Progressives Admit They Want Government Control of Speech

It's rare that we get progressives who fully admit that they support government censorship and control of speech.  Such a moment, though, occurred this week when the Atlantic published an article by two law professors calling for government control of internet speech.  Here's the key sentence of the article. 

In the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong. Significant monitoring and speech control are inevitable components of a mature and flourishing internet, and governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with a society’s norms and values.

Think about that and all that it means.  These progressives want government control of speech.  And it makes no difference that the speech is on the internet; they want the government to control it.

The First Amendment was adopted in the 1790s.  At the time, the best way to disseminate speech was via the printed word.  Newspapers and pamphlets were circulated and people got to say what they wanted.  In the 20th century, Newspapers were joined by radio and television as ways to disseminate political speech.  With a TV or radio, someone could get a wider audience than with a newspaper.  A person could actually reach a majority of the people in the country through television.  And through all this, the First Amendment protected Americans from government control of speech.  What was the remedy for false speech?  The answer is more speech, this time accurate.  If a newspaper pushed speech that was outside society's norms and values, it wasn't the government that stopped it; no, it was the economic power of the American people.  For example, if a magazine went outside accepted norms, then people stopped buying it and companies stopped advertising in it.

The problem today is not new.  The reason that progressives now want government to keep speech inside "society's norms and values" is that for the first time in many decades, progressives lost control of the main outlets of speech.  Those TV reporters and pundits who used to control speech in this country have been replaced, first by competing conservative media (think Rush Limbaugh and Fox News).  Then once the bias in the media became widely known, the internet gave average citizens a way to get their views out to millions as well.  We had truly free speech.  And that's a threat to one of the main levers of power used by progressives to push their agenda.

Consider the effects of government action to make sure that speech on the internet or anywhere else "is compatible with a society's norms and values."

In the last twenty years, the acceptance of gays has changed in major ways.  We now have gay marriage, adoption by gay couples, gays in the military, and the like.  Yet, no one could possibly question that in 1980, all of these ideas were incompatible with the norms and values of American society.  If government kept speech on TV and Radio and in the media restricted to only those ideas compatible with society's norms and values, none of the people who were pushing for gay rights would have been able to be heard.  Nothing would have changed.  If you go back further to the 1950s and 1960s, speech pushing for civil rights would have been suppressed.  The whole civil rights movement might have failed.  In the late 1970s, Ronald Reagan and the conservative movement pushed to end government over regulation of the economy.  Clearly, that view was despised by media and government bigwigs.  They could have and would have used government control of speech to stop that movement if such control were available. 

The real truth is that the decision as to society's norms and values is one for the society as a whole to make.  It is not up to the government to decide.  America is meant to be a nation in which people decide their own fates, their own likes and dislikes.  The government doesn't get to make such decisions except in dictatorships where that freedom is taken from the people.

The Atlantic article may be dismissed as nothing more than the musings of some misguided academics.  Lord knows there are enough addled brained professors to provide a non-stop stream of such nonsense.  But that isn't taking this threat to our freedom seriously.  Every politician should denounce this sort of fascistic nonsense.  Sadly, a big chunk of the progressive movement now accepts this view.  It is an active threat to our democracy and our society.  Put another way, it is a threat to the central core of our country.

Unemployment Mystery

The figures for new unemployment claims last week came in at 3.6 million.  That's down substantially from last week, but it's not something to cheer about.  These are only people filing for the first time.  Continuing claims are much higher.  Still, it is not clear what these figures represent.

Let me use an example of five people.  Tom was furloughed from his job in a restaurant on March 10 as the virus hit hard.  He filed for unemployment the next day and started getting benefits.  His claim was counted the next week.  Mary was furloughed from her job in another restaurant on March 15.  She tried to file her unemployment claim, but the system was backed up and she couldn't actually file with the state until April 5.  She started getting benefits on April 22.  When was she counted?  Most likely for the April 5 filing, but we can't be certain.  Marcel was unable to works as a massage therapist beginning in mid March when his state shut down such services.  He was self employed.  Prior to the virus crisis, he could not have gotten unemployment compensation.  Congress changed that so that gig workers can now collect.  The estimates are that over two million such workers are now collecting benefits in this category.  In some states, though, the unemployment systems could not accept the filings until as late as last week.  If Marcel couldn't file until then but has been unemployed for six weeks, was he just counted this past week?  Is there any tally kept of how many gig workers are now included on the list?  Rose also was furloughed in mid-March.  She was called back to work though when her employer got a loan through the paycheck protection plan.  Rose decided, however, that she would rather collect unemployment than go back to work.  Where does she fit into these numbers?

The best way to describe the weekly figure for new claims is as a rough estimate.  There are too many variables to pay too close attention to them. 

So Who Really Gets Blame for all the Corona Virus Deaths

The current talking point from the media and the Dems is that President Trump did not act quickly enough to stop the pandemic from hitting the US.  They ignore that every time Trump took action early on, the Dems and the media screamed that he was "racist" for shutting entry from China, or he was "over-reacting" to use Joe Biden's phraseology.  Of course, Biden has now switched sides on what he says and the media covers for him.

The real question of the moment, though, is whether anyone should be blamed for how the response to the virus was handled.  In truth, there is one person who truly deserves major blame for many deaths.  That person is Andrew Cuomo, the governor of New York.  The relevant facts are just coming out.

1.  New York has many more deaths than any other state.  Roughly 40% of all deaths in the USA have been in the state of New York. 

2.  New York has only 30% of the cases across the country.  That means that the death rate is much higher for people who were infected in New York.

3.  Close to 30% of those who died in NY were elderly people in nursing homes.  The devastation to nursing home patients was terrible.

4.  And here's the kicker:  the NY state health department in March issued an order to all nursing homes in the state that they had to take in patients who were still testing positive for the virus.  Think of that.  With all the fragile people in the nursing home and with the extremely contagious nature of the virus, the state government ordered nursing homes that they could NOT keep out patients just because they were testing positive for the virus.

5.  Today, we further learned that the state health department also issued rules that nursing home staff who tested positive for the virus could continue at work so long as they wore a mask.

Put this all together and we find that the state government (for which Cuomo is responsible) forced nursing homes to take in infected patients and keep on infected staff.  Putting these people into a facility near all these people in very fragile health before exposure to the virus was a virtual guarantee that the virus would spread quickly through the nursing home.  It was like putting a stick of dynamite in the home and then lighting the fuse.

There was substantial push back from the operators of the nursing home with regard to these actions by the state.  Cuomo did nothing to change the rules. 

I realize that Cuomo was under great pressure and was perhaps distracted.  He did have time, however, to hold daily press briefings.  Maybe if he spent a bit more time paying attention to his job, thousands of people who died in nursing homes would still be alive.

This says it all

from Powerlineblog.com

Hillary Endorses Old Joe Biden At On Line Town Hall -- Biden Falls Asleep

I'll take bizarre political moments for $800, Alex.

Today, Joe Biden held an online town hall with Hillary Clinton so that she could publicize her endorsement of his candidacy.  Joe spoke and then Hillary did.  While Hillary was speaking, Biden appeared to fall asleep.  He closed his eyes and sat there while she spoke for about 20 seconds, then he lurched a bit and opened his eyes.  We only have the online video, so we can't be certain that Biden dozed off; maybe he was just resting his eyes.  Of course, that does raise another question:  since Biden has been stuck at home for many weeks now, why is he so tired that he can't keep his eyes open?

I've listened to Hillary Clinton speak many times.  I can understand why someone listening to her could fall asleep or at least want to fall asleep.  Still, if Biden can't concentrate enough to stay awake during an event like this, just imagine him dozing off during meetings in the Oval Office.  Maybe he could nap during the State of the Union address.  It's truly bizarre.

Modeling Nonsense

The big news on the virus today is that the models are now projecting a higher death toll than they were a week ago.  The rise is not very big, but it's the first move towards a higher number in any model updates.  Still, the models are nonsensical, truly nonsensical.

The models predict new infections, hospitalizations and deaths.  But here's the problem:  we know that the number of cases is drastically undercounted.  There are huge numbers of asymptomatic cases across the country as well as large numbers of people with very mild symptoms who don't get tested.  What good is predicting new cases when we know that all of those predictions aren't even close to being correct.  On top of that, as the number of daily tests continue to rise, the number of people discovered with symptoms will include more and more asymptomatic or lightly symptomatic people.  Since the models say more cases mean more deaths, better testing results ultimately in higher death projections.

Then there's the question of why the models don't consider the huge numbers who test positive for antibody tests that indicate a prior infection by the virus.  The "experts" tell us that they can't use the antibody tests because they aren't accurate enough.  Huh?  That's ridiculous.  For example, antibody testing in New York City found 25% showing the antibodies that indicate prior infection.  If we assume that one-third of those tests are wrong, the, at the very least, a minimum of 17% of New Yorkers have been infected.  Since the testing rates previously indicated only between 1 and 2% of the city residents had the virus, continuing to rely on those outdated results means that the models are hopelessly wrong.

Even more bizarre is the fact that some models now are predicting on what day individual states can reopen.  Think about that.  We know the models are wrong because they don't consider the antibody test results.  Projecting total national deaths in this manner is not going to get us a meaningful result.  The data is not good enough or accurate enough to predict total deaths.  But now the modeling gurus want to tell us on exactly which day each state should reopen?  Are they kidding.  Even in the best of times, models of this sort couldn't tell us the date in the future for reopening.  Given the improper construction and data used by the modelers, these models might as well have been done on a Ouija Board.

Hopefully, these models will be ignored by policy makers.  To give them credence is to accept obviously incorrect projections based upon corrupt data.  My guess is that the media will love these models.

It's Never Enough

The drumbeat has started.  The feds need to spend more to avoid a depression!  That's the latest view being pushed by the likes of Vox and other far left "news" outlets.  Nancy Pelosi is joining in.  She wants to enact a program that will send $2000 per month to every American making less than $130,000.  Pelosi didn't give details, but let's look at her suggestion for a moment.  There are 330 million Americans.  Some are children, so let's assume that they won't get the payment until they hit 18.  That would cut the number to roughly 210 million people.  Pelosi doesn't say explicitly if she's talking about household income or individual income, but logically it should be individual income.  After all, it wouldn't make sense for a single making $128,000 per year to get the cash while a married couple who each make 66,000 dollars would not.  There are not exact figures about how many individuals make over 130,000 per year, but a fair estimate based upon IRS information is that no more than 15% do so (and the figure could be substantially lower.)  That reduces the 210 million people to 178 million recipients.

The cost of sending 178 million people 24,000 dollars per year is four and a quarter trillion dollars per year.  Pelosi wants to spend more on this program than the entire federal government ever spent in one year before 2020.  That money is also more than 20% of US GDP prior to the virus.  Where would it come from?  It can't be borrowed.  The world financial system is already being tapped by huge expenditures for existing government needs.  Believe it or not, the supply of capital around the world is not limitless, even if people like Pelosi cannot grasp this fact.  If the government(s) soak up massive cash reserves with this kind of borrowing, there just won't be cash available for private enterprises who need debt.  If the point is to avoid a depression, then depriving private businesses of capital is a sure formula for causing not preventing a depression.

No problem is the response from the far left.  The government can just print the money rather than borrowing it.  It's easy; the federal reserve will just "create" the 4 plus trillion dollars each year.  But this is another prescription for disaster.  Under classic economic theory, this is the recipe for inflation.  Inflation was often defined as "too much money chasing too few goods."  When the total amount of money in circulation (called the money supply) gets too large, prices start to rise.  This classic theory doesn't always work though.  After the 2009 stimulus and other bailout payments, the money supply soared, growing by nearly 200%.  Prices, however, did not rise rapidly.  There were many explanations for this outcome.  First, the decline in overall demand was so great that the push towards inflation was overcome.  Second, others opined that the velocity of money stayed low so the inflation push didn't come.  In other words, even though the cash was out there, people were putting it in the bank and not spending it, so there was no artificial increase in demand to cause price rises.  Third, still others said that the who theory was wrong.  Of course, as time went on after the big increase in money supply, some prices did rise rapidly.  The prices of commodities like gold shot through the roof; there was more cash available to be parked in gold.  Prices of stocks also went up dramatically.  The big extra glut of cash was invested or saved, so there was inflation in the value of investments (stock) and savings (gold).

But what happens if the now vastly larger money supply is doubled again and the new cash goes to people who are most likely to spend it?  Logically, that will mean a big increase of demand for goods at a time when production of goods is limited due to virus induced disruptions.  It's a sure recipe for inflation.  And to be clear, the inflation we are discussing is not 2 or 3%.  No, the inflation of this sort is hyper-inflation.  Price could go up quickly.  In the past, countries suffering from hyper inflation have seen price rises of 40% each DAY.  See, the problem is that once the hyper inflation starts, no one wants to hold cash because its value drops each day.  They want to hold other assets.  Eventually commerce crashes and the depression we are supposedly trying to avoid looks mild by comparison to what we get.

The point is that the rules of basic economics cannot be avoided.  Adopting the wishful thinking approach of a Bernie Sanders or an AOC just doesn't work no matter how great it sounds to the uninformed.

It may sound odd that granting people these payments is a sure path to a terrible depression, but it is.  We ignore reality at our peril.

Lies and More Lies From NBC

Today, NBC published an article written by Michael Conway, critiquing President Trump's response to "science" during the pandemic.  Conway used his scientific expertise to explain why Trump is ignoring science.  The problem with the article is that it is filled with clear errors and obvious lies.

Let's start with the reporter, Michael Conway, and his expertise.  Conway is a lawyer, which hardly makes him a scientific expert.  His main claim to fame was as the head counsel for the Impeachment committee that investigated Richard Nixon in 1974.  Of course, that impeachment was about Watergate, not science.  So there's no reason to believe Conway has any expertise on medical or other science.

And what is his claim about Trump's disdain for science?  First, he goes to the old standby:  Trump's support for research into hydroxychloroquine.  As Conway puts it,   Trump, of course, had touted the drug [hydroxychloroquine] as a “game changer;” [but] studies have now repeatedly shown COVID-19 patients given the drug are more likely to die"

This claim is totally false.  There is one study done at the VA that was not the sort of double blind study needed to evaluate the drug scientifically.  It found on a retroactive basis that more people who got the drug died than those who did not.  That's it; one study.  Indeed, one scientifically defective study.  Then there are at least two studies done in France which were also not double blind studies.  In each of these studies, the findings were that hydroxychloroquine led to substantially better outcomes for patients.  There are also some other studies but these are inconclusive.  In short, there are no "repeated" studies that show patients getting the drug are more likely to die.  But then again, those are the actual facts, something for which Conway seems to have little regard.

Next Conway goes off on Trump as anti-science because he supposedly told people to inject disinfectant into their bodies to fight the virus.  Of course, anyone who saw Trump at the briefing where this came up knows that Conway's description of what Trump said is wrong.  Indeed, after hearing about the effect of UV light and certain kinds of disinfectant on the virus, Trump asked whether there could be a therapeutic use of these facts in the fight against the virus.  He even said that the doctors would have to look into that.  Trump's response was about as scientific as one could be.  He asked about therapeutic use and called for an investigation to determine if that were possible.

By the way, it's worth noting that Conway ignores the main part of the discussion which was about the use of UV light.  There already is research underway and even devices developed to try to use the UV light to destroy the virus.  Again, these are facts, something for which Conway has only disdain.

Okay, Conway is an old Democrat lawyer.  He has his axe to grind and he obviously doesn't like Trump.  That's not a surprise.  My question, though, is why would NBC publish a phony article filled with misinformation and lies.  That network well knows that Conway is far from accurate or truthful.  NBC would do better if its goal were to present the truth rather than to present yet another hit piece on the president.

More Confirmation That Change is Needed

NY Governor Cuomo announced today the results of further testing for antibodies generated by the corona virus.  Those who test positive are people who have contracted the virus more than a few days earlier.  It is unknown how quickly the antibodies show up in the bloodstream, but it would be at least two or three days following infection at the earliest.  These antibody tests tell us who has had the virus even if he or she had no symptoms of infection. 

The results announce by Cuomo for New York City were that 25% of those tested were positive for having the antibodies.  This is a hugely important number.

Just think what this means:

1.  There are 8.4 million people in New York City.  If 25% have had the virus, that means that 2.1 million people have been infected.

2.  To date, testing for the virus has revealed 160,000 cases in the city.  That would indicate that there have been just under two million cases for which people either had no symptoms or only very mild symptoms insufficient to lead to a test.

3.  To date, there have been 17,500 deaths attributed to the virus in New York City.  If the number of infections has actually been 2.1 million (as indicated by the antibody tests), then the mortality rate is under 1% and not the 11% currently announced in the media.  A disease that kills 8 out our of a thousand people infected is not a good thing, but it is a hell of a lot better than one that kills 110 out of 1000.

4.  Despite all the social distancing and closed businesses, fully one-quarter of New York's people have had the virus.  We don't know how many of those who tested positive have active cases (and remain contagious), but it has to be a substantial number.  The first batch of antibody testing last week showed 20% positive in the city, so another 5% were added to the total in just one week.

5.  Add in the fact that over 90% of those who have died in New York City are over 70, and most of the rest have comorbidities, and it becomes clear that there is no need for people who are not at high risk to stay home and away from work.  Many of these folks have already had the virus anyway.

It's infuriating to watch politicians congratulating Americans for pushing down the curve by self isolation when the antibody tests show that didn't actually happen to a large extent.  Instead of talking about more of the same, the discussion ought to be setting up new guidelines that will protect high risk populations while letting the rest of the country get our economy moving again.

Business Over Lives

In one of their customary tone-deaf positions, the meanstream media/Democrat collective is now pushing the idea that by reopening America what is actually happening is that Republicans are putting business profits over saving lives.  Wow is that wrong!

Right now, the Media/Dem collective wants everyone to believe that the only safe place is hiding at home and that any return towards normal will lead to a big spike in deaths from the corona virus.  Today, for example, Politico featured a long article about the "idiotic" move by Florida governor DeSantis to reopen the beaches in certain parts of the state.  To hear Politico tell it, DeSantis is just out so his friends can make a buck even if it costs thousands their lives due to illnesses caught in the petri dish that is the beach.  Clearly, the collective thinks that this attack will resonate with people currently too afraid to leave their homes no matter what they are told.

This attack fails when faced with actual facts. 

1.  Let's start with the idea that people are only safe at home.  That's just wrong.  Remember, something like 40% of the work force is still going to work each day outside their homes.  About half of the remainder are working from home.  So according to the collective, we should be seeing people in that 40% dropping like flies, but it isn't happening.  The deaths from the virus continue to be concentrated in nursing homes and places with large numbers of seniors.  The mortality rate for people under 50 is less than 0.1% and those who have died in that group are primarily people with other life threatening conditions.  Simply put, other than for high risk groups, people are not safer at home than out at work.

2.  Now let's add in the specific case of the Florida beaches.  A person sitting in the sun on a beach in the sunshine state is in the optimal environment for avoiding infection.  The investigation done by the best labs in the world show that the virus is killed on average in 1.5 minutes when exposed to direct sunlight.  That happens even more quickly if it is warmer and more humid (just like on the beach).  Sure, people on the beach could still transmit the virus by squeezing together but NOT if they keep a reasonable distance from others.  Meanwhile, if someone comes into a house with the virus, it can survive for a day all the while being contagious.  It's safer on the beach if common sense is used.

3.  Even with the new laws that have the government sending cash to keep people getting paid or getting increased unemployment benefits, there are still millions of folks who are now worrying how they are going to feed their families.  For some, that is a worry for today; they have no money.  For others, the worry is about next month or the month after that; it is a major worry though even if it is a few weeks off.  These people are not helped by staying at home in hiding.  They need to support their families.  And remember, nearly all these same people would be safe enough were they to venture back to work.

4.  Another way to look at this push to go back to work is that it is designed to give people under great stress some relief.  It lets people know that they will be able to pay their mortgages and feed their children into the future.  Reopening is not a victory for money-hungry big business.  It is a victory for the average American who can get back to actual life. 

My prediction is that the audience for the Media/Dem collective attack on reopening the country is rather small.  There are the true believers for the Dems; these folks will believe anything that they get told by the Dems.  Just think that these are the same folks who will tell you that Joe Biden would be a good president.  A semi-senile old guy who can't speak in simple sentences without forgetting where he is has been anointed by the Dems, and the true believers are hopping on board his band wagon.  And none of this even considers the believable allegations of rape against Biden by his former staffer or the corruption of Biden's son Hunter that Old Joe protected and abetted.  The folks who accept this guy will accept anything they get told by the collective.  In addition, there are the poorly informed who are just frightened of the potential of being hit with the virus.  These people too may believe the collective for now, but once the country reopens, they will see the attacks for the BS that they actually are.

Immunity and the WHO

The WHO announced yesterday that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that someone who has recovered from the corona virus has any immunity to getting that disease again.  The announcement made big headlines, but what really happened here?

Let's start with what we know:

1.  Essentially every virus in the past has resulted in recovered patients getting some level of immunity to re-infection.

2.  The length of immunity varies.  Sometimes the immunity is permanent.  For example, chicken pox is caused by a virus and confers permanent immunity.  Of course, people who have had chicken pox can still get shingles years later from the same virus.  Some immunities are for a period of many years.  Here a good example is smallpox.  The vaccine causes the body to develop the immunities that protect it, but those immunities are only good for 10-20 years.  Other viruses convey much shorter immunity periods.  Influenza is a good example.  Just because one had the flu last year does not mean one is immune to getting it again next year.  In part that is due to the fact that there are so many different strains of the flu virus, but the immunity conveyed from an infection is also one that just doesn't last for years.

3.  There have been a few cases in which people who recovered from corona virus then tested positive for the disease shortly thereafter.  Does this mean these people are not immune?  Most likely, the answer is NO.  In most cases, the initial test that showed the patient no longer having the virus was probably giving a false negative.  A faulty test result declared the patient recovered followed by another correct test that says the patient is infected.  There also could be faulty tests that declared the patient re-infected.

4.  There are many hundreds of thousands of people around the world who have recovered from the corona virus.  To date, there are no examples of anyone who recovered testing positive again many weeks later.  Testing positive within a week of "recovery" is probably just an indication of a faulty test for the recovery or the new infection.  Testing positive many weeks after recovery would indicate a reinfection.  Those positive results many weeks later is what is not being observed.

Since there are no instances of people testing positive many weeks after have been designated recovered,  that's a pretty good indicator that recovery conveys immunity to the patient.  We just don't know for how long that immunity lasts.

So why would the WHO issue this warning?  If you want to think about it from a scientific standpoint, all the WHO is saying is that there is not yet sufficient evidence to conclude that infection and recovery conveys any immunity to reinfection.  The WHO isn't saying that such immunity is not being given to recovered patients; WHO is only saying that there isn't enough information yet to make a scientific conclusion one way or the other. 

On the other hand, if you want a political reason, then you need to think about who benefits from this announcement.  China, for one, is already proceeding with full opening of its economy without concern regarding possible reinfection.  That will not stop no matter what the WHO says on this subject.  On the other hand, countries like the USA and those in the EU that have not reopened in a major way could slow down that reopening due to concern over the latest WHO announcement.  That would give China an advantage.  It would be going full speed ahead while its rivals in other countries are still shut down.  If, as has been alleged, the WHO is really following directives from China, then this announcement makes sense.

There's no way to know right now why WHO made the announcement.  It would be foolish, however, for policy makers to conclude that there is no short term immunity conveyed by the disease.  Given that we have half a million or more documented recovered patients and there have yet to be any who got reinfected many weeks later, it seems almost certain that these recovered patients have immunity.

Fast Question

If North Korean dictator Kim Jung Un has died, is he now one of the Un dead?

Where Is It Safe?

We know that research shows that the corona virus dies very quickly in direct sunshine.  In a cool dry room without sunshine, the half life of the virus is roughly 18 hours.  In direct sunshine, the half life is roughly 1.5 minutes.  We also know that in warmer temperatures and higher humidity the virus dies more quickly  So can this information be used to inform a rational decision as to what is a safe place to be during the pandemic?

The logical answer is yes.  Where could one go where there are warmer temperatures, higher humidity and lots of sunshine?  The obvious answer is the beach.  Anyone who lives by the ocean knows that humidity is a constant when you are near the water.  Sunshine is also unlimited on the beach.  And with the progress of Spring towards Summer, higher temperatures are also normally present.  In other words, on a warm sunny day, going to the beach is pretty safe as it is unlikely that you could catch the virus from someone unless you were practically on top of him or her.

With that science informing us, why is it then that the media and some governments are melting down over people in California and Florida visiting beaches?  Sure, if there are people at the beach, you still want to keep your distance, but if you do, it's relatively safe.  Why is the media melting down?

To me, it seems that the media is selling panic.  Everything that happens has to be reported in an over the top and breathless manner.  It's a crisis. That's a disaster.  This is an outrage.  You know what I mean.  Were the media to report that people have been able to get out and go to the beach with relative safety, that's indicating a reduction in the crisis.  We just can't have that.  The media wants to ratchet up panic and tension; they can't let it decline during an outing to the beach.

Remember when all those students were sitting in the sun on the beach in Florida during Spring Break.  The media ran maps of where all those students were going to end up once they went home and calculated all those people who were suddenly going to catch the virus from these surely infected students.  We heard the scare stories about the coming avalanche of infections.  But guess what?  Those post Spring Break spikes in infections never came.  Maybe it was because the students mixing on the beach were in this relatively safe space.

Look, if you consider what happened at Mardi Gras in New Orleans, you can see that big crowds pushed together can still spread the virus even in warmer and more humid climates.  Still, the crowds at Mardi Gras did not practice social distancing.  If anything, they practiced social crowding.  It was a great way to spread the virus.  The result was a big spike in infections a few weeks later in NOLA.  But then what happened?  Infections in Louisiana stopped growing and declined rapidly.  The post Mardi Gras peak hit 2700 cases per day in early April but it then fell off to the current level of about 400 cases per day over the last two weeks.  Without people crammed together at Mardi Gras parties, the heat and humidity in Louisiana cut the transmission of the virus down in ways that did not happen in New York, for example.  As we move into Summer, we may see that new cases across the country will decline to a trickle or even less so long as people try to keep their distance from one another.

Amazing Fake News Even From CNN

There's a report on Powerline that contains a great example of amazing fake news from CNN.  Chistiane Amanpour had a broadcast with the foreign minister of Hungary in which she took the Hungarian government to task for "destroying" democracy in Hungary as a result of legislation passed in parliament that gave the Prime Minister some emergeny powers to act by decree.  Amanpour was told by the foreign minister that Hungary's law was identical to that passed by four other EU member countries and that four other EU members had given their head of state even more power. He mentioned France as an example of that.  Amanpour shot back that in France, the legislature could always overturn the decrees of the president but that in Hungary that could not happen because the legislature has been shut down indefinitely.  The Foreign Minister looked shocked when she said that.  He then told Amanpour that the Hungarian parliament was not shut.  In fact, he said that he had spoken in Parliament five times in the past week and that the schedule of meeting had not been altered at all.  He said reports that the parliament had been shut down were fake news.  Amanpour's response was, "That's news to us."

Think about that.  This is not some minor or complicated point.  The question is whether or not the Parliament in Hungary is shut indefinitely.  CNN said that it was, and that was totally false.  Imagine CNN announcing that the Senate in the USA had adjourned until August when, in fact, the Senate was still in session and had no plans to adjourn.  Hungary may be a small country, but even CNN ought to have the resources to be able to find out if the parliament there had adjourned indefinitely.

CNN is Fake News.  The whole interview can be seen on the link to Powerline in the first line above.  It's worth watching just for the fun of it.

Virus Stats

Yesterday, the number of new cases of the corona virus hit an all time high in the USA.  There were just over 36,000 new cases where people tested positive for the virus. That's the tenth day in April when new cases exceeded 30,000.  Since we have been told that we are seeing the "light at the end of the tunnel" and that the country can reopen, is this a sign that maybe things are going the wrong way?  Strangely, the higher number of cases is not actually a bad sign.  Let me explain:

1.  The number of tests being administered has exploded upwards.  For the last three days, the average number of tests has been 242,000 per day.  Prior to that time, the most tests ever administered in one day was 167,000.

2.  With a 50% increase in the number of tests, there would almost certainly be an increase in the number of people who test positive.  There are many folks who have no or few symptoms who test positive.  These are people who haven't been included in the group tested in the past.  What has changed is that widespread testing of all first responders and medical staffs are being introduced across the country.  These are the very people who have had the greatest exposure to the virus, so one would expect to pick up asymptomatic cases.

3.  A different way to look at the results is that over the last three days, 12.4% of those tested have come back positive for the virus.  In the three days prior to that, the percentage positive results was 17.4%.

Most likely, the slightly higher number of new cases is the result of the enormous increase in testing and the increased coverage of the tests.  As we get new results in the coming days, we will be able to see if this is correct.

So Is Kim Dead?

According to media reports, Kim Jung Un of North Korea is

1.  dead
2.  in a persistent vegetative state
3.  in a coma
4.  recovering from heart surgery in a hospital
5  fine.

Take your pick.

It's hard to imagine that no one actually knows what Kim's current state of health is.  Endless speculation in the media doesn't change that.  So we now have a nation armed with nuclear weapons that may have no functioning head of government.  It's a super dangerous situation.

Insanity On Parade -- or -- How The Media Responds To Trump

Yesterday, the head of one of the DHS advanced labs reported at the corona virus press briefing that after detailed testing, they had determined that the virus dies quickly when exposed to ultraviolet light like that in sunlight.  He also reported that the virus survives for a shorter time in warm humid spaces compared to dry, cool locations.  Finally, he mentioned that ethyl alcohol was the quickest way to sanitize a surface that has been exposed to the virus.

When the report was done, President Trump asked if there was anyway to use this information in a therapeutic manner.  Could exposing a patient to UV light actually work as a cure or a therapy?  Could the alcohol be used in some way to help treat the virus?

The President did exactly what the Democrats say they want to happen.  He heard what the scientists were finding and then he asked about it.  His questions were quite good.

The media and the Democrats went berserk in response.  Senile Old Joe Biden tweeted to mock Trump for talking about UV light and disinfectant.  Joe said we need more tests.  Interesting, isn't it, that Old Joe wanted to ignore the science and just stick to his predetermined course that only more testing could help.

On stations like MSNBC and CNN, they twisted what Trump said into his calling for people to inject themselves with Lysol or some other disinfectant.  Trump didn't say that or even anything like that, but it didn't matter.  The leftwing media just attacked him for something he didn't even say.

But here's the kicker.  There actually is a device being used in some hospitals in which UV light is put into the lungs of people with pneumonia.  Someone who has had a breathing tube inserted gets a thin catheter put down the tube and into the lung.  LED lights then emit the UV light which has the effect of killing viruses and bacteria in the lungs.  It is supposed to treat lung infections including those like the ones caused by the corona virus.  The company that makes the device is called Healight.

What that means is that the Dems and the media are mocking Trump for asking what they describe as an idiotic question when the very thing he asked about is actually already in use in the fight against pneumonia.  Simply put, it is the Dems and the media that has taken an idiotic position. 

These fools need to learn that just because they want the President to be wrong, that doesn't make him wrong.  We can't decide that only certain therapies for corona virus are politically correct.  Lives are at stake, and ignoring science and relying on preconceived ideas is a really poor course to follow. 

I would like to see the Dems apologize or at least admit that they were wrong.  It won't happen, but it still would be nice to see.

The Emerging Truth -- We Need to Change Our Response

According to current numbers, the mortality rate from the corona virus for people over the age of 80 is more than 400 times that rate for people under 40.  These figures change over time, but there have been enough cases so that these results should indicate where the final figures come out.  Even comparing those in their 80s with those in their 70s, the mortality rate is almost 5 times higher for the older group.  Sixty year olds have a mortality rate from the disease that is about one-twentieth as high as for those over 80.  For those in their 50s and below, the mortality rate is below one hundredth of a percent.  That's essentially non-existent.  If you take out those under 60 with comorbidities, the death rate for this younger group approaches zero.

What this means is that as a society we should be pointing towards keeping the vulnerable safe.  That means that the old and infirm should be self isolating at home.  It also means that the rest of us should not be staying home.  The best way to beat the virus would be for the vast bulk of America to contract the disease and then beat it.  It would mean we would have "herd immunity" so that the old and infirm would have no one left from whom they could get the illness.

Look, there is no question that there will be some cases of younger people who will die from the disease.  That doesn't change anything.  No matter what we do, there will still be people who will die.  The question we need to consider is this:  what way forward will result in the fewest deaths overall?  Keeping deaths to a minimum has to be the goal.  Right now, that goal seems to require that we change our response to the virus.

How Dare She Say Thank You!

Absolutely unbelievable news from the Detroit News:

Detroit Democrats plan to vote Saturday to censure and bar any future endorsements of a Democratic lawmaker who credited President Donald Trump with advocating for the drug that she said cured her of COVID-19.

State Rep. Karen Whitsett, D-Detroit, broke protocol by meeting with President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence during an April 14 meeting of COVID-19 survivors, during which she credited hydroxychloroquine for saving her life….

…The meeting and other comments Whitsett made prior to and during the coronavirus pandemic have landed her in hot water with the 13th Congressional District Democratic Party Organization.

The group, as first reported by Gongwer News Service, plans to vote Saturday on a resolution to censure Whitsett, a first-term lawmaker representing the 9th Michigan House District.

The admonition means she will not get the group’s endorsement for this year nor will she be able to engage in the group’s activities for the next two election cycles.

The Antibody Tests in New York

NY governor Cuomo released preliminary results for widespread antibody testing across New York state.  Over 3000 people selected at random were tested for the antibodies.  13.9% of those tested showed positive results, meaning they had been infected by the virus.  That translates to 2.7 million people statewide who have already had the corona virus.  The number showing a previous infection is concentrated in New York City with 43% of those testing positive.  In the NYC suburbs, the results showed about another 26% of those who tested positive for the antibodies.

What does this mean?

1.  Social distancing has not worked to stop the spread of the virus.  Something over 20% of the people in New York City are testing positive.  If social distancing had worked, to stop the virus from spreading, that number should have been much, much lower.  On the other hand, social distancing may have slowed the spread of the virus.  Still, with so many unsuspected cases circulating around New York City, the virus will continue to spread; that is a given.

2.  The death rate from the virus is much lower than previously thought.  If 2.7 million people have been infected, then less than one half of one percent of those infected have died.  That's comparable to a bad flu.

3.  Given the low death rate, the best way to end the threat from the virus would be to tell those at high risk from the virus (namely those over 65 and those with multiple comorbidities) to stay at home in isolation while at the same time letting everyone else go back to work.  In other words, reopen the state for all but those most at risk from the virus.  This should let the virus speed its way through infecting most of the rest of the people in the state.  At that point, we could see the development of the so-called herd immunity.  Once 70% of the people in an area have been infected, it will become very difficult for the virus to spread any further.  A few weeks after that, the virus will essentially disappear.  At that point, those at highest risk can come out of quarantine and return to regular life.  This would end the virus quickly.

Of course, there will be a very few people who will die from the virus were we to follow this course.  I say very few, because the rate of death among those under 65 is about 0.1%.  If you have people under 65 with comorbidities sheltering in place, then the death rate for the remainder will be still much less, something like 1 in 10,000 who will die.  While any deaths are a tragedy, these are the sorts of numbers which do not justify shutting down the state further. 

Remember, if we keep the state shut down, the chances are that many more people in the high risk groups will eventually catch the virus.  That is because the virus will continue to circulate due to the lack of herd immunity.  The resulting death levels will be far higher than that resulting from opening up for non-high-risk groups. 

Nonsense Spreads Democrat/Media Style

This morning's news brings a big batch of nonsense from both Democrats and the media (which is basically the same thing.)

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, the Socialist from New York City, made news by telling people who are out of work that they shouldn't go back once those jobs are available again.  Why work for 70 hours a week just to get by; that's her message.

It's funny to see AOC recommend to people that they NOT work.  She hasn't explained yet to this group how they will survive, but that's just a detail in the fantasy world of AOC.

Next, there are articles in the media that the new funding for the Payroll Protection Program won't be enough.  Another 300 billion dollars on top of the original 350 billion will be gone in a flash.  Why?  According to the media, it's because big companies like Ruth's Chris used up so much of the funds.

Of course, this claim is nonsense.  To date, we only know of something less than 100 million that went to bigger companies, and even that seems to have been in accordance with the law.  If we assume that the money that went to these companies was actually twice as much or 200 million dollars, then the money in the program would be reduced by 0.02%.  That would leave $649,800,000 instead of the total of $650,000,000.  It sounds good in the media to say that the big companies got the cash, but it is not even close to corret.

Third, the imaginary governor of Georgia, Stacey Abrams, announced that she is concerned that Joe Biden will pick a woman for VP but not a woman of color.  I've looked to see what the basis for her remarks are, but if she gave a reason, the media didn't pick it up.  That most likely means that Abrams is just concerned that she won't be the selection.  She's putting pressure on Biden because she knows that he folds in such situations.  We'll have to wait to see if it works.

What Matters More? Words or Actions?

In typical fashion, social media is in an uproar this morning because of the words the President used in a tweet.  President Trump said that he has ordered the navy to "shoot down and destroy" any Iranian boats that are harassing US naval forces.  This is very important.  For a long time, the Iranians have periodically sent small boats out into the Persian Gulf to harass passing US navy ships.  The Iranians speed across the bow of the navy ships and come very close to colliding.  It's like a massive game of chicken at sea.  When Obama was president, the navy was not allowed to take any action against the Iranians.  As you may recall, one small navy ship was actually captured by the Iranians and the crew was held for a few days.  Iran cut back on its harassment after Trump became president, but lately the mullahs have started acting up again.  Trump's tweet is a warning to Iran to stop.  The mullahs aren't going to want to see large numbers of their ships sunk by the navy.  It's just one more way that President Trump is trying to tame the Iranians.

So, given the importance of this tweet, what do you think is the focus of discussion on the internet?  The big deal is that Trump said that the boats should be shot down.  Ha, ha, ha; Trump said "shoot down" rather than "shoot".  On social media, the push from the left is that Trump doesn't know that ships don't fly.

Once again, the left focuses on what has been said, not on what is being done.  It's like the nonsense about calling the corona virus the Chinese Virus or the Wuhan Virus.  It had no effect on dealing with the problem, but the media went crazy over the use of that name.

In the real world, actions are what matter.  It's time that someone told that to the people on social media.

Oil And the Reserve

The USA has a strategic oil reserve that was established many decades ago.  Much of the oil is stored in vast caverns under the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana.  The government has a capacity to hold 713 million barrels of oil.  That's a huge amount.  To put it in context, that's equal to about ten percent of all the oil used in the USA last year. 

As of a month ago, the reserve was not full.  America had storage for about another 80 million barrels of oil.  When the CARES Act was first proposed, President Trump requested that Congress authorize the purchase of enough oil at the current very low price to top off the reserves.  That would have restored our reserves at an amazingly low cost.  The Democrats refused to allow that to happen; they said it was a bail out for the oil companies.  While it is true that buying the oil would have helped the US oil industry, it would also have been a win for US readiness in the case of a catastrophe.  It's the same sort of reserve that should have had more personal protective equipment and masks prior to the corona virus outbreak, you know, the reserve that the Democrats have been complaining about because it was not filled to the brim.  It seems that a reserve of medical supplies has to be up to the top, but a reserve of critical materials can't be replenished even at low prices not seen for the last 40 years.

In any event, when the Dems blocked money for the purchase of oil supplies for the reserve, the President didn't miss a beat.  He used his existing authority to open up the reserve to storage of oil being produced by companies across the USA.  He's renting out the empty storage facilities so the oil companies have a place to put their production during the current virus-caused glut in oil.  The oil companies get a place to put their oil, the US gets fees for storing the oil, and -- most important -- the millions of people whose jobs come from the oil and gas industry continue to work rather than getting furloughed.  It's still a win-win situation.

I'm writing about this today because as usual, the meanstream media is getting the story wrong.  If you look at articles today, you will see it reported that the USA is buying oil to fill the reserve.  Nope, that's wrong.  The USA is renting storage area to American oil companies so as to preserve jobs for those in the oil industry.  Buying the oil at the current low price would have been a great move for the USA, but the Dems blocked it in order to try to punish the oil companies and, of course, the workers of that industry.  President Trump found a way around the Dems so the government could preserve those jobs.

Once again, the Dems blocked actions that would have helped ordinary American working people. Even so, Trump got a win for the country.

Suspending Immigration

The President tweeted that because of the virus and massive unemployment, he is going to sign an Executive Order suspending immigration into the USA temporarily.  In response, we've gotten the expected rash of outrage from many Democrats about how Trump and Republicans hate immigrants.  It's the same stuff they said about Trump's attempts to end the flow of illegal aliens into our country.

I wish he didn't do it, but I'm impressed that he did.

First, let's look at the facts. 

1.  Right now, there are very few, if any, immigrants arriving in America.  There's almost no flights coming in from abroad.  The borders with Mexico and Canada are still closed.  There's basically no way in.  As a result, a temporary suspension doesn't really affect much.  As the country reopens over the next few months, however, that situation will change.

2.  There are tens of millions of people unemployed across the country.  We don't know how many will be able to go back to work once we reopen, but it is safe to say that there are going to be many millions who won't get their jobs back because their employers went out of business.  The last thing we need are more people coming here looking for work.

3.  Conditions around the world are also going to be poor over the next year.  That would normally be a driver of high immigration to the USA.

So what does this all mean?  By stopping immigration temporarily, the President is making it easier for Americans and green card holders already here to get back to work.  It will take a major source of extra workers out of the equation. 

Even so, this is a move that is likely to hurt Trump politically.  While the Dems were busy attacking Trump in his fight against illegal aliens, he always said that he supported legal immigration.  With this one move, he gives the Dems ammunition to claim that is not true.  By doing the right thing for the American people, he plays into the hands of the Dems.  It's not often that we've had a president who would do the right thing for the American people even though it would hurt him politically.

The Left NEVER Gives Up

I just read an article predicting that foreign policy will be the main issue in the 2020 election.  To be fair, the left wing "expert" who wrote the piece says that foreign policy will underlie the main issues that will decide the election, not that direct foreign policy will control.

It's a bizarre position.  In the last 50 years, foreign policy has never been the controlling issue in a presidential election.  The closest we've come was 48 years ago when Richard Nixon beat George McGovern by labeling him as someone who wanted unilateral disarmament in the middle of the Cold War and the hot Vietnam War.  Even so, it was more revulsion at McGovern's far left domestic policies and support for disruptive protesters that led to his crushing loss.

Nevertheless, we're told in the article that President Trump has spent much of this year focusing on foreign policy.  According to the author Trump divided the world by calling the corona virus the "China virus".  (Oh, the horror.)  Trump also peremptorily barred travel to the USA from China and from Europe.  And let's not forget Trump's "anti-trade" rhetoric and his "anti-NATO" rhetoric.  Somehow, working out new and improved trade deals for the USA with a long list of countries is "anti-trade" just like asking NATO countries to honor their treaty obligations by funding their own military forces is "anti-NATO" rhetoric.  As I said above, it's bizarre.

Think about it.  Here's an so called "expert" who is still upset that Trump cut off travel to the US from China and Europe in the face of the pandemic.  That was the original leftist position, and this guy is sticking to it no matter the actual facts.  Setting the basis for increased trade is "anti-trade" because Trump did it.  Strengthening NATO through increased participation of all NATO countries is "anti-NATO" because again, Trump did it.

I'm sure that somewhere, there must be professors who teach International Relations who are stuck at home because of the virus.  They miss the faculty club where they can hobnob with the colleagues who share every one of their opinions to the same extent as if they had all attended the same re-education camp in China and had the views indelibly etched into their brains.  They must be sitting at their desks shaking their heads in agreement as they read this nonsense.  The truth, though, is that no sane and thinking person would ever accept the claptrap being put forth as "expert" opinion in this article. 

Let's be clear.  What is going to decide the 2020 election is the answer by the American people to this question:  Which candidate do you think will have greater success in restoring the USA to prosperity following the major damage done to the economy by the virus shutdown?  If the answer to that question is Trump; he will win.  If the answer to that question is Biden, he will win.  Sure, there will be some voters who make their selections on other issues, but the deciding block (and it will be huge) will focus one way or another on this question.  Foreign policy won't matter -- assuming we are not in a major war.  The past won't matter except as it informs the answer the this question.  This election, like every single one for the last century will be a decision about the future of America, not about the past.

Ruth's Chris And the PPP

The big anger of the moment is that Ruth's Chris, Shake Shack and Potbelly have gotten loans under the Payroll Protection Program or PPP.  The PPP was designated for small businesses which are those with fewer than 500 employees.  Congress, however, put an exception for restaurants in the law that allowed those with no more than 500 at any one location to be included in those eligible for loans.  That's how larger public companies the three mentioned above got those loans.  This wasn't favoritism for big business, despite what the screamers on the left are now screaming.  It was completely in accord with the law that Congress passed unanimously.  Let me say that again; it passed unanimously.  Every Democrat and every Republican voted for this.  It is not some sort of slippery move by the Trump administration, no matter what the screamers are saying today.

The point of the exception for the restaurants was put into the law because it was understood by Congress that restaurants would surely be crushed by the corona virus since they were all ordered to be closed indefinitely.  Many larger chains had multiple locations and the idea was to try to make sure that employees at these locations were able to stay on the payroll instead of going on unemployment.

As often is the case with government programs, there were some crafty people who took advantage of the way the law was drafted.  That's certainly what happened with Ruth's Chris.  That company borrowed 20 million dollars even though the maximum loan is 10 million under the PPP.  Ruth's Chris took loans out under the names of two different subsidiaries so it got double the maximum.  Because the company is so much larger than the expected borrowers, it also didn't get enough to keep the workers all paid.  As a result, Ruth's Chris furloughed most of its employees despite getting the loan.  It still has enough people on the payroll to use the loan for paying salaries, but this really wasn't the kind of situation that was intended when the PPP was passed.

One thing we do know, though.  The large restaurant chains are nearly all public companies.  As such, they have to announce when they get this sort of loan.  Thus far, the only companies to make such and announcement are the three mentioned at the beginning of this article.  That means that $40 million out of $350 billion has gone to the bigger restaurants.  If we assume that the number is actually ten times higher, then it's 400 million out of 350 billion, or just about one tenth of one percent that got distributed in this way -- and the number is likely not that high.

What gets me, though, is not that this sort of cash went out in an unintended manner.  It's the government; every time they spend, cash just leaks out in ways that weren't expected.  I'm bothered by the nonsensical outcry.  If you watch MSNBC, you would think that the payments to Ruth's Chris were some sort of nefarious plot by President Trump.  Even worse though, are the complaints being made now by various Democrats in the House and Senate who are also blaming the administration.  These are the people who VOTED for this law.  They set up the rules, and now they're trying to blame others when those very rules are followed.

This relatively tiny leak of PPP funds in accordance with the law passed by Congress is now being used by the Democrats to try to explain why they continue to block additional funds for the millions of other workers who should be getting funds under the PPP.  It won't fly.  Simply put, this is total BS.  If you boil it down, what the Dems are now saying is "We're unhappy that a tiny percentage of the money we thought would go to workers at small businesses went to larger restaurants instead, so now we won't give more money to the workers at small businesses.  We're going to freeze them out until their employers go under."

It's crazy.

Srop The Politics

The anti-Trump crazies are out in force with a new argument.  Now, these folks are pushing to keep the country closed with ever more stringent regulation because Trump has made clear he wants to reopen.  For this group, if Trump is for something, they have to oppose it no matter what make sense.

Here's a good example:  A large group of New York City councilmen just demanded that the New York subway be shut down for a week or two.  These geniuses want the state to provide "alternative transportation" for critical workers while the Transit Authority uses the shutdown to do a "deep cleaning" of the subways.  I'm no making this up.  Here are a few facts which these councilmen want to ignore:

1.  While the ridership on the subways is down more than 80%, the system is still used by hundreds of thousands of riders each day for essential travel.  Police, doctors, nurses, EMT's, firefighters, grocery store workers, and other types of essential workers don't all live within walking distance of their jobs. 

2.  There is no possible alternative to mass transit in New York City.  Unlike in the rest of the country, the large majority of New York residents don't have cars, so they don't have them for ride-sharing.

3.  The number of cases in New York City is dropping quite quickly over the last week.  If there ever were a good time to shut the subway (and there wasn't), it would have been three weeks ago when the virus was spreading rather than now when it is dying out.

4.  Cleaning the subway would have no effect.  The cars are already disinfected at least daily.  Anyone catching the virus on the subway is getting it from other passengers not from infections welling up from the tracks.

In other words, there is no benefit to closing down the subway, but a major cost and increased danger from doing so.  Nevertheless, these idiots are pushing for a shutdown because Trump wants to reopen, so it must be bad.

People across the country have been taught in the last two months to be afraid of the virus.  It's understandable.  It's a really bad idea and a potentially terrible blow to our country, however, if the anti-Trump crowd decide to play on that fear to try to keep the country closed.  We should be trying for the best balanced outcome for the USA.  It's not a political issue. 

The Pro-Death Idiocy

The crazies are at it again.  People who want to reopen the economy are now labelled "pro-death". 

Here's an example:  Dr. Oz spoke on the news about reopening the schools.  He pointed out that huge numbers of children who depend on schools to get good meals are now at home and "food insecure".  Food insecure is apparently the politically correct way to say hungry and malnourished, maybe even starving.  He also pointed out that particularly in homes where the parents are out of work now and perhaps drinking more than they should, there would likely be a major increase in child abuse.  So far, so good.  But then Dr. Oz said that reopening schools might increase the deaths from corona virus by 2-3%.  That was it; Dr. Oz is now "pro-death".  Most of the outcry came at first from idiots who didn't understand what the doctor said.  The idiots thought he was saying that 2-3% of the children who went back to school would die.  That's wrong.  He's saying that across America, at the end of the pandemic, there might be a figure of total deaths higher by 2-3% than if the schools were not reopened.

Think about that.  There are literally millions of kids who rely on school for good food.  There are likely tens of thousands of kids who will suffer abuse while cooped up in their homes during the pandemic.  And, of course, there are tens of millions of kids who are having a big chunk of time taken from their educations.  That's on the one hand.  On the other hand, there might be 1200-1800 more people dead at the end of the pandemic if the schools reopen.  Nearly all of those "extra" deaths will be of people with serious medical problems already. (Over 90% of those who die from the virus have at least two other serious and life threatening problems like heart disease or severe asthma.)

I think it is safe to say that no one is in favor of more deaths (other than Planned Parenthood.)  That's not the issue here.  The real question is which course of action will be best for our society as a whole.  When our military goes to war, we can't operate on the basis that no one can die.  There will be casualties.  When we consider something mundane like driving, we don't say that people will die in accidents, so we all cannot drive.  No, we have to make socially reasonable choices.  How many people die from alcohol, cigarettes, and the like; still, we don't ban these activities.  During the height of the AIDs epidemic, we didn't ban sexual activity even though that might have saved many lived.

Stating the idea that anyone is pro-death is just a way to try to use fear to win an argument.  It's a foolish and inappropriate way to proceed.

More Good News

There was widespread testing done in a homeless shelter in Massachusetts this past week.  Over a third of the hundreds tested showed positive for the virus.  None had any symptoms, though.  In the four days since the tests, only one person has developed symptom.

Think about that.  It's another of those instances where tests show that the level of infection is much, much higher than was previously thought to be the case. 

This test result was confirmed in another test in MA.  This time people were selected in a small city near Boston at random and given blood tests to determine if they have the antibodies that indicate prior infection by the virus.  Anyone who tests positive in that test either currently has the virus in his or her system or was previously infected and is now cured.  This randomly selected group was found to include 28% with the antibodies.

These are both small scale tests, but if they accurately reflect the true level of infection, they are of amazing importance.

1.  If 30% or so of Americans have been infected by the virus, then social distancing has been a failure.  It didn't stop the spread of the virus.  It also means that it is no longer necessary and can end NOW.  Someone who is in a high risk group and who tests negative for the antibodies can still isolate themselves, but the average person can go back to work or school.  There's no point to keeping the economy shut down if the virus is spreading anyway.

2.  Again, if 30 % have been infected, then the mortality rate is very low.  30% of the US population is 100 million people.  Even with 40,000 deaths, that means that only 1 out of every 2500 people who get infected have died.  That's much less than the flu.  It's not a reason to shut down the country.

3.  Finally, if 30% have already been infected, then we are well on our way towards developing herd immunity, the point where the virus stops spreading because so many of its targets are immune.

Look, I'm not saying that 30% have actually been infected, but these two small tests would indicate that.  There needs to be immediate widespread testing to get the actual numbers here.  We may find that corona virus is an extremely contagious virus that rarely causes symptoms and even more rarely causes death.  It could change everything we are doing with regard to the illness.

Oh So Out of It -- The Joe Biden Story

It's really amazing how totally out of it Joe Biden is.  Here's a good example that shows that Biden doesn't know what is going on around him.

Yesterday, Biden tweeted that America needs to provide paid sick leave to those hit with the Corona virus.

Joe Biden

@JoeBiden

· Apr 17

We’re in the middle of a global pandemic. No one feeling ill should have to choose between earning a paycheck or staying home to recover. We need to provide paid sick leave to everyone who needs it immediately.

Around a month ago, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act went into effect.  That law provides exactly what Biden is now saying we have to do.  Specifically, the month old act grants full sick leave for two weeks to workers quarantined or home with symptoms awaiting a diagnosis.  It also provides coverage for workers who have to stay home to care for someone quarantined with the virus or to care for a child whose school is closed due to the virus.

It's embarrassing that Biden would send a tweet calling for a new law when that law already exists.  Doesn't Biden pay attention to how the government is dealing with corona virus?  It sure seems not.  Further, since I doubt Biden actually wrote this tweet himself, don't his staff pay attention to the government response to the virus?

Biden is either clearly out of it or both he and his staff are.  It's a tragedy for the country that someone like Biden is one of our options for president.

Confirmation of Seasonality?

The Department of Homeland Security released information about a large study that shows that the corona virus decays much more quickly at higher temperatures and higher humidity.  Direct sunlight was particularly effective in destroying the virus. 

This is extremely significant.  It means that this virus should operate in much the same way as the flu virus, namely it should essentially disappear during the summer.  As the weather gets warmer and the humidity rises, it will become much harder for the virus to spread because most of the virus will be destroyed by those temperatures and humidity.  Further, as the number of sunny days increases, the added effect of direct sunlight on the virus will further hamper the spread.

This effect may actually explain the difference in the hot spot outbreak in New York and New Orleans.  The virus spread in the New York area during the winter.  In New Orleans, though, the big explosion of cases came at a point when it was already warmer.  It may be that the arrival of Spring weather in NOLA was the reason why the hotspot there fizzled out while the New York hotspot went on to spread to far.

This is just one study, but if the virus is truly seasonal, this is wonderful news.  

The Spin Is Dizzying

You really have to hand it to the meanstream media and the Democrats; no matter what President Trump does, they KNOW it is wrong.  If the President learned how to walk on water, they would criticize him for putting lifeguards out of work.  They spin so much criticism towards Trump that they don't seem to have time to worry about consistency or accuracy.

Let's look at a good example from the past few days.  President Trump said he had the power to order the lifting of the restrictions that closed down the economy.  The media went crazy and so did many Democrats.  Surely, you saw the articles and statements about how Trump had claimed to be a king with absolute power.  We got pundits discussing the Tenth Amendment (which actually has nothing to do with the question).  There was massive hysteria from the media/Dem collective.  And remember, these were the same people who just a week or so earlier had been pushing for the President to order all states to shut down.  That means that two weeks ago, Trump had the power to control state economies, but this week he didn't -- at least according to the media/Dem collective.  After a day or so of telling us how Trump had no power, we got the new guidelines from the White House on reopening.  The President offered guidelines and also support for states, but he put the decision on when and how to proceed on the nation's governors.  That was it; the media/Dem collective sprang back into action.  Now they were hysterical because Trump didn't issue nationwide directives telling the governors what to do.  The man who the day before had no power -- or so we were told -- was now at fault for not exercising that same power.

And the facts also seem not to matter.  The media/Dem collective is now hung up on testing and how it is "inadequate" to allow for reopening.  Yesterday, nearly the entire briefing from the White House was devoted to explaining the status of testing in the USA and the level of supplies available.  They also explained the kinds of testing to be done and the methodology for deciding what tests would be needed and what other methods would provide warning if the virus were making a reappearance.  It was an amazing presentation that concluded with the scientists saying that the US has enough testing to move into the first phase of the reopening.  But it didn't matter.  The media/Dem collective just continued on discussing that there was inadequate testing.  Some actually repeated the idea that everyone in the USA needs to be tested before we can reopen the country.  That's not even close to correct.

I've decided that the media/Dem collective should adopt a new slogan:  "Intelligence is futile"

A Strange Lineup -- Growth and Freedom vs. Imprisonment and Despair

It has been a strange 24 hours since the new open America guidelines were issued by the White House.  The President and his team released the new guidelines for reopening the country at yesterday's corona virus briefing in DC.  Almost immediately, the media and the Dems drew the battlelines for the coming months.  Trump and the GOP are lined up to push for returning to normal as quickly as possible in a way that adequately safeguard the nation's health.  The left, however, is taking the line that we cannot have a return to life as normal if it means even one more death from the virus.  The President wants more open with people returning to work.  The left wants more testing with a long delay until people are allowed out of their homes.  The President and his team are pushing for growth and freedom while the left pushes for extreme caution in the name of health combined with imprisonment and despair.  It's a truly strange battlefield.

This positioning was easy to spot coming.  For the last two weeks, the left has been trying to deny reality and claim that Trump did nothing to fight the virus until it was just too late and that people died as a result of his inaction.  "There have been not enough tests" they screamed.  "There is no PPE" was another scream from the left.  "There are insufficient ventilators" was another favorite.  And the lack of tests and PPE and ventilators have all been piled on Trump.  Lately, the "experts" from the left told anyone who would listen that we could not open up until we had massive testing across the country with contact tracing to follow up on anyone found to be positive.  Sure, that argument on testing tends to look silly as the number of tests given passes the four million total, but that doesn't matter.  The left knows that their media allies will cover for them and repeat the "need" for all this additional testing.  Of course, this testing argument is still being offered today.  I've heard at least five times in the media today that the reopening push from the White House is irresponsible because we just don't have the massive testing apparatus.

Once again, the Left has not bothered to listen.  At yesterday's briefing, there was a great response to all the testing hysteria.  Dr. Birx explained that the CDC already has a system of tracking flu-like illnesses seen at medical facilities.  The instances covered by this system would include corona virus cases.  Since we are now in the summer season when there is no flu, this CDC system will function as an early warning system for any flare up in the corona virus.  It won't matter which people get tested; the system covers the entire country and doctors and hospitals are totally familiar with how it works.  It's a better system than the massive testing that the left has been pushing.  Even so, the Dems and the media are still pushing for the testing.  They haven't yet realized that their point is just wrong.

More important than a fight about testing though, is the overall fight between freedom and imprisonment.  Sure, there are going to be many timid souls who will want to stay home and hide rather than venturing back to work.  The number of such people, though, will decline quickly as others go back to work without bad consequences. 

Imagine, now, a late spring and early summer with some states with Democrat governors trying to keep everyone home and closed while other states are open and getting back to work.  There are going to be a lot of very restless and unhappy people in the shuttered states, not to mention extreme poverty for many.  I will likely play out very poorly for the Dems if they keep up this position.

Of course, there's a risk here.  If it were to turn out that states that open get hit with massive spikes in cases, then the result could be the exact opposite.  No one can guarantee either outcome, but I have to believe that the people on the task force would not recommend their plan to the president unless is had a high likelihood of success.