said. “Localized production of cathode materials would play a key role in building a sustainable and domestic battery supply chain in North America, reducing the CO2 emissions caused by the materials transportation.”

For its part, Benchmark Mineral Intelligence assesses the buildout of cathode and anode capacity globally on a plant-by-plant basis, with capacity broken down into plants that are in operation, in construction and in planning.

“Even when taking all of these categories into account, North America only has enough pipeline capacity in the medium term to supply about 5 percent of its anode and cathode needs,” Rawles said. “We do anticipate more announcements on this front as cell capacity grows, but it highlights the disconnect between different parts of the supply chain.”

 

Silver Price Forecast - What Happened And Where Do We Go From Here?

   
Our Jam-Packed FREE Silver Report Highlights Key Insights, Exclusive Interviews And Promising Stock Picks!
   

What about supply of raw materials?

High-nickel cathode chemistries, like nickel-cobalt-aluminum (NCA) and nickel-cobalt-manganese-aluminum, will be North American megafactories’ first choice, as they will be transferred to EVs with a longer range, said Shang.

That said, Roskill believes that the use of cathode chemistries will continue to be diversified.

“It is reported that General Motors and LG Chem (KRX:051910) are exploring to build the second US battery plant using a different, more cost-effective battery chemistry than nickel-based cathode, and Roskill thinks it is quite likely to be high-manganese cathode materials,” Shang said.

In addition, lithium-ironphosphate (LFP) cathode chemistry will be a strong candidate in autonomous vehicles, the expert added.

“To date, the chemistry focus for cell plants in North America has been on medium- to high-nickel nickel-cobalt-manganese and NCA as the industry remains focused on extending range via more energy-dense cathodes,” Rawles said, adding that raw material demand will grow between seven and eight times over the next decade.

Key catalysts to watch

Looking ahead, one of the trends Rawles is expecting to see is a push for larger and more efficient facilities to assist with pushing down the cost of cells, as has been seen elsewhere. “We may also start to see some LFP capacity, but this would likely be some years away if it happens,” he added.

On the topic of reducing costs, Shang said battery megafactories are forecast to actively take part in upstream integration.

“This would allow them to gain a cost-competitive advantage by reducing battery manufacturing cost and controlling their supply chain to avoid price volatility in key raw material markets,” he said.

Additionally, Shang is expecting OEMs to participate in building battery megafactories, and forming joint ventures with battery manufacturers is a good starting point.

Another key trend to keep an eye on is the decarbonization of the supply chain — battery megafactories are expected to be built in areas with easy access to reliable supply of low-cost and renewable energy.

“At present, the US is lagging behind Europe in terms of legislative action (proposed or otherwise) to manage the sustainability profile of cathode manufacturing, but this is not to say this will remain the same,” Dominic Wells of Roskill told INN. “Sustainability of supply chains is going to become a much bigger issue in the battery manufacturing chain of the US over the next decade.”

Wells pointed to Biden’s pledge to reduce US CO2 emissions by 50 percent by 2030.

“A big contribution towards this will be the introduction of more centralized support for EV sales and battery manufacturing capacity,” he said. “In time, I would expect to see similar legislation be drafted governing the CO2 impact of the supply chains feeding this expected capacity, similar to how the EU is introducing its own schemes.”

Don’t forget to follow us @INN_Resource for real-time news updates!

Securities Disclosure: I, Priscila Barrera, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

Editorial Disclosure: The Investing News Network does not guarantee the accuracy or thoroughness of the information reported in the interviews it conducts. The opinions expressed in these interviews do not reflect the opinions of the Investing News Network and do not constitute investment advice. All readers are encouraged to perform their own due diligence.

 

What's On The Horizon For Precious Metals In 2021?

   
Trends, Forecasts, Expert Interviews and more! All The Answers You Need To Make An Informed Decision.
 

The post North America Playing Catch Up on Battery Megafactories Front appeared first on Investing News Network.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Chronic stress and inflammation linked to societal and environmental impacts in new study

From anxiety about the state of the world to ongoing waves of Covid-19, the stresses we face can seem relentless and even overwhelming. Worse, these stressors…

Published

on

From anxiety about the state of the world to ongoing waves of Covid-19, the stresses we face can seem relentless and even overwhelming. Worse, these stressors can cause chronic inflammation in our bodies. Chronic inflammation is linked to serious conditions such as cardiovascular disease and cancer – and may also affect our thinking and behavior.   

Credit: Image: Vodovotz et al/Frontiers

From anxiety about the state of the world to ongoing waves of Covid-19, the stresses we face can seem relentless and even overwhelming. Worse, these stressors can cause chronic inflammation in our bodies. Chronic inflammation is linked to serious conditions such as cardiovascular disease and cancer – and may also affect our thinking and behavior.   

A new hypothesis published in Frontiers in Science suggests the negative impacts may extend far further.   

“We propose that stress, inflammation, and consequently impaired cognition in individuals can scale up to communities and populations,” explained lead author Prof Yoram Vodovotz of the University of Pittsburgh, USA.

“This could affect the decision-making and behavior of entire societies, impair our cognitive ability to address complex issues like climate change, social unrest, and infectious disease – and ultimately lead to a self-sustaining cycle of societal dysfunction and environmental degradation,” he added.

Bodily inflammation ‘mapped’ in the brain  

One central premise to the hypothesis is an association between chronic inflammation and cognitive dysfunction.  

“The cause of this well-known phenomenon is not currently known,” said Vodovotz. “We propose a mechanism, which we call the ‘central inflammation map’.”    

The authors’ novel idea is that the brain creates its own copy of bodily inflammation. Normally, this inflammation map allows the brain to manage the inflammatory response and promote healing.   

When inflammation is high or chronic, however, the response goes awry and can damage healthy tissues and organs. The authors suggest the inflammation map could similarly harm the brain and impair cognition, emotion, and behavior.   

Accelerated spread of stress and inflammation online   

A second premise is the spread of chronic inflammation from individuals to populations.  

“While inflammation is not contagious per se, it could still spread via the transmission of stress among people,” explained Vodovotz.   

The authors further suggest that stress is being transmitted faster than ever before, through social media and other digital communications.  

“People are constantly bombarded with high levels of distressing information, be it the news, negative online comments, or a feeling of inadequacy when viewing social media feeds,” said Vodovotz. “We hypothesize that this new dimension of human experience, from which it is difficult to escape, is driving stress, chronic inflammation, and cognitive impairment across global societies.”   

Inflammation as a driver of social and planetary disruption  

These ideas shift our view of inflammation as a biological process restricted to an individual. Instead, the authors see it as a multiscale process linking molecular, cellular, and physiological interactions in each of us to altered decision-making and behavior in populations – and ultimately to large-scale societal and environmental impacts.  

“Stress-impaired judgment could explain the chaotic and counter-intuitive responses of large parts of the global population to stressful events such as climate change and the Covid-19 pandemic,” explained Vodovotz.  

“An inability to address these and other stressors may propagate a self-fulfilling sense of pervasive danger, causing further stress, inflammation, and impaired cognition in a runaway, positive feedback loop,” he added.  

The fact that current levels of global stress have not led to widespread societal disorder could indicate an equally strong stabilizing effect from “controllers” such as trust in laws, science, and multinational organizations like the United Nations.   

“However, societal norms and institutions are increasingly being questioned, at times rightly so as relics of a foregone era,” said Prof Paul Verschure of Radboud University, the Netherlands, and a co-author of the article. “The challenge today is how we can ward off a new adversarial era of instability due to global stress caused by a multi-scale combination of geopolitical fragmentation, conflicts, and ecological collapse amplified by existential angst, cognitive overload, and runaway disinformation.”    

Reducing social media exposure as part of the solution  

The authors developed a mathematical model to test their ideas and explore ways to reduce stress and build resilience.  

“Preliminary results highlight the need for interventions at multiple levels and scales,” commented co-author Prof Julia Arciero of Indiana University, USA.  

“While anti-inflammatory drugs are sometimes used to treat medical conditions associated with inflammation, we do not believe these are the whole answer for individuals,” said Dr David Katz, co-author and a specialist in preventive and lifestyle medicine based in the US. “Lifestyle changes such as healthy nutrition, exercise, and reducing exposure to stressful online content could also be important.”  

“The dawning new era of precision and personalized therapeutics could also offer enormous potential,” he added.  

At the societal level, the authors suggest creating calm public spaces and providing education on the norms and institutions that keep our societies stable and functioning.  

“While our ‘inflammation map’ hypothesis and corresponding mathematical model are a start, a coordinated and interdisciplinary research effort is needed to define interventions that would improve the lives of individuals and the resilience of communities to stress. We hope our article stimulates scientists around the world to take up this challenge,” Vodovotz concluded.  

The article is part of the Frontiers in Science multimedia article hub ‘A multiscale map of inflammatory stress’. The hub features a video, an explainer, a version of the article written for kids, and an editorial, viewpoints, and policy outlook from other eminent experts: Prof David Almeida (Penn State University, USA), Prof Pietro Ghezzi (University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Italy), and Dr Ioannis P Androulakis (Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, USA). 


Read More

Continue Reading

International

Acadia’s Nuplazid fails PhIII study due to higher-than-expected placebo effect

After years of trying to expand the market territory for Nuplazid, Acadia Pharmaceuticals might have hit a dead end, with a Phase III fail in schizophrenia…

Published

on

After years of trying to expand the market territory for Nuplazid, Acadia Pharmaceuticals might have hit a dead end, with a Phase III fail in schizophrenia due to the placebo arm performing better than expected.

Steve Davis

“We will continue to analyze these data with our scientific advisors, but we do not intend to conduct any further clinical trials with pimavanserin,” CEO Steve Davis said in a Monday press release. Acadia’s stock $ACAD dropped by 17.41% before the market opened Tuesday.

Pimavanserin, a serotonin inverse agonist and also a 5-HT2A receptor antagonist, is already in the market with the brand name Nuplazid for Parkinson’s disease psychosis. Efforts to expand into other indications such as Alzheimer’s-related psychosis and major depression have been unsuccessful, and previous trials in schizophrenia have yielded mixed data at best. Its February presentation does not list other pimavanserin studies in progress.

The Phase III ADVANCE-2 trial investigated 34 mg pimavanserin versus placebo in 454 patients who have negative symptoms of schizophrenia. The study used the negative symptom assessment-16 (NSA-16) total score as a primary endpoint and followed participants up to week 26. Study participants have control of positive symptoms due to antipsychotic therapies.

The company said that the change from baseline in this measure for the treatment arm was similar between the Phase II ADVANCE-1 study and ADVANCE-2 at -11.6 and -11.8, respectively. However, the placebo was higher in ADVANCE-2 at -11.1, when this was -8.5 in ADVANCE-1. The p-value in ADVANCE-2 was 0.4825.

In July last year, another Phase III schizophrenia trial — by Sumitomo and Otsuka — also reported negative results due to what the company noted as Covid-19 induced placebo effect.

According to Mizuho Securities analysts, ADVANCE-2 data were disappointing considering the company applied what it learned from ADVANCE-1, such as recruiting patients outside the US to alleviate a high placebo effect. The Phase III recruited participants in Argentina and Europe.

Analysts at Cowen added that the placebo effect has been a “notorious headwind” in US-based trials, which appears to “now extend” to ex-US studies. But they also noted ADVANCE-1 reported a “modest effect” from the drug anyway.

Nonetheless, pimavanserin’s safety profile in the late-stage study “was consistent with previous clinical trials,” with the drug having an adverse event rate of 30.4% versus 40.3% with placebo, the company said. Back in 2018, even with the FDA approval for Parkinson’s psychosis, there was an intense spotlight on Nuplazid’s safety profile.

Acadia previously aimed to get Nuplazid approved for Alzheimer’s-related psychosis but had many hurdles. The drug faced an adcomm in June 2022 that voted 9-3 noting that the drug is unlikely to be effective in this setting, culminating in a CRL a few months later.

As for the company’s next R&D milestones, Mizuho analysts said it won’t be anytime soon: There is the Phase III study for ACP-101 in Prader-Willi syndrome with data expected late next year and a Phase II trial for ACP-204 in Alzheimer’s disease psychosis with results anticipated in 2026.

Acadia collected $549.2 million in full-year 2023 revenues for Nuplazid, with $143.9 million in the fourth quarter.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Four Years Ago This Week, Freedom Was Torched

Four Years Ago This Week, Freedom Was Torched

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Brownstone Institute,

"Beware the Ides of March,” Shakespeare…

Published

on

Four Years Ago This Week, Freedom Was Torched

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Brownstone Institute,

"Beware the Ides of March,” Shakespeare quotes the soothsayer’s warning Julius Caesar about what turned out to be an impending assassination on March 15. The death of American liberty happened around the same time four years ago, when the orders went out from all levels of government to close all indoor and outdoor venues where people gather. 

It was not quite a law and it was never voted on by anyone. Seemingly out of nowhere, people who the public had largely ignored, the public health bureaucrats, all united to tell the executives in charge – mayors, governors, and the president – that the only way to deal with a respiratory virus was to scrap freedom and the Bill of Rights. 

And they did, not only in the US but all over the world. 

The forced closures in the US began on March 6 when the mayor of Austin, Texas, announced the shutdown of the technology and arts festival South by Southwest. Hundreds of thousands of contracts, of attendees and vendors, were instantly scrapped. The mayor said he was acting on the advice of his health experts and they in turn pointed to the CDC, which in turn pointed to the World Health Organization, which in turn pointed to member states and so on. 

There was no record of Covid in Austin, Texas, that day but they were sure they were doing their part to stop the spread. It was the first deployment of the “Zero Covid” strategy that became, for a time, official US policy, just as in China. 

It was never clear precisely who to blame or who would take responsibility, legal or otherwise. 

This Friday evening press conference in Austin was just the beginning. By the next Thursday evening, the lockdown mania reached a full crescendo. Donald Trump went on nationwide television to announce that everything was under control but that he was stopping all travel in and out of US borders, from Europe, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. American citizens would need to return by Monday or be stuck. 

Americans abroad panicked while spending on tickets home and crowded into international airports with waits up to 8 hours standing shoulder to shoulder. It was the first clear sign: there would be no consistency in the deployment of these edicts. 

There is no historical record of any American president ever issuing global travel restrictions like this without a declaration of war. Until then, and since the age of travel began, every American had taken it for granted that he could buy a ticket and board a plane. That was no longer possible. Very quickly it became even difficult to travel state to state, as most states eventually implemented a two-week quarantine rule. 

The next day, Friday March 13, Broadway closed and New York City began to empty out as any residents who could went to summer homes or out of state. 

On that day, the Trump administration declared the national emergency by invoking the Stafford Act which triggers new powers and resources to the Federal Emergency Management Administration. 

In addition, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a classified document, only to be released to the public months later. The document initiated the lockdowns. It still does not exist on any government website.

The White House Coronavirus Response Task Force, led by the Vice President, will coordinate a whole-of-government approach, including governors, state and local officials, and members of Congress, to develop the best options for the safety, well-being, and health of the American people. HHS is the LFA [Lead Federal Agency] for coordinating the federal response to COVID-19.

Closures were guaranteed:

Recommend significantly limiting public gatherings and cancellation of almost all sporting events, performances, and public and private meetings that cannot be convened by phone. Consider school closures. Issue widespread ‘stay at home’ directives for public and private organizations, with nearly 100% telework for some, although critical public services and infrastructure may need to retain skeleton crews. Law enforcement could shift to focus more on crime prevention, as routine monitoring of storefronts could be important.

In this vision of turnkey totalitarian control of society, the vaccine was pre-approved: “Partner with pharmaceutical industry to produce anti-virals and vaccine.”

The National Security Council was put in charge of policy making. The CDC was just the marketing operation. That’s why it felt like martial law. Without using those words, that’s what was being declared. It even urged information management, with censorship strongly implied.

The timing here is fascinating. This document came out on a Friday. But according to every autobiographical account – from Mike Pence and Scott Gottlieb to Deborah Birx and Jared Kushner – the gathered team did not meet with Trump himself until the weekend of the 14th and 15th, Saturday and Sunday. 

According to their account, this was his first real encounter with the urge that he lock down the whole country. He reluctantly agreed to 15 days to flatten the curve. He announced this on Monday the 16th with the famous line: “All public and private venues where people gather should be closed.”

This makes no sense. The decision had already been made and all enabling documents were already in circulation. 

There are only two possibilities. 

One: the Department of Homeland Security issued this March 13 HHS document without Trump’s knowledge or authority. That seems unlikely. 

Two: Kushner, Birx, Pence, and Gottlieb are lying. They decided on a story and they are sticking to it. 

Trump himself has never explained the timeline or precisely when he decided to greenlight the lockdowns. To this day, he avoids the issue beyond his constant claim that he doesn’t get enough credit for his handling of the pandemic.

With Nixon, the famous question was always what did he know and when did he know it? When it comes to Trump and insofar as concerns Covid lockdowns – unlike the fake allegations of collusion with Russia – we have no investigations. To this day, no one in the corporate media seems even slightly interested in why, how, or when human rights got abolished by bureaucratic edict. 

As part of the lockdowns, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which was and is part of the Department of Homeland Security, as set up in 2018, broke the entire American labor force into essential and nonessential.

They also set up and enforced censorship protocols, which is why it seemed like so few objected. In addition, CISA was tasked with overseeing mail-in ballots. 

Only 8 days into the 15, Trump announced that he wanted to open the country by Easter, which was on April 12. His announcement on March 24 was treated as outrageous and irresponsible by the national press but keep in mind: Easter would already take us beyond the initial two-week lockdown. What seemed to be an opening was an extension of closing. 

This announcement by Trump encouraged Birx and Fauci to ask for an additional 30 days of lockdown, which Trump granted. Even on April 23, Trump told Georgia and Florida, which had made noises about reopening, that “It’s too soon.” He publicly fought with the governor of Georgia, who was first to open his state. 

Before the 15 days was over, Congress passed and the president signed the 880-page CARES Act, which authorized the distribution of $2 trillion to states, businesses, and individuals, thus guaranteeing that lockdowns would continue for the duration. 

There was never a stated exit plan beyond Birx’s public statements that she wanted zero cases of Covid in the country. That was never going to happen. It is very likely that the virus had already been circulating in the US and Canada from October 2019. A famous seroprevalence study by Jay Bhattacharya came out in May 2020 discerning that infections and immunity were already widespread in the California county they examined. 

What that implied was two crucial points: there was zero hope for the Zero Covid mission and this pandemic would end as they all did, through endemicity via exposure, not from a vaccine as such. That was certainly not the message that was being broadcast from Washington. The growing sense at the time was that we all had to sit tight and just wait for the inoculation on which pharmaceutical companies were working. 

By summer 2020, you recall what happened. A restless generation of kids fed up with this stay-at-home nonsense seized on the opportunity to protest racial injustice in the killing of George Floyd. Public health officials approved of these gatherings – unlike protests against lockdowns – on grounds that racism was a virus even more serious than Covid. Some of these protests got out of hand and became violent and destructive. 

Meanwhile, substance abuse rage – the liquor and weed stores never closed – and immune systems were being degraded by lack of normal exposure, exactly as the Bakersfield doctors had predicted. Millions of small businesses had closed. The learning losses from school closures were mounting, as it turned out that Zoom school was near worthless. 

It was about this time that Trump seemed to figure out – thanks to the wise council of Dr. Scott Atlas – that he had been played and started urging states to reopen. But it was strange: he seemed to be less in the position of being a president in charge and more of a public pundit, Tweeting out his wishes until his account was banned. He was unable to put the worms back in the can that he had approved opening. 

By that time, and by all accounts, Trump was convinced that the whole effort was a mistake, that he had been trolled into wrecking the country he promised to make great. It was too late. Mail-in ballots had been widely approved, the country was in shambles, the media and public health bureaucrats were ruling the airwaves, and his final months of the campaign failed even to come to grips with the reality on the ground. 

At the time, many people had predicted that once Biden took office and the vaccine was released, Covid would be declared to have been beaten. But that didn’t happen and mainly for one reason: resistance to the vaccine was more intense than anyone had predicted. The Biden administration attempted to impose mandates on the entire US workforce. Thanks to a Supreme Court ruling, that effort was thwarted but not before HR departments around the country had already implemented them. 

As the months rolled on – and four major cities closed all public accommodations to the unvaccinated, who were being demonized for prolonging the pandemic – it became clear that the vaccine could not and would not stop infection or transmission, which means that this shot could not be classified as a public health benefit. Even as a private benefit, the evidence was mixed. Any protection it provided was short-lived and reports of vaccine injury began to mount. Even now, we cannot gain full clarity on the scale of the problem because essential data and documentation remains classified. 

After four years, we find ourselves in a strange position. We still do not know precisely what unfolded in mid-March 2020: who made what decisions, when, and why. There has been no serious attempt at any high level to provide a clear accounting much less assign blame. 

Not even Tucker Carlson, who reportedly played a crucial role in getting Trump to panic over the virus, will tell us the source of his own information or what his source told him. There have been a series of valuable hearings in the House and Senate but they have received little to no press attention, and none have focus on the lockdown orders themselves. 

The prevailing attitude in public life is just to forget the whole thing. And yet we live now in a country very different from the one we inhabited five years ago. Our media is captured. Social media is widely censored in violation of the First Amendment, a problem being taken up by the Supreme Court this month with no certainty of the outcome. The administrative state that seized control has not given up power. Crime has been normalized. Art and music institutions are on the rocks. Public trust in all official institutions is at rock bottom. We don’t even know if we can trust the elections anymore. 

In the early days of lockdown, Henry Kissinger warned that if the mitigation plan does not go well, the world will find itself set “on fire.” He died in 2023. Meanwhile, the world is indeed on fire. The essential struggle in every country on earth today concerns the battle between the authority and power of permanent administration apparatus of the state – the very one that took total control in lockdowns – and the enlightenment ideal of a government that is responsible to the will of the people and the moral demand for freedom and rights. 

How this struggle turns out is the essential story of our times. 

CODA: I’m embedding a copy of PanCAP Adapted, as annotated by Debbie Lerman. You might need to download the whole thing to see the annotations. If you can help with research, please do.

*  *  *

Jeffrey Tucker is the author of the excellent new book 'Life After Lock-Down'

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/11/2024 - 23:40

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending