As the world enters its second year of the coronavirus pandemic that has ground ticketing and live entertainment to a halt, one thing is becoming increasingly clear: government authorities have caused significant harm through their lack of transparency in nearly every aspect of the pandemic. That harm translates to both loss of life that may have been avoidable, and the continuing clamp on the ability for businesses and consumers to return to activities and business as usual.

According to statistical data, the Pfizer vaccine has been linked to 30 deaths in Norway, which comes from a population of approximately 42,000 individuals having received the vaccination thus far. This translates to approximately 0.0007% of vaccinated individuals. Statistics on show that the death rate in Norway is approximately 0.88% as of earlier this week. But that figure only accounts for reported cases.

Assuming that Norway has a similar profile of COVID infections passing unknown as the CDC estimates for the United States, the death rate for COVID in that country drops down to 0.22 percent.

Significantly, the CDC has not reported any mortality figures associated with the Pfizer vaccine in the United States. According to published reports, some 1,800,000 doses have been administered here, which if you extrapolate the data from Norway’s figures would lead to the expectation of more than 1,200 deaths thus far. Instead, the rate of anaphalaxis reported in the U.S. is at a dramatically lower rate (approximately 11.1 cases per million doses administered) than Norway’s reported rate of death following vaccination.

Is Norway dramatically over-reporting vaccination-tied mortality? Is the CDC dramatically under-reporting vaccination-tied mortality or other issues? We’ve asked both the CDC and Pfizer for comment on these findings, but not received a response.

Should there be a full data dump available for the public to go over, with redactions for personally identifiable information? Such information might go a long way to allowing statisticians to interpret data and provide meaningful feedback as authorities continue to plan and react in real-time.

Another avenue worth exploring is the strong correlation that has already been observed between COVID mortality and subject BMI. The higher the BMI, the worse the outcome is a generally agreed-upon fact. But without granular data, it is difficult to really ascertain to what degree. The NIH gives recommendations based on weight, but such recommendations might be altered greatly by the potential for a shift in the COVID mortality rate. The CDC and NIH could have provided potentially lifesaving advice to obese individuals based on the statistical likelihoods of adverse outcomes, but no such data has been put forth.

With the existence of several FDA-approved weight loss drugs, individuals have the capability of putting into practice weight loss programs that could result in the loss of as much as a point per week in BMI totals. Such weight loss rates are generally not advised, but in the face of a pandemic that takes the lives of obese patients at a high rate, the lack of actionable data on such practices could itself have cost the lives of some individuals, and could cause still more as the disease continues taking its toll.

Both the NIH and CDC have been made aware of numerous studies touting the effectiveness of using humidity to curb the rate of airborne infectious agents in indoor spaces. Unfortunately, such studies haven’t been widely publicized by those agencies, which also has likely cost lives:

Learn more about the Insomniac web browser, designed for ticket resale professionals

Similarly, guidance on the wearing of face masks is still woefully inadequate. While adequate PPE was a struggle to obtain at the start of 2020, there has been a concerted effort on the part of private industry to step up production of highly effective masks, and eliminate any mask shortage. In October, the CDC confirmed that the shortage was effectively eliminated, as did a survey of more than 30 state governors who confirmed for TicketNews that there is no longer a need for a dedicated supply of N95 face masks for their medical communities as there was in the spring.

FDA authorized KN95 masks and N95 face masks can be purchased for as little as $0.59 each through  while medical supply sites sell them to doctors and dentists for ten times that cost or more.  But the CDC and the NIH don’t make affirmative statements that based on their knowledge of such masks having the strong potential to save lives if put to use by the public. Only New York Governor Andrew Cuomo stands out having communicated to the public the effectiveness of the N95 Respirators and PPE that is now available to all.

Another tool that the public could be brought into far better awareness of in terms of fighting the potential for adverse COVID results is the use of Vitamin D3. Nowhere in the CDC or FDA websites is it advocated to be used, while Dr. Anthony Fauci has reportedly admitted to taking some 6,000 units of the supplement per day. According to the NIH, the recommended dosage is 800, with a maximum safe dosage of 4,000 – meaning the nation’s leading voice on the COVID epidemic is taking approximately 150 percent of the reportedly maximum safe amount. What does Dr. Fauci know that the public is not aware of?

While all of the previously mentioned factors have played a role in the continued roiling of the globe, perhaps the most significant is the decision by the CDC, NIH, and FDA not to adopt Challenge Testing despite the seriousness of the pandemic and its impact on both the health and business operations over the entire globe. At the end of 2019, the U.S. Government entered into a contract with a prestigious university to infect people with a deadly disease for the purposes of testing – meaning that such challenge testing is already being done. Such a test related to COVID was proposed in March of 2020 by an internet philanthropist, but the potential study was rejected by research institutions reliant on government contracts. In July, 15 Nobel laureates were among over 170 academics who suggested a similar strategy be attempted, only to see the NIH reject such efforts.

Why were such avenues rejected? Were government officials hoping to serve as the heroes putting a halt to the pandemic? Were research institutions fearful of being shunned by the very governmental organizations that provide an enormous percentage of their funding? Were anti-administration forces hoping to delay a resolution to the global emergency in order to fuel the hopes of ending the President’s reign at a single term? We can only guess, and the real answer is likely a combination of numerous factors.

Hopefully, with more and more information coming to light each day, leaders will continue to evolve in their understanding of this pandemic and how to get people back to work and back to their regular lives. The fastest way to do so is not through selective releases of small amounts of information, but by allowing the full amount of data to be public, and let the public make their own decisions on how to go forward.