Sunday, November 1, 2020

North Dakota Chinese Flu Update -- November 1, 2020

Link here.  

When you scroll down to the spreadsheet at that linked site, be sure to set the filter to "yesterday."

Then bring your cursor to total cases/one million, click on it, descending. Amazing: North Dakota is #1, followed by South Dakota, and Iowa. 

Now, deaths / one million, North Dakota, which used to rank about 40th, is now 17th and South Dakota, home of the infamous Sturgis Rally is #28

I think the most interesting column, not adjusted for population, is the new deaths column. North Dakota was again in the top 20 with twelve new deaths (think, Medora, ND, I guess), and South Dakota with ten. Meanwhile, New York had only thirteen new deaths. Wisconsin, one of the most progressive states in the union reported a whopping 59 new deaths. 

So, now, switching to Johns Hopkins, which is updated (almost) daily, was updated just a few minutes ago, at 11:34 a.m. Sunday, November 1, 2020:

At 813, North Dakota leads the nation and sets a new record for reporting "weekly new cases per 100,000 people. A couple of states fell off the graphic leaving these as the top five: ND, SD, WI, MT, and WY. 

I find it somewhat amazing that Dr Faust, et al, have noted how important "fly-over" country is when it comes to shutting down the US based on spikes in activity in ND, SD, and WY. 

So, back to total cases / one million population.

In North Dakota:

  • population being measured: 762,062 (Medora, ND, accounts for about 112 of that)
  • total number of cases: 43,916
  • cases / one million population: 57,628 (#1 in the nation by the way, far exceeding New York which has only 27,968 total cases / one million, or less than half of that of North Dakota)
  • percent of North Dakotans that have been diagnosed with Chinese flu: 43,916 / 762,602 = 5.8%


  • herd immunity: 65% (maybe 70% -- scientists disagree whether it's 65% or 70%)
  • Spanish flu: estimated to have infected one-third (33.3%) of the world's population before it died out (dying out before coming close to herd immunity)
  • no vaccine on the horizon (6-month horizon)
  • no universal, inexpensive, hugely successful, widely accessible Chinese flu likely to be developed in my lifetime
  • "seasonal flu" vaccine, at best, is about 45% effective
  • only one vaccine-eradication program has ever been 100% successful: smallpox
  • when you go the FDA site and see no announcement regarding any good news regarding a Chinese flu vaccine, that speaks volumes;

Bottom line:

  • we have a long way to go
  • we will be wearing masks for the next four years if the elites have any say in this matter

The good news:

  • "seasonal flu" has been eradicated according to the WHO and it no longer a threat

Catcher in the Rye

J. D. Salinger's Catcher in the Rye was all about trying to save the children from the phony adults. 


The Catcher in the Rye is a portrait of a young man at odds with the process of growing up. A 16-year-old who is highly critical of the adult world, Holden covets what he sees as the inherent purity of youth. 
This is why the characters he speaks most fondly about in the novel are all children. 
Thinking that children are still untainted by the “phony,” hypocritical adult world, he wishes there were a way to somehow preserve the sense of honest integrity that he associates with childhood. Consequently, he not only dreams about protecting children from the trials and tribulations of growing up, but also resists his own process of maturation.

Salinger, born January 1, 1919, had the first six chapters of Catcher in the Rye written by the time he landed on Utah Beach, Normandy, France, June 6, 1944, in the second wave of Allied landings that day. He carried the "manuscript" with him that day. 

As bad as Normandy was, fighting through the hedgerows was exponentially worse, if it can even be quantified. I assume they quantify it by percentage of casualties, i.e, dead and wounded.

In all, Salinger was involved in five bloody battles before the war in Europe ended. In April, 1945, he was with the group that entered Kaufering IV concentration camp, a subcamp of Dachau. Shortly thereafter he admitted himself into a civilian psychiatric hospital in Nuremberg. 

It took Salinger ten years to complete Catcher in the Rye, publishing it July 16, 1951, less than a month before I was born. 

For the most part, bombing in WWII did not involve nuclear weapons.


  1. Overrated book, glamorizing a whiny, wimpy teenager.

    1. When reading a biography, I am always most interested in the individual before he/she became famous. I find it fascinating that a whiny, wimpy teenager, who loved playing roles of women on stage; wanted to go into acting; was writing for "The New Yorker" despite no college education; volunteered and was eager to land at Normandy, June 6, 1944. Absolutely fascinating.

      That alone was worth reading. [The Salinger biography.]

      But his relationship with young women while a young man was equally fascinating.

      I never knew the personal story of Oona O'Neill and Charlie Chaplin. I have a much greater respect for the latter. I learned a lot about how the (successful) rich and famous find (or try to find) "security" from the public.

      The format of the book (the autobiography) was a bit difficult for me the first time through, and even the second time, I did not particularly care for the book. But on my third reading, when I was really ready to read it, and read it closely, an incredibly good book.

      For those who read the book (the autobiography), be sure to check the backgrounds of the folks that were interviewed for the books.

      I am struggling with the portion on "The Vedas" but the book has piqued my curiosity.

      I've not read any other Salinger biographies (and do not plan to do so) but I now have my own "myth" / "worldview" of Salinger and can die happy.

      But wow, for a whiny, wimpy teenager who landed at Normandy on D-Day, survived five bloody European battles before entering a Dachau concentration camp -- wow, what a story. Absolutely fascinating.

      With regard to "Catcher in the Rye" -- I've read it three times. I will read it again. I struggled with the book, but I never got the feeling the author glamorized a whiny, wimpy teenager. Obviously, the book connected with a lot of readers back in 1951. Five printings, I think, before the year (1951) was out.

      I would love to be a high school teacher(again) teaching literature to include "Catcher in the Rye."