Presidential Election Fraud. What's To Be Done?

The evidence that points to the recent election having been fraudulent is obvious and massive to all who are interested in looking. It includes video and photographic evidence, more than a thousand sworn affidavits of irregular activity in the ballot counting, the discovery of many thousands of verifiably illegal voters, voting machines that are demonstrably manipulatable, and so forth. Those who have passionate hatred of Mr. Trump will have none of it. The major media have no interest in investigating the situation, and along with social networking mega billionaires have been actively working to discredit the claims of foul play. The judiciary, preferring to see the issue handled by the politicians, has kept hands off by refusing to hear the cases which have been brought to them on technical grounds rather than stepping into the minefield of controversy that would result from an actual review of the evidence.

 

The problem on the other hand is that there are those of us who, putting his idiosyncrasies aside, very much like the President's actions and policies, which were effective in turning the country away from a very corrupt, decadent, and self-destructive direction.  Those many millions of us have taken the trouble to look at and listen to the evidence being presented of a flawed election and find it convincing. It is our belief that those who are making light of the evidence haven't in fact had any interest in examining it and are willing to simply accept the reassurance of the overtly politically biased major media and State executives.

 

What's to be done about this divide in viewpoints? Well, we have a precedent of sorts. After 2016 we had a Special Council who was given unlimited time and resources to investigate a claim of meddling in the campaign, a charge far less serious than the present one of actual illegal vote meddling and fraud. The problem with that approach is that it would come after the new administration had been established, which would leave us in a difficult situation even if fraud were unequivocally proven.

 

Although Democrats have turned a blind eye to the voluminous evidence of cheating, they must in their hearts understand the well-known peculiarities that point in that direction. The dramatic difference in enthusiasm for the candidates, the groundwork for cheating laid in the poorly supervised mail-in balloting procedures, the discrepancy in the showing for Mr. Trump vs. the large gains by Republicans in down ballot offices, the unusually high proportion of support by minority voters, the distribution of Mr. Biden's  gigantic success in major urban areas of key swing states as opposed to his significant losses in other usually bellwether states and counties, the resistance to allowing for accurate inspection of the voting procedures, the appearance of sudden bursts of ballots in early morning hours giving support to Mr. Biden in improbable percentages, the failures in maintaining custody control of the ballots, the reluctance to allow IT inspectors to review the contents of the voting machines, and more, are problematical signs that should incentivize those who claim to be concerned about the sanctity of our election process to take a closer look at the actual concrete evidence, however reluctantly. It is hard not to conclude that those who consider Mr. Trump to be a malevolent, bigoted, almost inhuman brute feel justified in turning him out of office by whatever means are necessary. The ends justify the means.

 

Those of us who are concerned about the integrity of this election have been told that what's done is done and that we must "move on". But those who tell us that fail to understand that the objection of millions of their fellow citizens is not so much that it is being declared that our candidate has lost, as that we are fairly convinced that we have had our sacrosanct voting right stolen. So, we are not going to "move on". Somehow this matter must be given a serious investigation with appropriate redress if major irregularities are verified.

 

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

The Election, Fair or Fraudulent?

In 2016 Hillary Clinton and the Democrat party claimed that Mr. Trump won the Presidential election by subterfuge and that he was an illegitimate President. The basis of their complaint was that Russian agents had interfered in the election, such as by placing fake social media posts, and that Mr. Trump had made a secret arrangement with Russian President Putin for this purpose in exchange for benefits to Russia in American foreign policy. This charge, as we all know, was investigated intensely for 2 1/2 years and no evidence was found to support it.

 

In 2020 we have the reverse situation in which the President and his party are claiming that massive election fraud produced the result. To be sure considerable circumstantial evidence raises that suspicion. In light of the large success of the Republicans in the Congressional and State legislatures, the significant loss of the man at the top of the ticket makes one wonder. His substantial success in bellwether states such as Ohio and Florida, as well as the large majority of usually bellwether counties around the country, raises suspicion as to why he did so overwhelmingly poorly in key large Democrat urban areas in selected swing States, especially considering the increase in support for him from the usually stalwart Democrat base of minority voters in other parts of the country. The massive middle of the night infusions of overwhelmingly large Biden votes which overcame Mr. Trump's early significant lead is strange. One would wonder why the dramatic increase in mail in balloting, purportedly to counteract the risk of COVID, would so enormously attract Democrats over Republicans. Also, there is the matter of the voting machines which have been shown to possess multiple vulnerabilities that could be used for fraudulent actions.

 

But what about real evidence. The Republican challenge have taken two lines, first the occurrence of numerous procedural irregularities that contradicted election law, and secondly actual discoveries of fraudulent behavior in the votes themselves. 

 

The first line covers areas such as changes in voting procedures by State election officials that contradict State laws and constitutional provisions, as well as numerous instances in which vote tabulation was carried out apart from the legally obligatory party observers. In the second case Republicans claim to have uncovered large numbers of illegal votes such as from deceased persons, out of state residents, underage and non-citizen voters and double voting. There are numerous testimonies from individuals who claim that votes in their names were cast falsely.

 

Numerous court challenges along these lines have been rejected, but largely on the basis of technical problems such as excessive delay or lack of standing. The courts generally seem to be reluctant to take the momentous step of actually judging the cases on the merit of their claims. To be sure, the Republicans seem to have been caught flat-footed and are late to the game in challenging violations in election law, particularly in the adoption of massive mail in balloting procedures which were an open invitation to cheating. It would have been much better to have strict identification, monitoring and chain of custody regulations in place before the election with invalidation of votes being the penalty for flaunting them.

 

But what of the Republican's claims of thousands of illegal votes? It seems it would be easy enough to evaluate their evidence. If it is not convincing that will be that, but if it is how can we accept the results of such an election? Mr. Trump's allies are for now continuing to fight, but It seems more and more likely that the Democrats will prevail in convincing the country that what's done is done without any further investigation such as was carried out after the 2016 election. Our country has historically been freewheeling characterized by strong local control, but is it possible that in America in 2020 that we cannot carry out a fair general election that can be accepted by all sides?

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Should Trump Supporters Just "Move on" from the Cheating?

The Trump campaign recently filed a lawsuit in Georgia. The suit includes (and here I quote from another article detailing the elements of the case):

"affidavits from dozens of Georgia residents attesting, under penalty of perjury, to large numbers of voting irregularities, from failure to verify signatures on absentee ballots to the appearance of "pristine" absentee ballots not received in official absentee ballot envelopes. Those ballots being almost exclusively for Joe Biden.

Data experts also provided sworn testimony that identified more than 150,000 illegal votes, to wit, votes from 2,560 felons, 66,247 votes from underage voters, 2,423 votes from people not registered to vote, 1,043 individuals registered at post office boxes, 4,926 individuals who voted in Georgia after registering in another state, 395 individuals who voted in two states, 15,700 votes from people who had moved out of the state before the election, 40,279 votes of people who moved without re-registering in their new county, and another 30,000 to 40,000 absentee ballots that lacked proper signature matching and verification."

I would reemphasize that these charges are not claims from Trump campaign operatives. They are testified to by ordinary citizens, under penalty of perjury if they are making things up. If even only a portion of these findings were verified, they would far exceed the 12,000 votes by which Mr. Biden was reported to have won the state. Similar situations exist in the other battleground states.

What should Trump supporters do with such information? Should we just say "Oh well, he lost, so we'll just forget about it until 2024" Let me ask the critics who appear to feel that's what should be done – what would Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, as well as their major media and movie star supporters, have done with such information in 2016?

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

The Election Problems Will Continue

It's an understandable assumption that cheating has always gone on in our elections and that this year's election is more of the same but unlikely to change the election results. If you think that it wouldn't be surprising, since the major media's not covering the issue and are accepting the claims of highly partial election officials that all is well and that this year's election was the cleanest ever.

 

But take the trouble to watch and listen to some of the hearings on the matter going on in the various swing states. Watch the sworn testimony of witness after witness, under penalty of perjury, all well-spoken and appearing credible, of all races and genders, regarding the corruption they observed, or the serious vulnerability of the voting machines being used. Hear the evidence of the discovery and documentation of very large amounts of illegal voting. The amount of corruption involved is astounding, for the present seems incontrovertible, and is easily enough to overturn the elections in at least some of the states in question.

 

What's to be done about it is the question. Mr. Biden and the Democrats are rushing full speed ahead to consolidate his position as "President Elect" and time is running short until a President must be inaugurated. Democrats, naturally, and their media allies are averting their eyes. There is the potential for State legislatures or the Supreme Court to act, but action by either, even with solid evidence, would take courage.

 

On the other hand, as Mr. Giuliani has pointed out, it would be surprising if the election officials in all these states devised these subterfuges independently. If Mr. Biden is inaugurated investigations are very likely to continue by the Senate, Republican legislatures and Mr. Trump's forces, and in due time if a conspiracy is clearly uncovered, we would be in uncharted territory.

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

How Covid-19 Spreads. The Effect Of Lockdowns.

Here's a chart of the new COVID cases in the various states relative to the population over the past 7 days. The darker the color, the greater the number. The geographic distribution is striking. The history of the virus activity since March is one of moving from one area of the country to another, first the Northeast, then the South and West, and now the Mid-West and Mountain states. The only exception is New Mexico which initially escaped the involvement in the Southwest, but now has more intense infection.

What explains this? Why, as the virus spreads from one area to the next, doesn't it simply persist and grow worse in the new site. Why does it appear to die away and move on? I like the explanation that in every community there is variation in susceptibility so that when it enters there is a large outbreak followed by a dying down as the virus encounters more resistant individuals. To be sure this is the usual behavior of epidemic illnesses. There is considerable scientific justification for this idea. It's becoming increasingly clear from studies of T cell reactivity to the virus that resistance is much more prevalent than previously thought and may be seen even before any possible previous exposure, perhaps from contact with other common coronaviruses. T cells are recruited against the virus invaders early on, often before antibodies appear and probably confer much longer lasting immunity than is suggested by antibody presence. Some of this might begin to explain the puzzling low incidence of infection in children and the likelihood of only mild symptoms in younger individuals.

This new understanding suggests that lockdowns in rapidly worsening areas may be necessary early on to prevent overwhelming of the medical facilities, but if continued beyond that may be a setup for recurrences. As social interaction resumes the virus encounters individuals previously unexposed and susceptible and surges, as we saw recently happening in Europe and some Northeastern states. Consistent with this idea is that cases now seem to be leveling off or declining in most of these areas. Considering all of this, as some experts contend, should our public health strategy be to concentrate our preventive efforts and vaccine administration when available to those at high risk and otherwise allow more general immunity to develop, and at the same time avoiding the many serious consequences of intense societal lockdowns.

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Do Masks Give Protection. A New Negative Study.

To mask or not to mask. That is the scientific question. Early on in the infection we were told by both the WHO and Dr. Fauci that masks did not help and had some negative effects, including giving a false sense of security and encouraging facial touching. There has now been a complete 180 such that not only are the 2 authorities mentioned above advising masks but CDC head, Dr. Robert Redfield, said in September that masks are a more effective tool than a vaccine. At this point various state authorities, citing "the science" have gone whole hog and are requiring mask wearing indoors on Thanksgiving, and also while eating, carefully lowering the mask between bites.

 

But what about "the science"? Well, up until now there has been precious little to support an almost puritanical trust in masking as a major key to controlling our modern-day plague. The number of supporting studies are few, and all of the observational variety, the type that was disparaged as being of little value in the great hydroxychloroquine debate.

 

But now we have an honest to goodness randomized controlled trial on the subject, the first of this type to be done, from Denmark, carried out in the spring and eventually published only a couple of days ago in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The study randomized 2 large groups of people, one of which wore no masks, and the other of which was given a large supply of surgical masks and was asked to wear them full time, and then the number of subsequent infections in the two groups was observed. There was no meaningful difference.

 

This finding does not sit well with the authorities in academic medical circles as reflected in 2 accompanying editorials commenting on the findings, and nevertheless recommending continued universal mask wearing. Some points are well taken, such as that the study was conducted during a time when there was as yet little mask wearing in the community so that perhaps it might not apply where there was general mask wearing. On the other hand, the mask-wearing group in this study was given a large supply of high quality surgical masks which were not reused and was carefully instructed in the proper technique of mask use, such as avoiding touching them when putting them on and off and many other precautions which are not followed at all in the general mask wearing we presently see around us.

 

The negative findings in this study are buttressed by a study of about 300 patients by the CDC in July which found that extended mask wearing seemed to give little protection from contracting the disease.  Indeed, the common experience of a rising number of cases in areas where there is a fairly high amount of mask wearing suggests the same conclusion. It should be pointed out that the new Danish study says nothing about the question of whether masks prevent an infected person from passing on the germ, but just that evidence for a protective function in those wearing them is weak.

 

A major problem with this issue, like everything connected to the epidemic, is that it has become political. Mr. Trump early on eschewed mask usage seeing that he and everyone around him was being tested regularly, so that mask wearing has become to some extent symbolic of one's political feelings. Mr. Biden has made it a fetish, a reflection of his earnestness in his contention that Mr. Trump bears the responsibility for our troubles. Personally, I'm somewhat neutral. I don't like wearing a mask, and I have plenty of company there, and I think that the appearance of everyone walking around wearing a mask is strangely inhuman. On the other hand, I carry one in my pocket and put it on when the sign says to do it, which is almost everywhere. At the same time, I couldn't disagree more with Dr. Redfield that general mask wearing will prove to be more helpful than the new vaccines waiting in the wings.

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

The Biden Administration's Insipid Ideas For Coronavirus.

Dr. Atul Gawande, a reliable liberal who will be a Biden advisor, thinks the key to control will be mask wearing. What? Does Dr Gawande not know that 34 states, especially those with the most viral activity,  presently have mask-wearing mandates. Furthermore, in southwest Florida where I am at present, and which does not have a mask mandate, there's not a single business establishment you can enter without a mask. Masks are everywhere, with many wearing them on the street, alone in their car, and running in the park. If masks are the answer, how is it then that the virus is increasing, and more so in the states with the mask mandates?

Here's what Dr. Videk Murthy, Co-chair of Mr. Biden's advisory team describes as their plan: "(it) involves expanding testing capacity, increasing contact tracing, ramping up the production of personal protective equipment, and issuing guidance." Is this insipid list the answer to our problem that somehow escaped the notice of President Trump?

Dr. Murthy said in an interview that Mr. Biden does not want to have a national lockdown after all but that. "the way we should be thinking about this is more like a series of restrictions that we dial up or down depending on how bad spread is taking place in a specific region," 

So I guess the idea is that now the federal bureaucracy is going to decide on high what we out here in podunk are to do and how we are to do it, instead of the state and local governments who know the situation on the ground.

This is all so dumb, dumb, dumb. Assuming the legal challenges to the election results don't manage to succeed, (and I fervently hope and pray that they do), it looks as if we've decided to put in charge of the problem a whole new bureaucracy with less experience, no new ideas, and a leader who's never accomplished anything in the real world

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Recent Coronavirus Statistics. Is President Trump To Blame?

Joe Biden in the campaign held the President responsible for the deaths of 200,000 Americans. Biden supporters agreed, complaining that Mr. Trump's laxity in addressing the coronavirus problem was evident, considering the better results in the rest of the advanced countries.

But the counting isn't over yet folks. Let's look at some recent statistics:

In the U.S. cases are indeed rising moderately but significantly. Of course, as we all are aware, the case count is not the important statistic, and far more telling is the hospitalization rate, and even more important the death rate. Even the death count is a problem since we have precious little information about what associated conditions were also affecting the deceased. However, accepting the death count at face value, not just cases but also deaths in the U.S. are rising modestly over the past 3 weeks.

But how about all the other countries which liberals hold up as models of effective government action and centrally controlled medical systems. Well here are a bunch of countries where the case rate and death rate is rising faster than in the U.S.: U.K., Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, and – you get the picture. And, Oh yes, I left out the bestest of the best, Canada. You might notice one European country missing – Sweden, the pariah which ignored all the experts and did not do the forced lockdown and mask wearing. Their cases are rising with all the others. It's hard to avoid since people have increasingly been moving around Europe. Early on they appeared to be paying a price for their renegade strategy, but, unlike the other European countries their death rate over the past 2 months or so is remarkably low, including at present. Over the past 5 days Sweden reports 34 deaths, whereas Italy, which had undergone a very strict lockdown, reports 2,315 over the same period. Italy's population is 6 times that of Sweden, but you do the math. There is a lesson there I think but time will tell.

Looking at the U.S. more specifically, we have somewhat of a mixed bag. The major viral activity began in the New York Metro area, later migrated into the South and has now migrated into the Mid-West and Mountain States. By comparison in Florida, Texas and California the case counts are going up a bit, but the death trend is either stable or continuing down. Perhaps not surprisingly, as they relaxed a bit from their previous more strict lockdowns, there's a recurrence in the Northeast. And guess which Northeast state is having the biggest recurrence, in both cases and deaths, relative to population. None other than New York, the leadership of which has previously been held up as a model of success.

All this is not being said to minimize the severe impact of this epidemic, particularly in older people with chronic illness. Far from it. The illness is continuing to impact the lives of millions, interestingly predominantly in the more advanced Western countries. But the present statistics strongly point out that the charge that the President's response to the virus was lacking and worsened the situation in the U.S. is absolute nonsense. In fact, if one reviews the totality of his actions, which space will not allow, he did a very good job and has saved lives accordingly.

Were mistakes made in the midst of this unexpected, unknown and totally unpredictable situation? Of course they were. On Mr. Trump's part he was guilty of wishful thinking early on, but this feeling did not reflect in his many strong, forceful actions such as one would expect in a man used to solving problems.

But significant mistakes and misjudgments were made by many of our authority figures, including the CDC, the FDA, the WHO, Dr Fauci, and many of the President's political critics such as Speaker Pelosi and Mayor DeBlasio. And who can forget the colossal nursing home error of Governor Cuomo.

In the end President Xi Jinping has taken his revenge on Mr. Trump whose dramatically good economic results were turned to ashes by the Chinese originated virus. The infection has been a giant political gift to the Democrats and they have milked it for all it's worth. In their defense, what they've done is similar to what the Republicans most certainly would have done had it happened during the Obama administration. I can't excuse the major media so lightly. In this crisis they have totally failed us.

By the way, anyone who wants to take the trouble to investigate all this data can find it primarily at:

 

https://www.bing.com/search?q=coronavirus+trends&cvid=e01e34b607294eb1a2cdc3c29fd954cf&FORM=ANSPA1&PC=U531

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Facebook Should Not Be A Censor

I just saw a video on Facebook sent by a friend which was commentary by a doctor with pretty good credentials who was making a fairly shocking, but at the same time informational, critique of the new Pfizer vaccine and coronavirus vaccines in general.

When you open the file you must first look at a screen from Facebook stating that the information in the video is false and referring you to a fact check organization. Then you are allowed to open it.

 

Don't the Facebook developers see how destructive this practice is, how it immediately irritates people who want to think for themselves, and in fact enhances the credibility of the video by suggesting that they are trying to hide it? Don't they understand that they are expected to be a forum for open communication and not a regulator of what we see and think?

 

I would have no problem with the Facebook people, if they feel the information is false, recruiting another expert to provide in the comment area an opposing commentary on the post or who might direct readers through a link to an alternative video from another expert rebutting the information, and let us decide for ourselves.

 

If those who run Facebook, and the other social media sites, don't understand that many of us are not particularly interested in their point of view and that in this free country, whose survival depends on the free flow of information and open debate, then they need to have serious competition and perhaps consideration of antitrust action or at least removal of any government protection they might presently enjoy.

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

The Bidens, Burisma and Bad Vibes. The Biden Scandal Widens.

The circumstances of the Burisma payments to Hunter Biden for no apparent reason together with his father's strange boasting in public about using U.S. foreign aid money to force the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor smelled to high heaven. But the lack of direct evidence linking the two parts of this picture, together with the disinterest of the major media, made it easy enough for the senior Mr. Biden to deny any knowledge of his son's activities and to claim, without any particular details, that the matter had been investigated and debunked.

The story excited much interest in conservative circles and the keen interest of the President but up to now has played little part in the fury of arguments in the election campaign. In fact, the impeachment of the President by the Democrats was based largely on his requesting the help of the newly elected Ukrainian president in investigating the matter. Neither the accusers nor the defenders seemed to pay much attention to the issue of whether the President's inquiries were appropriate considering the potential seriousness of the charges. During the presidential debate Mr. Trump tried to resurrect the issue, over the objections of the moderator, and was roundly criticized, by many liberals in particular, for stooping so low as to attack his contender's family.

There now appears new evidence that the suspicions were true, and that Mr. Biden's actions while he was Vice President were even more corrupt than previously suspected. A treasure trove of Hunter Biden's emails have surfaced which, if true, indicate that Mr. Biden was providing access to himself to foreign entities, including Ukraine, Russia and China, and was adjusting U.S. policy in exchange for large money payments to his son and possibly directly to himself.

Thus far the major news media have tried to ignore the story and the social media have actively suppressed discussion of it. However, these allegations come not from a supermarket tabloid or an inconsequential conservative website but from major news sources which have the resources to investigate and reputations at serious risk if they get it wrong. They have been cautious about making claims about the veracity of these allegations and very transparent about their sources, but Mr. Tucker Carlson last night claimed that there is now incontrovertible evidence that the emails in question are truly those of Hunter Biden and accurately document his activities.

How important is all of this? Well let's put it this way. Although I am a strong supporter of Mr. Trump, had evidence been uncovered that he indeed had an arrangement with Mr. Putin to provide election help in exchange for money payment or favorable U.S. policy, I would have had no alternative than to accept the Democrat's calls for impeachment or resignation.

The event is reminiscent of the situation of Richard Nixon whose deception was uncovered and pursued by two tenacious Washington Post reporters. The position of Mr. Nixon, who had won the election of 1972 in a landslide victory, was slowly but surely eroded by the steady accumulation of evidence to the point where he lost the support of the public and thereby his political supporters and was forced to resign. Mr. Nixon's offense was arguably much less serious than that of which Mr. Biden is accused.

What happens next? It's hard to imagine that if the allegations are proved to be true that Mr. Biden could remain viable as either a candidate or an elected President. But a significant number of individuals have already voted, and others will soon follow suit. With the final election day only two weeks away the Democrats and their media allies may try to put off discussion as long as possible in the hopes that the findings will influence a small enough portion of the electorate that Mr. Biden will be elected. After that, if the story lives on and intensifies, he can be sacrificed but the Executive branch will now be in Democrat hands which seems clearly to be their real interest rather than any particular devotion to their candidate.

Can they pull it off? We'll see. News travels dramatically faster in our digital age than it did in the 1970's. Even the attempt of the Silicon Valley social media to suppress the new findings seemed to serve only to bring them more to the public's attention. It took the news media several months to bring down Mr. Nixon, but it will surely be an item on tomorrow's Sunday news shows. Furthermore, somewhere very soon the major media will find it untenable not to take up the matter and Mr. Biden is going to have to be asked for an explanation. Surely the matter will come up in the second Presidential debate, assuming there is one, if not from the moderator, at least by Mr. Trump. His supporters are hopeful that his frustration with the forces allied against him, including perhaps the moderator, will not stimulate intemperate remarks but that he will be calm and factual and allow Mr. Biden to cook his own goose.

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

The Election and the Economy

It makes my head spin to hear Joe Biden and Kamala Harris blame our present economic downturn on the President rather than to our response to the virus which has crashed economies the world over. Could anyone really be gullible enough to accept that argument? Old Joe is famous for his whoppers, but I think only the most rabid Trump hater would have his eyes and ears covered enough to believe that one. Unless you were asleep like Rip Van Winkle you would recall that pre-virus the economy was roaring with GDP over 3%, burgeoning stock values,  increases in manufacturing, full employment especially for minorities, increasing wages and stable prices, and energy independence. All this was based on Trumpian policies of decreasing regulations and taxes, making better trade deals and yes, the so-called "tax break for the rich" cutting the corporate tax rate to competitive levels to incentivize large companies to return home.

 

Mr. Biden has been heard to make the claim that all this abrupt economic progress was actually based on policies put in place by the previous administration, another big Biden whopper. Obama-Biden took over in a housing bust recession which typically would be expected to swing back fairly dramatically but instead the recovery was anemic. Mr. Obama explained that the time of American dominance in manufacturing with lots of blue-collar jobs was over and mocked Mr. Trump during the 2016 campaign for lacking a magic wand to bring them back.

 

Despite this record Mr. Biden loudly proclaims in his incessant ads that it is he who will have us buy American and save manufacturing as if he had completely missed, or maybe forgotten, what had transpired after he and Mr. Obama left office. In fact, despite his proclamations, almost everything he plans to do will surely sink our ship from the economic standpoint. He intends to repeal the Trump tax cuts, increase the corporate tax rate to previous excessive levels, resume environmental regulations and put a lid on American energy production with the Green New Deal. He wants to have the federal government provide our every need without considering that the government takes funding for all these grand enterprises from those of us hard at work in the far more efficient and productive private sector.

 

Besides that, he appears to be enamored of the lockdown approach to control of the virus, the very strategy that has depressed the economy to start with. He doesn't see that he can't have things both ways. His theatrical political speeches, and flashy smile are not enough to lock down businesses and have them survive at the same time. He promises to get us virus treatments and vaccines. What? He hasn't heard of Operation Warp Speed and the unheard of progress it has so far made in developing these things.

 

The President has promised a V-shaped economic return and that appears to be happening. Whether you love or hate his personality, sensible voters will hopefully understand that his longstanding experience in dealing with the difficult problems of the business world make him just the right man for our time.

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Biden Says Trump Responsible for Covid19 Deaths

The major news media are fond of fact-checking Mr. Trump. Mr. Biden, not so much. So, I'm going to do a little for them.

 

Mr. Biden, in last night's debate held Mr. Trump responsible for the deaths of thousands by virtue of his management of the coronavirus epidemic. According to Biden, Trump should have known in February, before the administration's lockdown guidelines were made public in March,  what would be the eventual outcome, and instead he played it down.

 

To be sure, on Feb. 9 Mr. Trump noted there were thousands of deaths annually from influenza as compared to, as of that date, a total of 15 cases with no deaths, all in foreign travelers,. The first case of local community transmission was not to occur until 2/26 and the first recorded death on 2/29.

 

But at the same time was Mr. Trump taking the problem seriously? Well, before the above comment,  between 1/29 and 1/31 Mr. Trump had assembled his Coronavirus Task Force, had started the first of numerous conference calls with all the governors with the purpose of producing an action plan for the outbreak and had declared a public health emergency and imposed a ban on flights from China. Mr. Biden's response to that final measure, which even seemed drastic to me at the time, was to accuse Mr. Trump of "hysteria, xenophobia and fear-mongering."  He said pretty close to the same thing after Mr. Trump also restricted flights from Europe on 3/12. And his Democrat colleagues were no more prescient, with Mrs. Pelosi urging people to visit and congregate in San Francisco's Chinatown on 2/24, and on 3/2 Mr. DiBlasio making the same case  to visit NYC, where at the time there was only one known case.

 

Mr. Biden contends that Mr. Trump had special access to the official information and so should have known better. But is that true? Here are some public statements by Dr. Anthony Fauci, the President's chief medical advisor from the CDC:

 

On 1/21 Dr Fauci in an interview with Newsmax noted that, although we had to take it seriously the infection "is not a major threat for the people of the United States. And this is not something that the citizens of the United States right now should be worried about."   On 2/17 in an Interview with USA Today Dr. Fauci explained that the risk of coronavirus in USA is "minuscule" and that "Now, in the United States, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to wear a mask."   On 2/28 Dr. Fauci wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that "the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza or a pandemic influenza". On the next day in an interview on the Today Show he said in reference to community spread that "right now, at this moment, there is no need to change anything you're doing on a day-to-day basis."   Then on 3/9 Dr. Fauci told reporters that young, healthy people can go on a cruise if they'd like. "If you are a healthy young person, there is no reason if you want to go on a cruise ship, go on a cruise ship."

 

This is not to denigrate Dr. Fauci, who spoke with the evidence he had available. By the last date I mentioned there were a total of 84 cases and 2 deaths in the whole country. However, I do criticize Mr. Biden a bit since he knew what was going to happen and said nothing to Dr. Fauci to warn him.

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Coronavirus, the Emerging Picture and Herd Immunity

Here's a different, somewhat positive take on the virus.

If you look at the course of the epidemic around the country you will see that in March and April it hit hard in NYC, New York state generally, and surrounding states such as New Jersey and Connecticut. As this northeast area died down by the beginning of June the epidemic moved to the Southern and Western states where it rose to a peak and began to recede in mid-July. Around the same time as that decline, the infection moved to the Mid-West and Mountain states where it has now leveled off and begun to recede.

What could account for this situation? Certainly not social distancing and masking which does not fit the picture. These things undoubtedly have some effect in delaying the transmission of the virus, but they do not inactivate it, so that there should be a resurgence as these mitigation methods are reduced. But, taking New York as an example, although it has by now relaxed some of its restrictions there has been no resurgence of cases. In fact, since early June cases have been persistent at about 2-300 daily, and at the same time deaths are miniscule, with daily counts in the single digits for the last couple of months.

One factor that might be at least part of the explanation is that it now seems clear that there is a considerable amount of susceptibility variation in the population, as is seen in any other transmissible infection. Some of those exposed resist the virus entirely and for those who do contract it there is a great deal of variation in the severity of the ensuing illness. We're all familiar with the major difference between age groups but even in closely confined nursing home groups, notoriously the source of a great many of the deaths, there are some who do not become infected, and some who are asymptomatic or only mildly ill.

Recently I became aware of the work of Gabriella Gomes, a mathematician who has been studying the behavior and developing predictive models of epidemics for many years and who has been suggesting that the standard thinking about herd immunity is flawed. Herd immunity is a concept that is the whole point of vaccination. Although a vaccine may be only partly effective in producing immunity to a virus in individuals, it gives general resistance in the community which is sufficient to limit the available hosts and so stop its activity temporarily. Herd immunity can also be achieved with natural infection, but the prevailing thought has been that the number of infected individuals required would be 60-70% of the population, an unacceptable number. Dr. Gomes points out, however, that this estimate assumes that everyone is equally susceptible to the virus, which she points out is not the case. She feels that if one puts into the predictive model a factor for variable susceptibility, you come up with a number of only 10-20% of the population required for natural herd immunity to occur.

To my mind Dr. Gomes's idea fits well with the data that is emerging. For example, it would account for New York being so quiet after its initial intense infection even though officials there have relaxed their restrictions. Without going into the detail, it seems to fit with what I can see going on in individual countries around the rest of the world. If we see the same sustained inactivity happening after the cases fully recede in the Southern states and then the Mid-West states, then this would tend to confirm the concept.

Let's hope it is right because there's no question that this virus is here to stay, vaccine or not. Hopefully it will take its place with the other coronaviruses in our population that cause only mild respiratory infections. Alternatively, as we continue to make more observations, it appears that we are beginning to understand the reason why it is so lethal to some individuals which should allow us to devise means for prevention or curative treatments of the occasional severe cases. In that case I would tend to agree with Mr. Trump that, although developing a vaccine is important, finding appropriate treatment would be even better.

Like

Comment

Share

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Killings At The Riots

Well now the inevitable shootings and killings are accompanying the riots in the big cities. If they are allowed to continue it will get worse. Here's what I think is common sense about the issues.

 

In order to avoid general violence, we defer the use of force to the police whose functions are law enforcement and maintenance of peace and order in the community. They must use this force only in specific circumstances such as the protection of their lives or those of others. If a citizen is harmed by an officer's use of force the circumstances are reviewed and if it is concluded that he has used force in a way contrary to the law he is charged by a prosecutor with criminal behavior. Then there is a trial. At the trial both the prosecutor and the defense present their evidence and a jury, selected in accordance with predefined legal procedures, decides the outcome.

 

There are some that think that handling these issues in a case by case manner is not sufficient. They contend that police in general are guilty of systemic racism such that they use excessive force preferentially in their dealings with minorities, most specifically young, black men. There is much disagreement as to whether this is an accurate assessment, but if it is, it seems fair to ask the question that, since systemic racism in the police would presumably be a longstanding phenomenon, why something hasn't been done about it previously by those civic leaders who are in charge of the police and generally seem to be sympathetic to the complaint.

 

Assuming for the sake of argument that it is true, those who are upset about the matter can assemble with others who are similarly concerned, organize and protest. They have full right to do this under our constitution and laws. In order for their protest to be effective they should clearly state their demands as to what they feel should specifically be done about the problem and, assuming there is general agreement by the local public, their desires should be carried out by the local political leaders, most especially since these leaders have expressed sympathy with the protestor's complaints.

 

The aggrieved people do not have the right to riot about the matter and to destroy the property and livelihoods of innocent bystanders or of public property. We are a nation of laws, devised by our elected representatives, written down beforehand and enforced in specific manners. If instead we riot to obtain our wishes evil consequences will result as we are seeing.

 

Some civic leaders are condoning the riots and allowing them to continue. They argue that they are not as bad as they look, that they are limited to relatively small areas and that they are somewhat justifiable considering the severity of the grievances. They appear willing to disregard their oath to uphold the law, and to accept the destruction of property and lives as long as it is in keeping with their political benefit.

 

Mr. Trump has strongly expressed his unhappiness with the situation, but has constitutional constraints limiting what he is allowed to do about it. He has said publicly that he considers the local leaders in these areas to be fools. Mr. Trump is open and direct. Our recent Presidents, Mr. Obama, Bush and Clinton would express such things in private but would speak in public more diplomatically to disguise and make their real opinions more generally acceptable.

 

As I said, these statements appear to me to be common sense. Alternatively we can just say that it's all Trump's fault and be done with it.

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

The Real History of the Black African Slave Trade. The U.S. Didn't Do It.

Two nights ago, Melania Trump mentioned in her Convention speech how much she was emotionally affected by her previous visit to Africa, which included Ghana on the west coast, an area where much of the slave trade occurred. One of the commentators on ABC, which we had been watching, pointed out the irony of her statement considering the present-day racial unrest. Let's review the bidding on the slave trade.

In the early 15th century, 70 years before Columbus, Portuguese seafarers started venturing into the Atlantic Ocean and found and occupied Madeira and Cape Verde islands off the west coast of Africa. They did not venture onto the continent itself, which had already been occupied by Muslim traders who had come down from North Africa. But eventually they did come into contact with these Muslims, some of whom were black Africans themselves who had adopted the Muslim religion and practices.

These Muslim traders introduced the Portuguese to black African slaves whom they purchased and put to work in their island colonies and even brought back to Europe. At the end of the 15th century, following up on Columbus's discovery, the Portuguese, and right behind them the Spaniards as well as the Dutch, went south and east across the Atlantic in massive numbers and occupied large areas of the Caribbean and South America, bringing more black African slaves with them, particularly for the very lucrative sugar cane business. Far more of the black slaves were brought to these areas than were ever transported to North America almost a century and a half later.

But how did this travesty of black African slavery come to be in the first place? How did the Muslim traders along the African coast obtain their captives? The fact is that they were captured, transported and sold by black Africans themselves who had a longstanding practice of enslaving captured enemies or even their own tribesmen who owed debts. Because of the new Portuguese market, they had found a lucrative business. To be sure, later the Portuguese themselves ventured from their coastal islands to the continent itself and participated in the capture of slaves, but the massive numbers to which the trade had evolved involved the full cooperation of the black Africans themselves.

The story is a lot more complex, but that's the essence of it. My point is that it's hypocritical for those who wish to castigate present day America because of its historical moral errors without their considering the complete history of the African slavery story. The whole episode would never have occurred except for the ancestors of our present-day Blacks and Hispanics. Those of us, who like myself, had early 20th century immigrant ancestors had not the slightest involvement. In fact, slavery, which was prevalent in the ancient world of Greece and Rome, was eventually declared to be an evil and put to an end by the early Catholic Church, only to reemerge centuries later as described above. History is important. It must be preserved and investigated and used as a guide. But the present is not the past and children must not be blamed for the sins of their fathers.

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Nancy Pelosi's Urgent Call: The Proper Role of Congress

Nancy Pelosi has made an urgent call for congress to return from vacation. Did she do this because, although the epidemic seems to be slowly receding and the economic activity is improving, there are still many small businesses and their employees who need help and the matter is a pressing one. No, ladies and gentlemen, the emergency is the national postal service, which for the past few decades has been in the middle of a seismic shift in its mission due to digitalization, to which it has been trying to adapt with limited success, and for which the President has appointed as leader a highly accomplished shipping and logistics expert to help the process. The Dems proclaim that the President is trying to interfere with mail-in voting, which is total nonsense, although the President admittedly doesn't help the matter by his occasional commentary. The pieces of mail that would involve is a minute fragment of the amount the post office handles with regularity. Any problem would come from the state's ability to handle the job.

And so, Mrs. Pelosi makes a furor about a non-problem at the same time as she twiddles her thumbs about a real one because she wants to ride the issue to the election. But lest you think I'm too partial I do not excuse the Republicans who in their turn railed against Obamacare for years without any consideration for a suitable alternative when they had the opportunity or for the impeachment of Bill Clinton which was almost as hopelessly impossible to succeed as that of Mr. Trump.

It seems that each side is in the business of obtaining power by hook or by crook rather than finding solutions to real problems by finding points of general agreement and compromise. And why is this? I think it's because "congressman" has now become a lifetime occupation, the main focus of which is maintenance of the position rather than attending to serious legislation which by necessity requires compromise. Its non-functional status has gradually transferred more and more power over the actual management of the country to the executive branch and to the federal bureaucracy.

The executive is the one branch which is restricted by term limits, and given the weakness of congress in actually acting as a compromising legislative body and the excessive strength of the executive, the fight over this position every four years has tended to divide our citizenry into two opposing camps of bitter enemies. It's the best argument I can think for congressional term limits. But, you say, wouldn't that further reduce the power of Congress vis a vis the President? My thought is that this change would dilute the pervasive effect of incumbency and so increase the interest of the public in congressional contests and also would tend to select candidates who were more focused on problem solving rather than maintaining their position for life. The function of a U.S. congressman is to assess the needs of the public in which it makes sense to involve the federal government and to make laws that address those needs, and it is not grandstanding in televised hearings to improve his or her visibility. And the function of the executive is to carry out the laws as appropriate and not to run the country in the absence of a functioning congress. Furthermore, shouldn't the federal government's activities be limited to those things which it makes sense to centralize and leave the rest to the states and localities, just as it says in our 10th amendment.

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Thomas Jefferson - Good or Bad

"We hold these truths to be self-evident

That all men are created equal

That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights

That among these are Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness"

 

These words were written by Thomas Jefferson, whose memory protestors now despise and desecrate. Jefferson was a brilliant and complex man and flawed as we all are. He and the other founders lived their lives in a land far distant from the great power centers in Europe and filled with independent-minded people. He was a student of the philosophical Enlightenment then taking place in England and France which generated his ideas of equality and personal freedom. But for the first time in the history of the world he and the other founders had a golden opportunity to put these ideas into actual practice. So, they took a shot at it and put on the line their "lives, fortunes and sacred honor". They won their independence and eventually the members of this somewhat disparate group were able to compromise their differences and put together an actual structure of a self-governing society, which was finally agreed to by every State involved but only after months of public debate by the citizenry.

 

Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner, as were 5 of our first 7 Presidents. By present day standards the act of buying and selling people to be farm hands and household servants is an abomination. Instead today we pay low wages and perhaps give room and board to imported farm and landscape workers, au pairs and nannies, who are nevertheless free to come and go as they wish. Washington and Jefferson were both uneasy about slavery, but without excusing the situation, this was the way things were if you lived in Virginia in the 18^th or early 19^th century. I haven't the slightest doubt that 250 years from  now, if civilization doesn't meet up with some great catastrophe, all our food will be synthetic and those in that time will look back with horror on our practice of killing and eating animals. Surely, procreation will be highly controlled and it's likely our present habit of elimination of unwanted pregnancy by uterine evacuation will be considered barbaric. I could go on but, without excusing Mr. Jefferson, the point is that judging the behavior of people living in the remote past by present day moral standards is just as invalid as it will be for people in the distant future to judge us.

 

Jefferson's words, at the time they were written, were improperly applied. They did not include slaves, or Indians, or even women. But they have served as a blueprint or a master plan for our society ever since and step by step, often with great turmoil, we have advanced to adhere to them more perfectly. The amazing thing is that, despite the great technological and political changes that have taken place since, they apply today just as much as the day they were written. As noted by the response to the post, all of us, regardless of our political stance, accept them as true and good. They are the spirit of America, ideas that have over time been adopted in one form or another world-wide.

 

Let us study the history of our founders so that we are fully aware of their strengths and weaknesses but let us not desecrate the memory or the inspired ideas of these brilliant and daring men. Who they were and the inspirations they had are inseparable. Those who seek to destroy the one, will likely at the same time destroy the other.

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Black Lives Matter. Is Racially Motivated Police Brutality a Real Problem

The Black Lives Matter movement was started after the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman in Sanford FL in 2012. Mr. Martin was apparently inappropriately followed by Mr. Zimmerman who was overenthusiastic in his volunteer community watch position. However, whatever the events leading up to the fight between the two men, the immediate situation was that Zimmerman was being held down and beaten, had a concealed gun and used it.  The shooting was held to have been racially motivated, and indeed NBC broadcasted a doctored version of an earlier 911 call by Zimmerman to suggest that he was following Martin because he was black. Zimmerman was tried for 2^nd degree murder and manslaughter and was acquitted, interestingly by an all-female jury. 

 

BLM came to national prominence after the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson MO in 2014 by police office Darren Wilson. The reported events and a later investigation by both the FBI and the Obama Dept of Justice concluded that the shooting was in self-defense and that there was no civil rights issue. A friend of Mr. Brown stated that when the shooting occurred, he was on his knees with hands up saying, "Don't shoot". This account was later proved to be false. Nevertheless "Hands up, Don't shoot" is a persistent chant at the many rallies regarding possible racially motivated police brutality.

 

The death of Eric Garner in NYC in 2014, which inflamed things further, was pretty definitely a case of unnecessary force after a minor infraction. The recent killing of George Floyd by Derik Chauvin is on video for all to see and was clearly an unjustified killing worthy of a murder charge. Were the actions of this sadistic officer influenced because of Mr. Floyd's skin color? The subsequent protests and riots assume it was.

The police killing over the weekend in Atlanta of Rayshard Brooks was recorded on police video camera and can be seen on the internet. The incident was a much more complicated affair than the brief snippet usually shown on TV. I added a link.  If you watch it, you can decide for yourself whether the officer can have avoided the shooting, but the events clearly suggest that racial animosity had nothing to do with the matter. Nevertheless, the inevitable rioting occurred afterward.

 

If you look on YouTube, you can find a whole host of recordings on police video of such incidents. Those I viewed started with the police being polite but violence ensuing after the subject resists arrest. But I'm sure it's a mixed bag, and we don't know the facts in those events which are not recorded. In fact, however a great many, maybe most, show police being murdered in such altercations.

So, is racially motivated police brutality a common fact of life? Many innocent black men have verified that they have been unnecessarily accosted. Many on the left are assuming it's the case and have turned to protesting and rioting to demand it cease. On the other hand, the cases that sparked the formation of Black Lives Matter don't come close to proving it. The involvement of police in high crime minority ghettos and the propensity of some arrested subjects to respond violently are certainly factors. Should the police be better trained to respond to such situations? Probably.

 

All the police I know are good people trying to do a job which is at times unusually demanding and at times dangerous. Is it too much to ask that we investigate each case on its individual merits instead of generalizing? And publicize them all, not just those that fit an agenda and make the racial agitation in our country worse than it is already. Maybe have a national commission to review them and give us a true picture.

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-police-body-cam-footage-challenges-narrative-on-death-of-rayshard-brooks?utm_campaign=dw_newsletter&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=89525786&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--eXJPe3v8-04ZvtSGYw9srjxwyEkom0bQLeI_4UIsj3hASlWBwdSsKfOBRasixlugaXN-eLRhx6L0QWyDl_LGUP_qiEg&utm_content=non_insiders&utm_source=housefile

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Coronavirus Restrictions In Pennsylvania

Last evening Em and I had dinner with 4 old friends on the patio at the Scranton Country Club. Governor Wolf decreed last week that he is now allowing restaurant service outdoors and everyone was pleased to have this liberty. We were required to wear the obligatory masks on entering and walking through the building but could remove them on exiting to the patio. From that point I was able to meet up and chat with a number of other old friends pretty much as in the past but of course minus handshakes or kisses for the ladies. Eating indoors anywhere is still verboten regardless of how far apart you sit.

In PA more than 2/3 of the coronavirus deaths are nursing home patients. People with significant chronic medical conditions make up most of the rest and should be cautious. The nursing homes are an obvious setup for problems. The residents are enfeebled, confined indoors and in close personal contact with nurses who move from one patient to another. For the overwhelming majority of the rest of us the disease is not life threatening and for a great number produces minimal or no illness. In particular, it is consoling that children are spared as opposed to the case of influenza which annually kills about 150 nationwide.

As a solution to the virus problem we have mandated a draconian economic shutdown with all its attendant severe economic, psychologic and health consequences. Also, there is "social distancing" probably not a bad idea for now, and mask wearing which is of unproven benefit for those who are healthy but nevertheless gives an impression of doing something. This response was to "flatten the curve" so as to avoid overwhelming of the medical facilities, particularly in the New York metro area and other less severe hotspots but is continuing long after its intended effect has been achieved. It should be pointed out that social distancing reduces the virus spread but does not eliminate it so that if we are unable to achieve the much discussed "herd immunity" it remains active in the community until we are saved by an effective treatment or vaccine.

All this considered, the process of stepwise opening up of social and economic activity limited by observations of the numbers of involved individuals makes little sense to me. Since the virus remains active, inevitably as there is increased personal contact there will be increased infectivity (unless of course the virus, like other respiratory viruses, has a seasonal incidence or weakens in intensity). So, it's likely to be a viscous cycle with the news media broadcasting alarm with any increase even though it might be expected. Of course, this would be increased infection among those who almost all recover and in fact are usually only mildly affected.

In contrast, what about those in nursing homes who are likely to be severely affected and make up the large majority of deaths? Well in mid-May President Trump and his advisors, recognizing this situation, called for testing of all nursing home patients and staff within two weeks and staff tested weekly thereafter. This action would of course be of immense help in managing infection control among the residents. In response, as reported in the newspaper 2 days ago, Governor Wolf and Dr. Levine, the pediatric psychiatrist who is in charge of the PA Health Department, have given PA nursing homes until JULY 24th to accomplish the task.

Commercial labs and hospital labs are widely available to process these tests, and Medicare pays for them. Is it too difficult to ask that this life saving preventive measure be carried out ASAP? Well the same news report mentions that one local nursing home chain has long since accomplished the task and will be testing all residents and staff routinely every 2 weeks. Most others however appear to be content to follow the Governor's advisory. Perhaps we could speed up the process by the one which is following the President's advice teaching the others how to do it.

So what things come down to is this. At the same time as we have a severe economic shutdown with an intensely regulated letup process along with strict personal behavior advisory in order to slow down, but not stop, the spread of a disease which is relatively mild for most, we have extremely lax regulations for avoiding disease in those with most of the lethality.

What's going on here? Is it me who's crazy? (That's a rhetorical question)!

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Opening Up From Covid19. Compare the Governors

Last night we ate out in a restaurant in Naples. They're just open this week and people are coming back. The beaches here in southwest Florida are now open. The golf courses have never been closed. "Social distancing" is the rule but masks are discretionary. There's been a light touch on the less populated areas of the state. So far, so good. It's been pointed out that The Villages, with its 100,000+ population of older residents has had very limited number of cases with no Covid19 patients presently in its hospital.

Governor DeSantis has been getting praise for his decision making. Going by "Suttons Law" he went where the money was and early on took aggressive measures to protect nursing home patients. Also, given the known characteristics of the virus he judged that being outdoors in the sun was a good place to start reopening. Of course, the climate here is a big advantage since getting outside is what everyone does. Overall, the pace of opening is fast enough to prevent the grumbling and protesting faced by some governors such as Governor Whitmer in Michigan.

I'm informed now that NEPA will continue to be locked down until June 4th. As much as we'd enjoy getting back to our townhouse there's not much sense in going back to sit in the house all day. At the same time I saw reported that almost 70% of the deaths in PA were in nursing home or assisted living residents. Is that something just to be accepted or is it possible that more aggressive efforts, such as those taken in Florida, to protect those individuals could make a big change in the total picture.

Governor Cuomo, in contrast to Governor DeSantis, seems to have made significant blunders. He called for wildly inflated numbers of ventilators and hospital beds, which were nevertheless provided by the federal government. But when faced with the problem of nursing homes reluctant to take back residents hospitalized and likely still infected with Covid 19 he mandated their return instead of considering having them convalesce in the available empty virus adapted beds.

Leaving the removal of restrictions to the discretion of the individual states was a good plan. The idea is very much in keeping with our very salutary governmental philosophy of federalism which allows for the dispersion of political power into the hands of the of the citizens where it belongs. Decisions are therefore adapted to the local situation. It also allows us to compare and contrast, and learn from, the various approaches to the problem.

Personal freedom, requiring at the same time self-control and responsibility, is the hallmark of our republic. So make your feelings known folks. You're the boss.

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Unknowns about Coronavirus and Opening Up the U.S.

As our country begins to open up one fact is clear. There are a lot of things we don't know about this virus. One of the big unknowns is why it seems to behave drastically differently in various places. I puzzled about this situation two or three weeks back. Why did it hit the New York metro area but not California so much? Why northern Italy, but not many of the Asian countries nearby to China? Drs. Fauci and Birx were congratulating Californians for making such good preventative efforts, presumably better than did New York, but I don't believe that explanation for a minute. Different possibilities come to mind, not only differences in mitigation efforts but also climate, population density and age, geographic location, but none of them hold up when scrutinized. You don't have to take my word for it since the dilemma finally hit the New York Times over the weekend, so it must be true.

Here's an interesting account from an old classmate friend of mine who has been traveling to Hanoi almost yearly since his military service in Vietnam to help doctors there to modernize their medical care. On April 22 he got a letter from one of his Vietnamese doctor contacts offering to send some of their surplus M95 masks to help ICU doctors in the U.S. They were having very limited virus problems, even though, as my friend informed me, there is a large contingent of Vietnamese who work in China and who came home for the Chinese New Year in late January and early February, presumably carrying the virus with them. In addition Vietnam, with its 1500 miles of coastline and beautiful beaches, is a major vacation spot for the Chinese. Yet only a few days later the major hospital in Hanoi had to close down because of a sudden influx of cases, attributed possibly to travelers coming from Europe.

So, what's going to happen now is a crap shoot. Some are focused on the severe adverse economic impact of our present efforts, with attendant major adverse social, physical and psychological consequences, which will only deepen as it is prolonged, perhaps reaching 1930's proportions or worse. Others are concerned with the potential resurgence of the virus with immediate deleterious effects and feel any price to prevent this is not too much to pay. But one of the strengths of our country is its wide dispersion of government power. So now we're going to have 50 different experiments to help show us the right way to go. And that's a good thing because experts and scientific models are often wrong in their predictions. Dr Fauci in late February was telling us that we should worry more about the flu than the coronavirus. Dr. Birx in a weekend interview admitted that the medical experts greatly underestimated the number of asymptomatic infections when devising their strategies.