 |
| Silverfiddle Rant! |
--Winston Churchill
We are suffering a weaponized Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy inflicted upon us by unhappy, corroded-soul government overlords at the local, county, state and federal level, egged on by the Infotainment Media Complex.
It started innocently enough years ago, with them nagging us to save the environment by reducing our carbon footprint; preaching cleanses and purges of various bodily organs, orifices and passages; exhorting us with vapid "spiritual" nostrums and feel-good nonsense they come up with in a vain attempt to fill their God hole.
Those petty despots scolding us and ordering us around are fundamentally unhappy people, and they are pouncing on this opportunity to destroy the happiness of others. Their greek chorus of the proletariat are fundamentally fearful--of the unknown, others, themselves, whatever--and they are spreading that fear to millions of others, and what a thin balm it must be to their troubled psyches.
Community Cluster Funk
Socioclasts channeling their internal Woodrow Wilson see their big opportunity to remake the messy, chaotic American landscape, knock it down, destroy the foundations and start all over: They want to redesign your pathetic, selfish, random life, to include establishing permanent perimeters around each individual, tracking our movements and contacts, redesigning our public spaces, and regulating your private life, to include approving the friends and family you respectfully request to include in your lockdown bubbles and social clusters.
Because We Say So
Ordering everyone in the nation to wear a face covering and huff their own carbon dioxide (except under very narrow circumstances) is an absurdity, especially when outdoors. Are the Standard Bearers of Science taking us back to the discredited miasma theory? The purpose of a mask it to prevent you from spraying droplets at others when coughing or sneezing. It would make more sense to tell everyone to carry a hanky and if you have to cough or sneeze, to do so in the hanky, you know, like you grandparents did.
Lab Rats
The scientists and medical experts admonishing us to cower in our homes, are throwing all “abundance of caution” to the wind in order to recklessly deliver a Covid-19 vaccine on dangerously shortened timeline of 12-18 months, when the usual, safety-conscious process takes five to 15 years.
Lab Rats
The scientists and medical experts admonishing us to cower in our homes, are throwing all “abundance of caution” to the wind in order to recklessly deliver a Covid-19 vaccine on dangerously shortened timeline of 12-18 months, when the usual, safety-conscious process takes five to 15 years.
Bonus Question
How does surfing or swimming in the ocean spread the virus and endanger the community? This is like a bizzaro version of the old movie Footloose, but instead of Concerned Local Authorities banning dancing because it might lead to sex, they are banning surfing because it may lead to people gathering and socializing and having FUN.
Not to beat a dead horse but I will beat the old nag once again. There is a total difference between a N95 face mask compared to the rags or other coverings chosen to wrap around one's face. N95's work.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand they say masks don't work, but then they say they need N95's to keep healthcare workers safe.
Yes indeed, if warn properly we could all be protected and safe and going about work and pleasure IF those who choose to wear and N95's are available. Especially those at risk. But they are not available. Try and buy one. Am I the only bright bulb here in the universe? They keep talking testing and tracking everyone by drones.... stop the madness. The answer in N95's.
Now I will let the old nag rest in peace.
Bunkerville,
DeleteThere is a total difference between a N95 face mask compared to the rags or other coverings chosen to wrap around one's face. N95's work.
Duh! But I can't find any to buy.
Perhaps our president could use the presidential act to force a company or two to make N95's. He has brandished his ability to do so, yet still not enough masks or testing kits.
DeleteWhy hasn't he done so?
But nobody cares if you have an N95.
DeleteJust shut up and comply with a paper tape over your mouth.
Dave wants working people to die producing his N95's so he can blame Trump for ordering their deaths.
DeleteDave, do you not see the problem with any executive “forcing” free people or free markets to do anything at all? Are you really THAT dense?
DeleteI just got back from three stores where I refused to wear a mask. No problem.
DeleteOne lady asked as I entered, "Do you have a mask?" and I said Yeah, in my pocket. NP
Ed, more and more, as this tragic farce that has been imposed on us by the lovers of unconstitutional authoritarianism –– I,e. the miitant Leftocrats –– unfolds, you sound like The Lone Ranger.
Delete'Hi Yo, D'Rats –– AWAY!
Good on you, man!
};^]>
And yes, Sam. I'm sorry to have to say that DM really is that obtuse
DeleteTypical of the so-called "Modern Liberal," he appears to favor pusillanimity, eternal indecisiveness, and endless equivocation over any form of POSITIVITY and RESOLUTE ACTION.
Leftist Cant and Rhetoric strives to make moral and intellectual EUNUCHS of us all.
In California, now, everyone has to wear a face mask. Everyone. If you have a medical condition which makes that difficult, or even hazardous, you must carry with you written documentation of that condition and why it justifies not wearing a mask. Without that documentation you must wear a mask.
ReplyDeleteThousands of people have contracted the Covid19 disease, recovered from it, are therefor immune and can neither catch the disease nor transmit it. They must wear a mask. Carrying documentation of previous illness with the disease does nothing. They still must wear the mask.
Testing is in every news item regarding ending the shutdown, but they do not say testing for what. Testing for the disease, or testing for immunity? Presumably for the disease, since a positive result means they will require you to "self isolate" and will track down everyone who has been within six feet of you for that past two weeks. No one admits the insanity of such an ambition, especially since everyone you "were in contact with" was wearing a mask.
They do not say what happens if one tests negative for the virus. Presumably you have to "shelter in place" to avoid catching the virus, which is exactly what you have to do if you tested positive for the virus. So why do the testing?
If you tested negative then you will need to be tested again, of course, and the test repeated until you test positive. Again, what is all this testing doing for us?
Testing is magic. The goal is to test approximately .5% of the population every day, at which point we will know it is safe to end the shutdown. Ending the shutdown is not dependent on the outcome of those tests, it is dependent only on being able to do them.
I'm trying to find any part of this government response which makes sense, any part which the people of this nation should accept, and I simply cannot.
I don't see the value of masks (even N95's only work if used correctly, which an untrained and undisciplined general population is very unlikely to do). However:
Delete"people [who] have ... recovered from [cv19] are therefor immune and can neither catch the disease nor transmit it."
we hope so, but we don't know that at this stage.
"Ending the shutdown is not dependent on the outcome of those tests, it is dependent only on being able to do them."
This is the part of which I can see the sense of: we want to already be monitoring and measuring the situation before we start opening things up again, and of course continue monitoring things from there.
JEZ... give Americans some credit. it is not rocket science to figure out how to wear a N95's... a couple of PSA's ought to do the trick... Here is how it works... if you can't get any air out along the edges when breathing out, you can't get any bugs in... See how easy that was?
DeleteThe answer really isn't that hard... I'm telling you.
Jez, if we do not know that contracting the disease confers immunity, then why are we talking about "herd immunity" and why are we discussing ending the shutdown? We cannot even THINK about ending the shutdown until we know that "herd immunity" is achievable.
DeleteWhy are we so sure there can be a vaccine, since the vaccine works the same way that contracting the disease does.
@bunkerville: and the discipline? Those things can be uncomfortable. How much do you want to bet everyone's going to put up with it?
Delete@jayhawk: Life involves unknowns.
Bunkerville typed in: give Americans some credit. it is not rocket science to figure out how to wear a N95's
DeleteI say: YES, INDEED!
Some of us can read and really can follow instructions.
We need to be "monitoring and measuring the situation" before ending the shutdown? How many tests would be required, and is that even possible? Right now we are testing 0.04% of the population daily. That's 4 people out of every 10,000. What kind of "monitoring and measuring" does that provide?
DeleteIs it even possible to reach a level, out of 330 million people, that would provide even a semblance of valid "monitoring and measuring" of the situation, especially since every person who tests negative must be retested? How many people would it take to administer and process those tests? The idea is nonsensical.
JEZ... then those who chose to take the risk fine.... But I deserve the option to do with my life as I chose. The government mandated that all N95's go to Healthcare workers. It is now illegal to see quantities to the peasants. Doesn't that smack of elitism? Those who have connections get the choice of life those that don't too bad. I am in a very high risk category. I do not expect the rest of society to wrap a non working rag around their face. My life, my choice and so it should be. Give me the option
DeleteOh, jez, First you say that we have to be "monitoring and measuring the situation" before we can end the shutdown, and then you counter my argument by saying the "life involves unknowns." Pick a side, friend.
Delete@jayhawk: we need to test enough people that the measured trends are representative of the whole population. It's particularly important with this disease, because symptoms show up 2 weeks after infection, so any early warning of case load is valuable. I am not an epidemiologist, but it's an interesting field, isn't it?
Delete@Bunkerville: Don't your rights end where mine begin? It might offend our individualist sensibilities, but we really do have to make accommodations for each other.
I think the scarcity of PPE deserves to be investigated, but I'm comfortable with PPE (while it is scarce) going to the elite cabal of Nurses to use in the line of duty. Wouldn't it be perverse to make them do without it so that private individuals could have it instead?
@jayhawk: i'm not on any side, just trying to make sense of it all.
DeleteTry to reduce the unknowns.
@jez: "we need to test enough people that the measured trends are representative of the whole population."
DeleteAnd how many tests per day, remembering that negative tests must be repeated, do you believe are needed to accomplish that? Does 0.04% of the population do it for you?
And given the current narrative, why are the outcomes of those tests irrelevant?
Delete@jayhawk: I'm not the guy to ask. It depends on a bunch of specifics, and even if I knew all of those I'm not an expert anyway. Apologies if I gave you a false impression. Neither am I a government spokesman; I could't tell you what their narrative is.
DeleteAll I wanted to tell you how it could make sense to view testing is an ongoing process, and it would be useful to have that process in place first so that policy-makers have access to that feedback as they gradually ease the shutdown.
Whether your state is going to do anything sensible with the data is another question, which I am not able to comment on. But it at least could make sense, in my opinion.
Show me the Constitutional authority to tell me to cover my mouth.
DeleteOr to stay home.
Or off the beach.
Freedom is the most precious treasure that human beings have. It is an inalienable right. Along with this right is our responsibility to respect it, enjoy it, and prevent anyone from taking it away from us. How dare anyone suppose that they have the right to demand we give it up, even for a neighbor!
DeleteInalienable. This means that no one can take it away. Of course, its possessor can willingly give up their freedom, which suggests to me that it is something not valued by the person who is willing to relinquish it. Herein lies the true definition of a leftist.
@jez
DeleteYou have any suggestion as to why the results of those tests are not relevant?
If we wanted to track the movement (direction and rate of change), the absolute value of our first measurement would be important only so we could see how the next measurement differs.
DeleteMustang +1. or more...
DeleteJayhawk,
DeleteYour comment if 10:20 AM might very well be the comment of the day!
Have we all been dropped into an alternative universe of theatre of the absurd?
Um, "if" should read "of."
DeleteNever let a good crisis go to waste. It is hard to imagine, isn’t it? Few high-ranking officials pushed back against unknown (or bad) science. Federal, state, and local officials simply “followed orders.” Obedience ... that’s the thing. And it worked. Tens of millions of people complied with their orders to place themselves under arrest in their own homes. Governments are now creating a demand for techno-candy, apps that track people and inform them if or when they are near others who may have exposure to COVID-19 and warn them to self-isolate. Not even Orwell imagined this. What facts do we know? The death toll from COVID-19 is far less than experienced in the 2019-20 seasonal flu, factually true even after officials grossly exaggerate the actual COVID-19 death rate ... true even after reasonable extrapolation of statistical data. Old Ben Franklin was right.
ReplyDeleteMustang,
DeleteFederal, state, and local officials simply “followed orders.” Obedience ... that’s the thing. And it worked. Tens of millions of people complied
We really do seem to have lost our republic. **sad**
"The death toll from COVID-19 is far less than experienced in the 2019-20 seasonal flu"
Deleteassuming that's true, would that still be the case if we were circulating and spreading diseases as normal? I don't think there's a valid way to make that inference.
Mustang... the CDC numbers for the 2018/2019 flu season show approx 38000 deaths. The 2019/2020 numbers, still being compiled by the CDC range from 24000-62000. The flu "season" officially ended in early April.
DeleteIn any event, those numbers represent deaths from the flu over the course of 5 months. We've lost 65,000 to Covid so far, more than the 2019/2020 flu, in just 6 weeks.
It seems, based on the numbers, that Covid-19 is more dangerous and deadly than the seasonal flu.
According to the WHO, which every leftist believes in as much as they do moral relativism, annual influenza epidemics result in as much as 500,000 deaths annually. A problem in accounting, apparently, is that in the USA individual cases of seasonal flu and flu-related deaths in adults is not a reportable illness. That being the case, 683,000 deaths world-wide is plausible. According to the CDC, as of 5 May 2020, there have been 751,953 deaths in the US from all causes. Of these, 17,683 from COVID-19 and pneumonia, 67,372 from pneumonia alone, 5,910 from COVID-19 alone. So then, to Jez and Dave Miller I say, make whatever assumptions you wish ... how valid these numbers are from WHO and CDC is entirely up to you to decide for yourselves. Please, don’t let me stop you from hiding under your beds.
DeleteI commented on the shape of your argument, not the numerical details.
DeleteHmmmmm......
ReplyDeleteTHE DAM IS BREAKING! NYPD Union Says Officers Should Stop Enforcing Social Distancing Order, Calls City Leaders ‘Cowards’
It's not about the efficacy of wearing masks. It's about making you wear the masks.
ReplyDeleteSlight revision to Rev 13:17
... and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mask.
For the most except for the frail and elderly. For those- they live in fear... for them the virus is nothing less than a death sentence. The arguments about which drugs, which tests are moot. For them it is not about carrying a long gun to a rally. Its about the masks that will save and protect themselves.
DeleteI do understand your point and it is a reasonable one.
I understand the death sentence.
DeleteMost people wearing masks are wearing dust filter or kerchiefs or (I can't say worse) other that is totally unfit for the purpose.
I went to the store today. The cashiers had masks. Neither the customers or cashiers had gloves. Each touching the same objects. It's a farce.
Ed, regrdless of what the others may think or say, YOU are the Champion of these damnable, interminable "Virus Threads."
DeleteThank you for being you.
You are one of very few these days who embody and exhibit the kind of resolute Faith, Courage and dauntless Determination that enabled the early settlers and westward bound 19th-century pioneers to establish this country amidst great dangers and against insuperable odds.
Wow! Thank you. Check is in the mail.
DeleteThis is video of the presence of the police poised to crack heads at a peaceful protest in Sacramento where people are registering their resentment of Newsom's unconstitutional lockdowns.
ReplyDeleteFortunately the police crackdown was averted by a Marine Vet Doctor shaming the cops.
Excellent post.
ReplyDeleteWe should expand on the bonus question. If surfing or swimming is a dangerous and irresponsible behavior amid the great virus panic of 2020, why do authorities continue to allow fishermen to launch their boats? Why are beaches unsafe at 7 a.m., but safe after 2 p.m.? Of possibly greater import, why are we having this bizarre conversation?
Hey you! Get in line. Are you a doctor? Do what you're told and put on the silencing device/mask.
DeleteWe need the police to begin enforcing the book of Leviticus...
ReplyDeletePeople who have recovered from the virus must still wear a mask because we are not sure that having the illness confers immunity, and yet the policy still talks about recovery of the economy based on herd immunity. One contradicts the other, and renders the policy as nothing more than incoherent babble.
ReplyDeleteThe testing issue is simply nonsense. If the criteria was that we must achieve a level of testing and that then the results of the tests would be used to guide decision making as to the easing of social and economic restrictions, that would make a certain amount of sense.
Not one governmental body and not one health advisory agency includes even the slightest hint, however, that the results of testing would bear any value in deciding the future course of action. Every single one of them places the decision as to easing simply on the ability to perform a certain number of tests.
The emphasis on being able to "monitor and measure the situation" without using that tool for making decisions would be tantamount to admitting a patient to the hospital an letting him die simply so that you can "monitor and measure" the process of him dying.
The evil that I am decrying is not how the pandemic is being dealt with. It is the massive incompetence of our leadership, and the willingness of our population to accept nonsense.
"Let the curve flatten..."
Delete"Wait til the numbers trend down..."
"Wait til their is universal testing..."
"Wait til the vaccine is distributed...."
I'm seeing a pattern here.
Wait untl your country is DEAD and its corpse is beginning emit the Stench of Decaying Flesh, and THEN "we" will ursh in to "save" you, by subjecting you to the benevolent DESPOTISM that comes with a totalitarian Police State.
Delete"BETTER DEAD THAN RED!"
"GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!"
"LIVE FREE OR DIE."
"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."
~ Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Exactly.
DeleteAt the end of the day, we're still faced with the "Now what" question. As a friend in Mexico asked me, for many, it comes down to this... die of Covid-19 or die from hunger. Either way, you're dead.
ReplyDeleteIt's easy for us, me included, to carp all day about how we don't like the proposed solutions. But I for one am glad I don't have to make the call. Our elected leaders do. All I ask from them is honesty, and then I can, knowing the real risks, make my choices.
Sadly, honesty from those leaders has been sorely lacking. Unless I am missing something.
Like many things in life, there are no "solutions." We deal with it. Even with annual flu shots, tens of thousands in the US still die of flu.
Delete____ IN PRAISE OF OPPRESSION ____
DeletePut on your facemark, and make it snappy
Ya gotta filter them germs away
Carry your hand spray, to make cops happy
Disinfect and avoid Death today
We're headin' 'cross the river
Killing Covid on the ride
You can't have Wuflu
On the Other Side
So don your facemark, and make it snappy
Ya gotta filter them germs away
Carry your hand spray, to make cops happy
Disinfect and avoid Death today
Time is a wastin,’ so make it snappy
Doc Fauci's eager to take your hand
Lead you to Exile where life feels crappy
He wants to keep you tfrom he Promised Land
We're headin' 'cross the river
Killing Covid on the ride
You can't have Wuflu
On the Other Side.
So don your facemark, and make it snappy
Ya gotta filter them germs away
Carry your hand spray, to make cops happy
Disinfect and avoid Death today
~ Harold Arlen (brutally adapted)
Franco,
DeleteHa! A very acerbic satire in verse.
Silver... you're right. At this point, there are no solutions. There may never be. This is all going to be a series of trade offs. How many businesses close to keep America safe? How many lives lost to restart the economy?
DeleteThose seem to be the poles where we find ourselves. It's very binary thinking.
I'm worried that the either/or approach is keeping us from imagining a scenario where we thread the needle in some sort of hybrid that given, may change the way we live our lives.
Perhaps the way forward is something new, not a return to what was.
The underlying question is this: how much do we/should we trust the American people to do the right thing for themselves/for their communities? Conscience should guide us all, whether business owner/employer, or consumer; whether young person with scant at risk, or elder person at considerable risk. I empathize with the small business owner, who went into business to put food on his family’s table. He, or she, must consider the bottom line, welfare of employees, and the welfare of customers. I doubt if many consumers are interested in stopping by Flo’s Shell Factory to buy seashells, so perhaps the nature of the business/goods offered help us to arrive at foregone conclusions. On the other hand, Tom’s TP Outlet may offer a good in high demand. To what extend should the government interfere with or infringe upon these relationships? Perhaps it is best for government to announce its concern about public safety and then allow people to choose their own path. If Bob is worried about coming down with a dangerous virus, then let Bob stay home. If Fran isn’t worried about it, then let Fran take her chances ... and answer to the consequences, if any. And if Betty comes down with Fran’s virus, then the lesson for Betty is to do a better job picking her friends. Isn’t that the way a free society works? Look ... people do stupid stuff all the time and occasionally the doing of it will kill them. We still allow them to jump out of airplanes, dive with man-eating fish, drive unsafe cars, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, and run their obnoxiously loud motorcycles. Funeral homes are businesses too.
DeleteSam asked... "how much do we/should we trust the American people to do the right thing for themselves/for their communities?"
DeleteThat is the question. I think there was a time when that question could be easily answered. back when ppl lived lives separated by distance, mostly unconnected. But this is not that time.
Dense city living makes it possible for one family to make what they believe is the best decision for their family, yet that decision comes back to haunt other families living close by.
What happens when what's good, or best, for me or you, is bad for our neighbor? Do we have a responsibility to temper our desires?
What happens to Bob if he's a meat packer. That's where he works, it's what he knows and it's how he support his family. But the factory is a virus hotspot. But the doors are open so he's expected to go work. If he doesn't, he gets no pay. If he does, he gets sick and maybe dies.
What's his best choice? For him? For his family?
I think that's where I am at. Sometimes there are no good choices, no either/or and yet, that is how we are wired, or pushed to think and consider ideas.
"let Fran take her chances ... and answer to the consequences, if any."
DeleteNot just Fran faces those consequences. The infection rate is to some extent proportional to the number of cases, so each Fran who bravely exposes herself increases the background risk for everybody else too.
"if Betty comes down with Fran’s virus, then the lesson for Betty is to do a better job picking her friends."
Not really, because Betty's increased exposure comes not only from direct contact with Fran, but also indirectly through eg. mutual acquaintances, public-facing workers etc.
"Isn’t that the way a free society works?"
Yes, and it works pretty well under most circumstances, but there are domains where individual rational self-interest leads to much worse outcomes than cooperation -- I don't read those types of textbooks, but I imagine managing a highly infectious disease is the kind of example that would appear in one. I hope I'm not betraying the cause of Liberty by acknowledging that Fran's actions cannot be decoupled from worried Bob. He does his best, but he cannot realistically quarantine himself perfectly; his level of human contact is not reduced to zero.
"We still allow them to jump out of airplanes, dive with man-eating fish, drive unsafe cars, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, and run their obnoxiously loud motorcycles."
I have to get my car to pass an annual test for road-worthiness, I'm not allowed to drink old fashioneds before driving a trainful of passengers, and I'm prohibited from smoking in the kindergarten classroom. It seems to be established that you enjoy some legal protection from the consequences of my stupidity.
The 1968 pandemic was caused by an influenza A (H3N2) virus comprised of two genes from an avian influenza A virus, including a new H3 hemagglutinin, but also contained the N2 neuraminidase from the 1957 H2N2 virus. It was first noted in the United States in September 1968. The estimated number of deaths was 1 million worldwide and about 100,000 in the United States. Most excess deaths were in people 65 years and older. The H3N2 virus continues to circulate worldwide as a seasonal influenza A virus. Seasonal H3N2 viruses, which are associated with severe illness in older people.
ReplyDeleteAKA: "The Hong Kong Flu".
Did Not Stop Woodstock
Back when we had a "Constitutional Republic"!
The Returning WWII vets, daily reminded the Gov. Officials,
They were mere Employees, of The People of The United States.
The Employees of "The People of The United States",
are NOT our leaders. We do not live as an Authoritarian
style socialist Peasants or Subjects.
Maybe someone who thinks Mexico or some other Country who's Leaders only thinking about the Statute of one's Self Aggrandizing is the best form of Government - can recite - Our Leaders--Our Leaders; with out thinking about self dignity, needs to go suck on the tit of those Governments.
Is there a vaccine for the Hong Kong flu?
ReplyDeleteIn 1968, scientists discovered a new strain of flu circulating around Hong Kong. The virus, though, didn't stay put. ... It has the ability to mutate both during and between flu seasons (more so than other strains), rendering our preventative vaccines less effective.Feb 1, 2018
I don't know what they are, but provisions for emergency powers certainly exist at state and federal levels. Are those provisions being followed properly? Are state and/or federal governments really acting unconstitutionally?
ReplyDeleteYou bring up an interesting point, Jez. The subject of emergency power is not addressed in the US Constitution beyond war powers accorded to the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, but such powers may be implied in cases of a national emergency owing to the fact that the President is able to act much quicker in such cases than the legislature. The question is, what constitutes a national emergency? Whether state governors possess such powers will depend on each state’s constitution. We know that Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War; we know that Woodrow Wilson instituted un-Constitutional edicts during World War I and that the US Supreme Court ruled against him in nearly every one of his orders to incarcerate war protestors ... much later, however, after the damage was done.
DeleteHistory may prove that executive emergency powers are all too frequency misused or abused. Interning Japanese American citizens is but one example. However, since Roosevelt acted according to the will of congress in that instance, the Supreme Court upheld Roosevelt’s executive order. It is a blot on our country’s history, but this is just my opinion. The Supreme Court did not support Truman when he seized US steel mills without congressional authority during the Korean War. So far, in terms of social lockdowns, Trump has been prudent ... first by delegating such decisions to state governors, and second by shutting down non-essential government offices. Of course, I wonder why we have non-essential government offices to begin with, but that’s just me.
I should add to the foregoing that 41 US Code 247d (the Public Health Service Act of 1944) offers two bars for declaring a national (health) emergency. “If the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines, after consultation with such public health officials as may be necessary, that (1) A disease or disorder presents a public health emergency, or (2) A public health emergency, including significant outbreaks of infectious diseases or bioterrorist attacks, otherwise exists. Prior to Covid-19, government implemented this provision to address the Opioid Crisis in 2017, and a declaration of national emergency in addressing the H1N1 pandemic in 2009. So, it would appear that the US government is empowered to declare a national emergency in connection with Covid-19, but what remains is the extent to which the government restrict human liberty. I should note that not everyone will agree that "prudence in protecting human life" justifies restricting human liberty.
DeleteYeah I had a feeling these powers were mostly being exercised by state governers. Too much detail for an outsider / constitutional simpleton like me to follow!
DeleteOur response should depend almost entirely on how infectious CV19 is, shouldn't it? But given the our current state of ignorance, do you think CV19 is a more clear-cut case of (inter-)national emergency than eg. the opioid crisis?
Most Americans do not understand the US Constitution, simply written as it is ... it still takes an advanced degree to argue it.
DeleteIt certainly makes sense to me that our response (to anything) should be consistent with its stimulus. There is no doubt that the C-19 is a dangerous virus, but some question the veracity of the published death rates. Is it as virulent as government tells us? You see, many Americans simply do not trust what government tells them, particularly when there is a presence of contradictory information.
Here’s why many Americans do not trust the government: decades ago, the US government began conducting medical experiments on our citizens. They did this surreptitiously. They performed horrible experiments on the mentally ill, they infected black men with syphilis, injected children with polio vaccines ... and at no time were any of these research scientists held to account for the pain and suffering the imposed upon others. Did these scientists rid the world of polio? No. Can we say that the human suffering imposed on the innocents by “mad scientists” was at all justified?
Given what we know, then, is there any wonder why some parents refuse to have their children inoculated against the so-called childhood diseases? Americans question the death rate attributed to C-19, they question its “pandemic” status. They question the necessity for putting people under arrest; they question the justification for putting people out of work.
And, quite recently, we learned from a medical research scientist that government-paid scientists only tell the American public what they want them to know about vaccines, without telling them everything, about their effects. Given what we know, a rational person will question what government tells them. I will also suggest that because of the HIV sequencing in the C-19 virus, only a fool would accept C-19 immunization.
I know little about the opioid crisis ... only that opioids are over-prescribed by medical doctors, that as a result, people become addicted. Is that a public health crisis? I don’t know. Is it a pandemic? No. As for doctors and scientists, maybe we should all demand a second, third, or fourth opinion.
Anyway, two two-cents. I'll take my change please.
sure here's 50 Zimbabwean cents, don't spend it all at once...
Delete*Everyone* questions the published death rates. The large degree of uncertainty is no secret.
I can't justify unethical expeiments, but I think vaccinations in general are a highly successful population-level intervention which to forego would set us back a century or more. I hope Americans who have grown weary of their government find credible alternative sources, but the prominent anti-vaxers I'm aware of are conmen with even fewer scruples than the government -- I'm thinking particularly Andrew Wakefield, who wrote a fraudulent paper linking the MMR vaccine with autism and failed to disclose funding from lawyers engaged in prosecuting vaccine producers.
I think it's good to be a skeptic, but selective skepticism is dangerous: question the anti-vaxers too.
"HIV sequencing in the C-19 virus"
haven't heard that one before. I'll wait for a vaccine to exist before assessing it.
Opiom isn't a pandamic, because it is not infectious. But that's just by the definition I use; how do you define pandemic? What do Americans who are "questioning [cv19's] “pandemic” status" mean by the word?
Mustang... President Trump at one point in all of this, and I've seen reporting confirming it, that as president he has a host of "secret" powers to use in disasters. True or not, I don't know, but I don't see it as some wild theory that Congress has granted the Pres a host of powers of which "We the People" are not aware.
ReplyDeleteMustang said... " It is a blot on our country’s history, but this is just my opinion."
ReplyDeleteAnd it is a great opinion. From my vantage point as a lefty liberal, I heartily agree.
I worked at a bank in the early 1990's when we sent the survivors of those families a sum of $20,000. One elderly lady came in with her check. She said after all the years, she was finally glad to get an apology. I copied the letter from President Bush with that apology and looked at it just the other day.
It still moves me.