Post-Coronavirus: Getting 'Back To Work' Won't Be Easy

America and other countries around the world who have flattened their infection curves are now starting the process of “getting back to work”.

In the process, we are all finding out that, while easy to say, it’s complicated to do.

Who, exactly, is allowed to go back to work when, and under what conditions? What will the new health safety guidelines be? And how will they be implemented and enforced?

Not surprisingly, we’re seeing mixed results so far: some good, some bad, some egregious.

We will get our countries ‘back to work’. How gracefully we’ll do it remains an open question.

Don’t forget to get your free download of Peak Prosperity’s book Prosper!. Given its relevance to preparing for any kind of crisis, pandemic or otherwise, Chris and I are now making it available to the world for free during the covid-19 lockdown.

To download your free copy, click here.


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

Another winner! What do you know – PP shares more solutions! We plan to implement those simple work-place solutions as of yesterday – thank you! And so fun to see the world catching onto the “Honey Badger”.
And for those new comers – here is the video of the Honey Badger, Stoffle:

If the gummint is basing our futures on this test, WTF?

Like some here I’m sure, I’ve been wondering what drives the people who are protesting what to me, are sound scientific measures to prevent getting infected. Chris has discussed “beliefs” and how people cling to them even in the face of facts.
The New Republic has an interesting article about this:

Springfield area.
Looks like the hair stylist covered all the bases, mask for them and the customer, as well as detailed contact tracing. These will continue as we open further up.

Tanzanian President John Magufuli has poured scorn on coronavirus test kits imported to his country after saying that a goat and a pawpaw had returned positive results for COVID-19.
Here’s a quote:

" conclusion, finish this sentence: “The PCR test for Corona is as good as…”
His reply made me laugh. I didn’t know I still could laugh.
“It’s as good as that Scientology test that detects your personality and then tells you need to give all your money to Scientology. “

I don’t know what the point of the article is. The virus is real and is killing or damaging a lot of people (check out excess deaths). Also, the idea that increased testing is bound to result in more cases doesn’t fit with the experience here in New Zealand.

The point of the article is: using PCR to test for SC2 is a good way to get inaccurate results, since the technology is being used for a purpose for which it was never designed or intended. GIGO

Yeah my scientific recommendation for this one is - don’t work when sick.
People are used to doing this. (People are also used to mostly-ignoring it when others do this). This will require a period of adjustment.
Fortunately, we are the product of a civilization based on western rational thought, and we have all the tools we need to make the necessary adjustments.

That may be the claim but testing in New Zealand seemed to be reasonably accurate. Otherwise we wouldn’t have achieved the results we had. E.g. if we didn’t have a reasonable picture, through testing, of the scale and spread of the infections then our actions probably wouldn’t have had the impact they appear to have had. Maybe we got lucky but I find it hard to believe that so many doctors have been mistaken, across the globe. No test is 100% accurate but the PCR test seems reasonable, at least in our testing labs.

The sample size of 73 is relatively small. Let’s wait for the paper to be published for an assessment.

I don’t understand the reference to PCR use in detecting the coronavirus as a “test for which it was not designed.” PCR is short for “polymerase chain reaction” and it is a method widely used in molecular biology. It is not a test in and of itself, but simply a method that might be used in many different tests or as a part of a lab protocol for some purpose other than a test. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about PCR. Just because the coronavirus test uses PCR is no reason, taken alone, to believe that the test won’t work.

Here’s another snippet from the article:
“PCR for diagnosis is a big problem,” he continues. “When you have to amplify it these huge numbers of time, it’s going to generate massive amounts of false positives. Again, I’m skeptical that a PCR test is ever true.”
“Kary did not invent a test. He invented a very powerful manufacturing technique that is being abused. What are the best applications for PCR? Not medical diagnostics.” (Emphasis mine).
Furthermore, the vaccine they are attempting is mRNA which has been shown to elicit a cytokine storm in vaccinees when they are exposed to the virus in the wild. This is the “science” that Fauci and Gates are pushing.

America's strengths are great most of the time. In a pandemic they become an actual liability. A very insightful article on this is below-

"Is America too libertarian to deal with the coronavirus?" - Link below-

RE: “the technology is being used for a purpose for which it was never designed or intended.”
Technology developments don’t give a rat’s ass for the “purpose” or intentions of any inventor, designer, engineer, manufacturer, or politician. Every new discovery (such as amplification of DNA sequences) is used as a building block to create ever more complicated and powerful new technologies.
The ELISA (Enzyme Linked Immuno Sorbant Assay) test that relies on antibody specificity for selectivity has all kinds of false positives and negatives. The PCR based techniques rely on specific hybridization of nucleic acid sequences, with varying degrees of “stringency” depending on the conditions used, length of DNA strand etc. and have all kinds of false positives and negatives.
So, what do we do? Wear a mask and take hydroxychloroquine/Zn at the first sign of trouble and prepare by remaining as healthy as possible.
The two advances which have improved human health more than all the doctors who have ever lived and more than all the hospitals that have ever been built are:

  1. better nutrition, to allow generation of strong antibody response (it helps to eat well, with enough protein, our ancestors did not)
  2. better sanitation, wash hands with soap, follow antiseptic techniques when dealing with infections (where have we heard that before?) and drink clean water
    RE: The mRNA vaccines and "the ‘science’ that Fauci and Gates are pushing. You got me there. Chris admitted that he doesnt understand how that works (naked mRNA in the blood does wonderful things without side effects?). I dont understand the mechanism (mRNA gets inside cells and is translated, all without triggering weird things-the study mentioned that 20% of patients got so sick that they had to stay in the hospital, duh lets gloss over that and ignore it because it interferes with Fauci’s fame and fortune). Fauci doesnt understand shi* and Gates, certainly doesn’t know squat. We need to minimize the effects of shi* and squat teams like these guys in our future communities.
    No need to chit chat crap intricacies of techniques that we dont have basic understanding of. I hope that we have better things to do.
    I have plants waiting outside.

Happy Memorial weekend for you. I would just like to say that the debate here in France about the “usefulness” of Hydroxycloroquine is beginning to heat up. By that I introduce a new name to watch (ie someone important) - a doctor and previous Minister of Health in France, Philippe Douste-Blazy who has taken up the gauntlet (meaning that he has accepted the challenge to a duel by picking up the glove thrown down on the ground). When someone “respectable” starts saying the truth which only bothers others who complain about current conditions affecting their affecting their work or profession - it gives a nice opportunity for others to join the movement. I have seen several recent videos where he talks about all the points many of us have been saying for some time: that the studies used against the usage of HCQ do not use HCQ until the person is in the hospital and on oxygen - USELESS; that there are huge amounts of money in the balance to be made - we have seen two jump starts to the stock market using Gilead and Moderna - he talked about this - versus the very simple, inexpensive HCQ which can give intestinal pain and diarrhea; he also talks about the pressure that medical journals Lancet, New England… who complain that they are pressured to publish studies which arrive at previously decided results - and they do not see how they can remain credible under the economic pressure being applied. I saw three short clips, mostly on LCI - the French information channel. I bring this up not to prove anything - but just to say that perhaps we have reached the point where some people will “flip”. Like change their tune vis-à-vis HCQ.
We have in France something called
This body of persons has the power to strike down government laws - forcing the government to back down. They have just given the government their third such measure since the beginning of this crisis. They ordered the government to reinstate the right to assemble for a religious ceremony. We had mass on Sunday. Again I am not making the point about mass - but about the fact widely reported - like every time I turned on my telephone - that the couple
Buzyn/ Levy quit the Conseil d’Etat where they were advisors. So one does not know if they were kicked out - as this same body struck down the interdiction (from the government) for a doctor to prescribe HCQ for a patient if COVID-19 is the reason for the prescription. The State has NO RIGHT in the manner. Buzyn was Minister of Health - and still wants to be mayor of Paris, her husband was in charge of INSERM who construsted the P4 laboratory in Wuhan under the direction of the pervious French government. As we say in French now “Wait and See.”

Dr M-- upon reviewing the Lancet study my electrical engineer father with a fine nose for detail noted that the study designers did have some degree of control for timing of treatment administration:

In the report summary on Page 1, second paragraph, Methods:
“Patients for whom one of the treatments of interest was initiated more than 48 h after diagnosis or while they were on mechanical ventilation,
as well as patients who received remdesivir, were excluded.”
And again on Page 3, Study design:
“Patients who received treatment with these regimens starting more than 48 h after COVID-19 diagnosis were excluded.”
“Thus, we defined four distinct treatment groups, in which all patients started therapy within 48 h of an established COVID19 diagnosis…”
Granted, by the time you get sick enough to go to the hospital, get tested and fall within 48 hours of getting your positive result back that you are much further down the clinical course than we would like for testing antiviral effectiveness of these treatments. None the less, I don't think we can say they did not control at all for timing of administration.
Thank you for 10 plus years of life changing work sir. Cheers and strength to all.

In the USA, patients are not admitted to the hospital until they require supplemental oxygen administration to keep their O2 saturations in the 90%s. This hypoxia stage begins about 7-10 days into the symptomatic phase of illness and about 12-18 days after the time of infection if pre-symptomatic phase is included. So in the USA, hospitalization typically happens in the mid to late second week of illness.

So 48 hours after diagnosis in admitted patients USUALLY means sometime in the second week of illness. So mid to late stage 2.
Outpatient health department testing still is taking 3-5 days. Add a day to decide you are sick and another 1-2 days to get a doctors order for the test, then 3-5 days of wait for results – and you have a weeks delay.
Most hospitals now have an in house test that is done within an hour–while the patient is still in the ER. But this study started in December, a time when most hospitals could NOT do a PCR on the same day. (Patients were given a clinical diagnosis of COVID without a PCR.) Did the study authors consider this clinical diagnosis the “time of diagnosis” or was it when the PCR test came back several days later? Doesn’t say.
To me, the time frame for admission to the study looks very uncertain and very delayed.