THE ONE GUY TRUMP CAN'T BEAT

          During the 2016 and 2020 elections, there have been hundreds of national polls taken on Trump vs. everybody---Abrams, Bennet, Bloomberg, Booker, Bullock, Buttigieg, Castro, Clinton, Cuomo, De Blasio, Delaney, Gabbard, Gillibrand, Harris, Hickenlooper, Inslee, Klobuchar, Messen, O’Rourke, Patrick, Ryan, Sanders, Sestak, Steyer, Warren, Williamson, Young.  And that’s just the Democrats.

          Trump didn’t always win these polls, of course.  He is losing national polls to Biden now, but he has beaten Biden as well.  Hillary certainly won a lot of national polls against him, though Trump had some wins against her too.

          But there is one character Trump has never been able to beat.  Donald is probably 0 - 22, or something.  Just in this cycle, there was an October 3, 2019 poll by the PPP organization which had Trump losing 52 – 41.  Then there were three major polls in March, 2020.  First, on March 3, NBC/WSJ had Trump losing 48 – 41.  Two days later, Hill/Harris reported a 46 – 39 margin.  Then on March 7, the POLITICO Morning Consult had Trump losing 44 – 36 to this seemingly invincible foe.

          OK.  Enough.  Who is it that Trump has never beaten?  It’s the “Generic Democrat.”  Pollsters run these polls when everybody knows who one of the candidates is but the other candidate is undecided.  In early 2012, for example, before Romney won the nomination, there were polls of Barack Obama vs. “Generic Republican.”

          The reason Trump loses these contests is not hard to figure out.  A lot of people don’t like him, though that is not as big a problem as it may seem at first glance.  Many people who didn’t like him actually voted for him in 2016 because they viewed the alternative, Hillary, as being even more loathsome than he is.  It is a lot easier to run against a real opponent than against a fantasy because a real opponent is going to have flaws.  There are lots of actual Democrats Trump can beat.

          A “Generic Democrat,” however, is pretty much whoever the voter wants it to be.  Combine the sweeping vision of FDR with the aristocratic polish and loveable family of JFK, the piety of Jimmy Carter, the feel-your-pain empathy of Bill Clinton….  Well, now you’re talking.  Leave Hillary out of the picture entirely.  LBJ as well.  A “Generic Democrat” is a pretty attractive candidate.  Every Democrat would vote for him.  I might vote for him myself.

          And that’s who the Democrats, through a bizarre concatenation of circumstances, are nominating to run against Trump.  Somehow, they have managed to create a “Generic Democrat” and get him on the ballot.

          The one thing we all know about Joe Biden is that, should he be elected, he will NOT be president.  He’s just not capable of it.  He may be able to have an important-looking state dinner with Angela Merkel and he might ceremonially sign his name to an executive order somebody else writes, or place a Medal of Honor around a soldier’s neck, but he will never be permitted to formulate a foreign policy or craft legislation or send troops into combat or make a deal with Putin.  And everybody knows it.

          Every nation has a “head of state” and a “head of government.”  In the UK, for example, the Queen is the head of state and the PM is the head of government, and this division of the ceremonial and the political is common around the world.  In the United States, however, the two are combined in a single person called the President.  At least, that is the way it has been up until now.  If Biden is elected, that will change.  He will be the head of state and some as-yet-unnamed person or committee will govern.

          The genius of the Democratic strategy here is we are not being told who will be the actual president, the political leader.  It may be the vice president, whoever that turns out to be, though that seems increasingly unlikely.  Since Joe remains tucked away in his Bat Cave, we know very little of his campaign and who is running the show. What we see is his wife, and a group of anonymous campaign staffers, and a steady stream of politicians from every corner of the leftish spectrum.  He’s been endorsed by Jimmy Buffett, Angela Davis, Jesse Jackson, Billy Jean King, Megan Rapinoe, Mark Cuban and dozens of others.  Then there’s the “Biden-Sanders Task Force” that is meeting to draft the party platform.  Bernie loves Joe now.  Everybody loves Joe, now that we know he will never be the real president.

          The American public is thus being permitted to believe whatever it wishes about who the next president will be.  Some combination of Pelosi and Schumer and Hillary?  Maybe.  A committee of Bernie and Jill Biden and their love child?  Well, that’s possible too.  Stacie Abrams?  Why not?  The only thing we do know is that if Biden is elected, the next president WILL NOT be Trump, and for most Democrats, that’s all they need in order to vote for Joe.

          It’s a brilliant strategy in its way, and very much a “when-life-gives-you-lemons” solution to array of political problems that would normally doom a campaign:

1)  An epidemic that prevents much traditional campaigning,

2)  A candidate about whom no one has ever been very enthusiastic,

3)  A candidate who will not be able to govern if elected,

4)  A candidate with little in the way of a discernable political philosophy.

          Running “Generic Democrat” for president has never been tried before, but we’ve never been in this situation before.  And it might work.

Copyright2020MichaelKubacki  

CORONA---The Masquerade

          On July 1, Pennsylvania’s Rachel Levine published an “Order of the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Health Requiring Universal Face Coverings.”  This is merely the latest, of course.  For ninety days, everyone inside a building presenting a prescription or getting an oil change or purchasing a banana had to wear a mask, as well as the people who filled the prescription or changed the oil or sold the banana.  But that wasn’t enough.  Now if there’s some chance you might come closer than six feet from somebody outside, on a running track or at a farmers market or pushing your child on a swing, you are required to wear a mask as well.

          Why?  Well, there’s not a lot of explanation for that.  We’re all just supposed to know it because it is pounded home to us on every newscast and in every newspaper.  “Wear your mask!  It’s the smart thing to do!  We’re all in this together!”  Etc.

 

          Ms. Levine, however, in her thousand-word ukase, offers us this: “See https://www.//www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html#recent-studies.  When used in public settings, face coverings will work to reduce the spread of COVID-19 in the Commonwealth.”  At this CDC site, there are nineteen academic, medical-journal type studies listed.  This is the proof that Rachel Levine’s Order is based on something.  You know--- the science.

          So I went there, and first of all, it was not easy.  The address of the CDC site is not hyperlinked in the Order, and since it was published as a PDF file, I also couldn’t figure out how to copy and paste the address.  (My browser?  My ineptitude?)  What I had to do was manually type the more than 100 characters of the address into my search engine, and of course, I made a couple of mistakes before I got it right.  Now, I am not claiming this is part of some grand conspiracy among Rachel Levine, Anthony Fauci and the Illuminati, but the point is that one is never encouraged to look behind the curtain, to assess the “science” on your own.

          At the website, some of the nineteen studies have links embedded, and others do not.  It is possible, however, to track down the studies and read them.  I did so, though I only had to go beyond the abstracts on a couple of them.  One must assume that neither Rachel Levine nor Governor Wolf ever read the damn things, because if they had, they would be embarrassed to claim they offer any support for her statement that, “When used in public settings, face coverings will work to reduce the spread of COVID-19 in the Commonwealth.”

          A dozen do not even mention masking.  They deal with two issues that were much discussed early on in the pandemic but which nobody argues about today.  First was the question whether direct human-to-human transmission was even possible.  This was only an issue because the Chinese authorities initially lied about it and said there was no direct transmission.  The second question was whether asymptomatic or minimally-symptomatic people can transmit the ‘rona; there is no longer much question that this is possible.

          The other studies on the CDC site at least mention masking in some context.  A few deal with the efficacy of surgical masks worn by professional care workers in hospitals (e.g, “Effectiveness of selected surgical masks in arresting vegetative cells and endospores when worn by simulated contagious patients” by Green, Davidson, Panlilio et al., 2012).  Others speculate on what materials (cotton, silk, etc.) might be most effective in masks worn by the general public.  (e.g, “Testing the efficacy of homemade masks: would they protect in an influenza pandemic?” by Davies, Giri, Kafatos, Walker, Bennett, 2013).

          But literally none of these studies offer any support for Rachel Levine’s claim that “When used in public settings, face coverings will work to reduce the spread of COVID-19 in the Commonwealth.”

                                 *

          But there was one recent study of public mask-wearing that has gotten considerable attention for its conclusion that face covering is effective in preventing infection.  It was not on Levine’s (or the CDC’s) list.  This is the much-discussed “Identifying airborne transmission as the dominant route for the spread of COVID-19” that was presented in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on May 16.

          I read it.  I’m not an epidemiologist (but neither are the authors---they’re chemists and climate scientists), and I can't say it was easy, and maybe I even misunderstood some of it, but I do have some observations about the methodology and the geographical areas the researchers decided to study.

 

          So let's start with the areas chosen for study---Italy, NY and Wuhan.  I will grant you that every place that has taken a serious hit from COVID has had a different experience from every other place that has been hit hard, but is it possible to come up with three places LESS typical of the pandemic experience than Italy, NY and Wuhan?  Italy has the oldest population in Europe (second oldest in the world), and a dreadful national health service, and as a result, had a very unpleasant experience with the virus.  New York is unique for its lunatic Governor who ordered the state's nursing homes to take in COVID patients discharged from hospitals but still infectious, so they could infect thousands of otherwise healthy (though vulnerable) elderly people.  Then he sneakily undercounted the nursing home deaths.  Then he blamed Trump for it all.  In general, if you remove the 14,000 or 15,000 Cuomo-inflicted nursing home deaths from New York's numbers, the state did not have an unusually lethal experience.  Also, of course, mask-wearing had exactly nothing to do with Cuomo’s nursing home holocaust.

          Finally, there's Wuhan, where the researchers dutifully report the official Chinese government numbers of 4600 deaths, and then conclude that the swift imposition of mask protocols in China, along with the general acceptance of mask-wearing among the Chinese, was responsible for the extremely low numbers of Wuhan fatalities.

          Question.  Have you read any other study of the COVID experience that accepts Chinese government case numbers and fatalities and uses them to draw rational, scientific conclusions?  No?  Well, I haven't either.  Maybe you remember the stories about the numbers of urns delivered to funeral homes in Wuhan, or the various accounts of health-care workers (some of whom were never heard from again).  Guo Wengui, the exiled Chinese businessman and whistle-blower, estimated the death toll in Wuhan was 50,000, based on his information from crematoriums.  Other estimates from those on the scene are of a similar magnitude.

          Italy, NY and Wuhan.  Are these the places you would have chosen if you were seeking to draw some general conclusions about what typical governments or the health-care establishment did effectively?

          Another troubling issue was related to their methodology, specifically the (unstated, undiscussed) assumption that the only factors in the spread of the virus and the number of cases were the government edicts regarding masks, distancing, etc.   In other words, they assume the nature of the virus itself had no role in the matter.  Nowhere do they even acknowledge the number of studies (probably in double-digits by now), reporting on the pattern of infections and cases that was common from country to country.  With minor variations, there's six weeks of build-up to a peak that lasts about two weeks, and then the number of cases declines rather sharply.  This has happened everywhere, and it is not possible that these researchers are unaware of the studies, yet they ignored them.  To them, the only thing that mattered was when mask-wearing rules were imposed, regardless of where in the ten-week pattern the rules were issued.

          In terms of the number of cases to be expected in coming weeks, nothing is more important than how far along a state or country is in this ten-week pattern.  If a mask edict is imposed in Week 2, cases will continue to spike for another six weeks and the mask edict will appear to have no effect.  If the edict is promulgated in Week 8, however, mask-wearing will appear to have “broken” the pandemic because the number of new cases is about to fall precipitously.  In either case, the masks would have nothing to do with it.  In Week 8 of the ten-week pattern, if an Order were issued demanding that people wear underwear on their heads, it would appear to have a miraculous effect because the number of cases is about to fall anyway.  Underwear on the head?  Who knew??

          This type of selective “science,” ignoring important and well-known factors in the spread of cases in the interest of reaching a desired conclusion, is indefensible.  Maybe masks have an effect.  Maybe distancing does, and other restrictions.  I can accept that if it's true.  But the failure of these researchers to even acknowledge the epidemiological playing field on which they are working is hard to forgive.

          Next, the climate scientists here base their conclusions on an assumption that mask orders are black-and-white matters, so they measure infections and deaths before and after critical dates like NY's imposition of mask-wearing on April 17 or Italy's on April 6.  But the distinction between NY on April 17 and Pennsylvania on April 17 (or Sweden on April 17) is anything but a bright line.  In Pennsylvania, EVERYONE in a store, or engaged in a food-related transaction, has been required to wear a mask since March 16.  Is that so different from Italy or NY, or even China?  People in Sweden wear masks though they may not be required to.  Yet, for these researchers, the measuring begins and ends on the dates of certain particular government edicts even though the edicts really cannot logically be used to differentiate one place from another.

          So based on all their assumptions, the authors conclude (spoiler alert!), that wearing masks is the reason Wuhan and NY had such an easy and carefree COVID experience.  No kidding.  They really think New York and Wuhan did a great job, and they assert that the mask edicts were a central aspect of the success of those two governments.  I do not share their conclusions.  In fact, I LOL’ed when I got to that part of the study, and that’s something I rarely do when I read a peer-reviewed medical article in an academic journal.

          The response of actual epidemiologists to this paper has not been kind, and there have been demands that the PNAS withdraw it from their prestigious publication.  For one thing, nobody takes China's official numbers seriously.  In addition, nobody except propagandists views China's behavior during the pandemic to be especially admirable.  Finally, there is another reason to withdraw the study, though no one will mention it.  The first four authors of this study praising China’s brilliant response to the pandemic are Renyi Chang, Yixin Li, Annie L. Zhang, and Yuan Wang.

                                                *

          I could perform this same sort of comic autopsy on any number of recent academic articles on mask-wearing that rely on unsupportable assumptions and often appear to grow more out of political beliefs than an honest desire to answer a scientific question.  Another that has gotten some attention is “The Case for Universal Cloth Mask Policies to Increase the Supply of Medical Masks for Health Workers,” published April 6 by Abaluck, Christaki, Forman, and a bunch of other Yalies.  They simply assume the effectiveness of masks worn by the general public, citing a number of studies as proof, but which prove no such thing.  Their contribution to the debate is apparently their ability to monetize the benefits, concluding that each John Q. Public who routinely wears a mask while filling his tank or shopping at Costco translates to a societal boon of $3,000 to $6,000 (a “conservative” figure, they assure us).

          There’s just not much there.  There is speculation that masks prevent infection, and there is plenty of scolding, particularly from those who are deeply invested politically in forcing the public to wear masks.  But “science?”  There’s nothing really.  A fair summary would be that there seems little reason to think wearing masks does any great harm, though there is also some disagreement about that.  Some believe that wearing a mask for an extended period and rebreathing one’s own exhaled air is unhealthy, though there are no studies supporting that either.  Also, Surgeon General Jerome Adams said on March 2, 2020 that the public should not wear masks because some people would wear them incorrectly and increase the spread of the infection.  (A reminder: as recently as March, the WHO, the CDC and the U.S. Surgeon General each recommended that the general public not wear masks.  All recently changed their official positions.)

          Which leaves us, finally, with the argument we increasingly hear from our bureaucrats and politicians and cable-news geniuses:  "Wear a mask! Why not? It’s not going to kill you, and maybe it will help.  We’re all in this together!”

          We might just as well pass a law saying everyone has to wear garlic around their necks because, well, that’s not going to hurt us either, right?  The point is that we are either a society that is governed by logic and reason and science or we’re not, and if we are not, why not?  I’m still kind of fond of the Enlightenment.  I’m committed to reason.  I thought we all were, or at least were supposed to be.

          Besides, I’m not trying to order anyone NOT to wear masks.  Wear them everywhere.  Enjoy yourself.  Wear them until they develop that vaccine you’ve been praying for.  However, “it can’t hurt much” is hardly a justification for a universal, significant intrusion of indefinite duration upon my personal space and the rights I am guaranteed under American law.  For that, you need a bit more.  You need something, anyway, especially when the authorities issuing these orders have been so consistently wrong in their public health pronouncements.  So why don’t you decide what’s best for you, and I’ll decide what’s best for me.  That way, we can both be right.

Copyright2020MichaelKubacki

CORONA---Play Ball

          By now, you may have seen some of the health and safety rules Major League Baseball has proposed for the re-opening of the sport, though I forgive you if you haven’t seen all the new rules because there are 67 pages of them (and that was only the initial draft).

          There will be no fans allowed in the ballpark, of course, because that would presumably convert it into a slaughterhouse.  Players not actually in the game would occupy some of the seats in the stands, though they would have to wear masks and remain six feet apart at all times.  Players in the dugout would be wearing masks as well; face coverings could be removed only when a player enters the field of play.

          There will be no hugs or fist-bumps or high-fives or trash-talking to the first baseman after you lace a single to left.  Also no spitting---hence no tobacco and no sunflower seeds.

          Players and their families will get Covid testing several times a week and players will have their temperatures taken several times each day.  Players will only be permitted to eat at their hotels and will not be permitted to visit other restaurants or bars.  Also, no one will be allowed in players’ hotel rooms except for family members.  (Sorry, girls!)

          Play ball!

          And then there’s my plan:

          First of all, because the start of the season has been delayed, there will be a shorter season---82 games starting early July should do it.  Baseball stadiums will be open to fans who wish to buy tickets, and if the capacity of the stadium is 42,312, then 42,312 tickets may potentially be sold.  As a fan, you may wear a mask if you wish.  You may also attempt to distance yourself from other fans.  Good luck.  Hot dogs and sodas and beer and turkey legs and sushi and popcorn will be sold.  Around the 7^th inning, guys will stand in line in the men’s room six inches apart, desperately waiting to pee.

          Players will play baseball in the usual fashion, including fist bumps, pats on the butt, high-fives, spitting and (when warranted), brawls and fist-fights.  Managers and umpires desiring further discussion of a ruling on the field will stand two inches apart and express their views forcefully while raining droplets of spittle on each other’s faces.  Any player who wishes to get a coronavirus test is welcome to do so but is not required to.  Players can live wherever they wish, eat and drink wherever they wish, and screw whomever they wish.

          Players will be paid pro-rata for the number of games played.  Any player or coach or hot-dog vendor or valet-parking guy who refuses to play because of health concerns may sit out the season and will suffer no punishment for doing so, though he will not be paid.  If a player does this, his contract and years of service record will simply be suspended until next Spring.

          In the event a state or city government imposes restrictions on a team in its home stadium (masks, limiting crowd size, etc.), team owners may find an alternate venue for their home games (maybe a minor league park in another state?), or they may forfeit the games, which will count as losses on the team’s record.

          And what would happen?  Well, baseball would happen.  And nothing else.  If you’re 86 years old and have cancer, don’t go to the ballpark.  Otherwise, Covid is over.

          There have been no “second waves” or “hot spots” despite all the dire (almost gleeful), predictions about what would happen when people started going to restaurants and getting haircuts.  The lockdowns, it turns out, were pointless anyway---the pattern of new cases was the same everywhere, regardless of the level of restrictions imposed or not imposed.  The only reason mayors and governors are still trying to maintain their “Phase 2” restrictions or “Level Yellow” rules is that it would be embarrassing for them to admit the police-state tactics they attempted to enforce had zero effect on public health, and only hurt the millions who were locked up in their homes, unemployed.

          The latest proof that the restrictions were politically motivated from the beginning comes from the huge George Floyd demonstrations around the country that occurred over the past ten days.  Thousands gathered together, marching shoulder to shoulder in forty cities, many of them still “locked-down.”  And what are we told by our overlords?

          Well, according to Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins, “In this moment the public health risks of not protesting to demand an end to systemic racism greatly exceed the harms of the virus.”  And she’s not the only one.  Tom Frieden, former CDC Director, has been scolding all of us for weeks about the dangers of a rushed re-opening, but now says the mass protests are fine.  Apparently, if we don’t fix all our racially racist racism by gathering ten thousand people together, the virus will hit us harder, or something.

          And then there’s Governor Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania, who has kept all our schools and restaurants and “non-essential” businesses closed for 2 ½ months, and is still doing so, but who marched in a massive Philadelphia protest this past weekend with significantly more than the 25 people permitted under current crowd-size restrictions.

          There’s just no possible excuse for the lockdowns and the masks and the six feet anymore, and yet the charade continues.

          So play ball, I say.  And what would happen?

          Well, I don’t know.  Nobody does.  That’s the thing about freedom and the spontaneous order that arises in a society when free people are each doing what they think is best for themselves and their families and their communities.  Since it’s not commanded from above, the result is usually a pleasant surprise.  I suspect almost all the players and coaches and valet-parking guys and hot-dog vendors will show up, and will be happy to be there.  I suspect the crowds will be small at first, and will consist primarily of people who never swallowed the fear-porn that has been dished out to us for breakfast, lunch, and dinner over the last three months, but the crowds will grow quickly as fans notice the outfielders are not keeling over in their death-throes.  And finally, a lot of fans in their sixties and up will probably stay home, at least until 2021.  We should trust them and their family members to make the wisest decisions about their personal health and safety, especially since the politicians and bureaucrats who have orchestrated this mini-police-state have repeatedly demonstrated, and continue to demonstrate, their complete incompetence.

Copyright2020MichaelKubacki   

CORONA---The Howling

          Today at work, I spent much of the day muttering to myself about the bastards who have shut down large swathes of America for no reason, and the other bastards (the ones I thought were on my side), doing nothing about it.  With the mask on, no one can hear.  If they could, they would probably be dragging me away.

          At this point, there can be no conceivable reason for further restrictions, and yet they remain in place.  The original rationale offered ten weeks ago for shutting schools and colleges, all sports and cultural events and churches, and throwing tens of millions out of work was always questionable, especially since no discussion of it was permitted.  “Flattening the curve,” they said---relieving pressure on our healthcare system before it could be overwhelmed by the ‘rona.  OK, well that didn’t happen, and not only did it not happen but we have learned that the shutdowns were never going to flatten anything anyway.  A number of studies from around the world have confirmed what some of us suspected from the beginning---curves don’t get flattened and the number of cases a particular area experiences follows the same pattern regardless of the level of government restrictions imposed or not imposed.  The lockdowns have served no public health function.  All they have done is impoverish the healthy and the innocent.

          The only rational course of action for our overlords now is a decree ending all shelter-in-place edicts and policed lockdowns, allowing free people to live their lives as they see fit, taking whatever precautions they deem appropriate for themselves and their families.

          There is no longer any justification for the restrictions; there is literally no public health argument that can fairly be made.  The patterns everywhere are the same, and there have been no “second waves” despite the apocalyptic warnings of all our “experts.”  Somehow, we all survived people in Georgia getting haircuts and tattoos.

          Yet not only do the autocrats and bullies who authored these policies continue to enforce them and even extend them, there is virtually no political conservative who will even argue with them.  At most, the quislings in Congress and the conservative media will try to nibble around the edges of this policing regimen.  “Well, maybe we should allow 25 people to assemble now, so long as they wear masks, of course.”  “Well, we can’t open restaurants, of course, but with the right disinfecting procedures, we ought to allow hair salons to reopen some time in August.”  “Well, OK, you can play baseball but no one can watch.  And no spitting!  And we’ll have to take everybody’s temperature before every game.”

          NO!  The only correct answer is NO!  Open up the gyms and the ballparks and the restaurants and the swimming pools and the schools.  NOW!  And if there are people who don’t want to go to a baseball stadium with fans in the seats, fine.  No one is forcing them to go.  No one ever forced them to go.  Remember? At first, there will be plenty of people who still isolate themselves, especially because of all the virus-terror that has been pounded into all of us over the past months, but gradually public venues will begin to fill up again as people re-evaluate the risks in a way that is realistic and appropriate for them.  It may be a while before an 86-year-old with a compromised immune system goes to a hockey game, but that’s OK.  That’s the way it should be.  In a free society, one size never fits all.

          Why is this happening?  Why are the restrictions still in place?  Why are ministers and gym owners being threatened with massive fines and imprisonment and property seizures?  Why must tens of millions be driven into penury and despair?

          Because this is not about the virus anymore.

          Corona was the reason in the beginning, I think, at least to some extent.  The initial justification of flattening the curve was plausible if you didn’t think too deeply about it, and we were not permitted to think about it even a little bit.  There was no public debate at all.  The policing regimen was just dropped upon us, suddenly, without warning.  It was an emergency, you see.

          In the beginning, besides the virus, there were other reasons motivating the bullies and other aspects of our culture that prevented us from seeing what was happening until it was too late.  The precautionary principle has apparently triumphed in America, for example, and none of us noticed.  We never really objected when the diving boards disappeared and the peanuts in school lunches were banned.  Now we don’t even laugh out loud when someone in power refers to the “infinite value of a single human life,” as a matter of public policy.  The unnoticed politicization of science that allows a lifelong bureaucrat like Fauci to rule the country is another culprit, though the fingerprints were there in the legions of “climate scientists” who all stopped doing science and started proposing laws and treaties.  Then there are the traditional American ideals of freedom and individual responsibility that the Left have always hated---what better way to undermine them than to show how easily an “emergency” permits them to be suspended, and perhaps, destroyed. 

          And now that the nation has been brought to its knees after two months of executive rule, there are other reasons.  Defeating Trump in November is the biggest one, which is why Democratic governors are the most determined to maintain and extend the restrictions, and inflict the most economic pain possible, for which Trump will be blamed.  Unlike the Russia scam and impeachment and the Ukrainian phone call, Trump never saw this one coming.  Six months ago, it was obvious to everyone that the only way Trump could be defeated would be if his booming economy collapsed.  It is odd, and ironic, and sad, that when the Left came up with a plan to destroy it, and his presidency, Trump did not merely step aside, he embraced the idea.

Copyright2020MichaelKubacki      

CORONA---The Conspiracies

1.  Bill Gates developed the virus because he wants to vaccinate the world’s population in order to implant microchips in everyone.

2.  The coronavirus would not normally be very dangerous to humans, but the continuing development of genetically-modified organisms weakens us and allows the virus to proliferate.  The problem is not really the virus itself; it’s the GMOs.

3.  There is no virus.  The sickness is coming from 5G radiofrequency communications now being deployed around the world.  Alternate version: there really is a virus but 5G destroys our immune systems and makes us vulnerable to it.

4.  George Soros developed the virus in order to crash the world economy and have Trump defeated in the November elections.

5.  The Trump Administration has had a vaccine for a year and all the Trump insiders have been vaccinated already.  The vaccine will be released to the world shortly before the election and will sweep Trump and the Republicans into office.

6.  The virus escaped from a UFO.

7.  “They” have unleashed the virus in order to eliminate paper money by scaring people about the germs it might have on it.

8.  The biggest roadblock for the imposition of socialized medicine around the world is the cost of caring for sick, elderly people.  COVID-19 is a pathogen that has been altered so it almost never attacks the young, only the old.  Once the elderly are culled, universal government-run healthcare will be instituted in every country.

9.  Elon Musk and other billionaires have dreamed of colonizing Mars for themselves and their descendants.  This is necessary because climate change will soon make the Earth uninhabitable.  The problem is that climate change is progressing too fast, so Musk and the other billionaires have decided to kill off two billion humans in order to slow the environmental damage to the Earth.  This will give them the time they need to complete their exodus.

10.  COVID-19 is a ruse designed to encourage widespread DNA testing of human beings so that anyone with alien genes can be identified. These hybrid humans will be eradicated because the Federation of Planets will not allow genetically-modified organisms to leave their home planet.  The Federation’s concern is that humankind is on the verge of space travel.

11. The virus was designed and released by the Chinese in order to tarnish Trump’s image and get their old buddy Joe Biden elected President in November.

12. The pandemic is a culling of humanity by the elites because the planet will be easier to rule with fewer people on it, especially if the remaining people are more docile and obedient.  Thus, the targets are primarily those in the freedom-loving working class.  This is why government workers and the highly-educated are allowed to keep their jobs and be relatively unaffected by the widespread economic destruction.

13. Aliens planted the virus on Earth as a doomsday device many millennia ago in order to eradicate mankind if it became necessary.  The aliens are alarmed by our progress in space exploration, so they are shutting down our species.

Copyright2020MichaelKubacki     

CORONA---"Humanity Over Profits"

          Nextdoor is a social media community application found around the country.  The one for my area is called Nextdoor East Falls, and the usual topics concern restaurant openings, community events, the farmers market, street closings, and so on.  Frequently, however, politics creeps onto the forum and when it does, it is invariably the politics of the liberal left.

          The following exchange is typical of the thinking in my neighborhood.  It has been slightly edited and all the names have been changed.  The originator of this thread, whom I call Laura Davis, is a woman who appears to be in her mid-twenties, with no obvious health issues or disabilities, so her chance of contracting the coronavirus and dying (because of her job at the Starbucks drive-through), is virtually zero.  Also, though there are 36 million people unemployed and though tens of thousands of businesses have been closed, and though the coming months may bring untold millions to despair and homelessness and substance abuse and suicide, and though famines are likely around the world because of the economic lockdowns, Ms. Davis has a job.

           

A reminder from your local Starbucks Barista:

Laura Davis, South Roxborough. 5-5-20

Starbucks is NOT essential. I’m at work because I don’t really have a choice, but you have a choice to stay inside and avoid unnecessary trips. Quarantine isn’t over just because you’re bored! It’s one thing to order local delivery to support small business, but another entirely to continue to frequent places like Starbucks, McDonalds, etc, who will survive this and are currently exploiting their workers.

V. M.

O.K.  No restaurant is essential in your mind. Do all your fellow workers agree?

Laura Davis

That’s not quite what I said. I support small, locally owned restaurants and their right to safely stay open at their choosing. But I feel that the “it’s food so it’s essential” gap has paved the way for people like me to be stuck in a job that’s potentially dangerous for no good reason (whereas first responders: dangerous job but saving lives) and definitely more hectic than it needs to be with everything currently going on because fast food chains want to stay open. Where local businesses could shut down over this, chains will survive. And what I’m seeing, working in one of the only drive thru locations in Philly, is our line being clogged with nonessential workers, our staff trying our best to handle these long lines but not really having much control over the whole situation, and dealing with customers who are incredibly angry over the line length especially with mobile ordering and Uber Eats still being options, but also required to wait in lines, and most people I interact with on a daily basis aren’t taking any safety precautions, etc. Dangerous for no reason, especially with numbers still as high as they are, for a nonessential business, just to be yelled at anyway. During a pandemic. I would advocate for better protections for workers stuck in a similar position, so that they don’t feel financially dependent on a precarious situation. But by all means, please order local.

Laura Davis

I think it really depends on the location you’re at, a lot of my struggle is seeing our lines clogged because people are out with nothing else to do, and because we’re one of the only drive thrus in Philly, and that’s what gets me. I wouldn’t mind staying open to serve other essential workers, but it’s pretty clear who’s out just for fun and who’s out for a caffeine dose before work.

Annoyed Presumed Fascist

What do you mean by "I’m at work because I don’t really have a choice"? Are you inferring you have to go to work because you need the money? How do you expect Starbucks to continue paying you if everyone stops showing up to purchase coffee? Next thing you know you'll be out of a job and asking neighbors to join you in a rent freeze.

Laura Davis

That’s exactly what I’m saying. I can’t look for another job, because no one is hiring. I would most likely be denied for unemployment if I quit, because I don’t have any pre-existing conditions and haven’t technically been laid off. I assume you’re trying to be hurtful by saying that I’d be striking for a rent freeze, but I absolutely would. I’m a firm believer in humanity over profits and the way our economy and large businesses as a whole are handling this pandemic and profiting/exploiting off of fear and disaster is very upsetting to me and many other demographics that you may not be well acquainted with. For instance, did you know that this pandemic is most greatly affecting minorities and those working below a certain pay grade (a little above minimum wage)? That’s where my concern lies.

K. C.

If anyone in the neighborhood is organizing for tenants' rights, please contact me--I would like to volunteer.

S. G.

And she’s right. Starbucks could certainly pay its staff to stay home via a PPP or just dig into its corporate pockets and cover its staff while this pandemic rolls on. Some people don’t have much of a choice when it comes to paying the rent or buying groceries so have to put themselves at risk. Heading to Starbucks because you have to have your whatever frappacino puts others at risk of contracting Covid 19.

Annoyed Presumed Fascist

That's awesome, I'd love to work for a company that is paying people to stay home and not work currently. Any leads on that?

B. S.

The Census Bureau did. A giant corporation like Starbucks could absolutely afford to,

A. M.

It’s like going to Target to buy necessities (food, medications, household items) vs going to Target just to buy shoes, earrings and purses. I’m thankful for the store that are open, but it’s good to stick to just the most essential trips.

S. F.

You're 10000% correct. I feel awful for all non-essential (and some essential, like grocery stores) workers being taken advantage of right now. What can we do? Can we write to someone?

K.T.

http://chng.it/G5VgXtQgVR it would be awesome if you could sign this petition for Starbucks employees to keep our $3 raise! Outside of the city we are way underpaid and the extra money through this time has really helped partners (employees). No pressure at all tho if you don’t want to! Also hopefully it doesn’t show up in Spanish, I’m not sure why the website thinks I speak Spanish and it shows up that way for me.

Copyright2020MichaelKubacki

CORONA---The Madness Rolls On

          I continue to look for some evidence that a curve somewhere, anywhere, is being flattened.  I look every day, and so far, the only evidence I have seen is the study out of Israel, almost a month old now, indicating that the pattern of new cases follows the same curve regardless of the country and regardless of the amount of quarantining imposed on the citizenry.  Italy, Sweden, the UK, Israel, New York---total lockdowns, partial lockdowns, laissez-faire followed by severe lockdown, complete freedom---none of it makes any difference to the course of the disease through the population.

          There are plenty of opinions out there, and there are many people deeply invested, politically and otherwise, in the idea that trying to “flatten the curve” by shutting down society is wise.  If anyone is aware of any actual evidence on this point, please send it to me at duck3351@aol.com.

          *

          You may have noticed there has been a major shift in the supposed importance of flattening the curve over the past month or so.  The original justification for lockdowns was that the onset had to be slowed down and spread out because the medical community would be overwhelmed.  We wouldn’t have enough hospital beds.  We wouldn’t have enough ventilators.  Therefore, everybody had to be locked in their homes.

          At this point, not even Andrew Cuomo is claiming there aren’t enough ventilators.  In fact, medical facilities are being closed down and health workers furloughed all around the country because there isn’t enough work for them to do.   Thus, the original stated purpose for driving tens of millions of people into poverty and homelessness and despair is no longer viable.  And yet, businesses are still not permitted to reopen.

          As I recall, Dr. Fauci himself started the repositioning at a press conference on April 2 when he said we can relax the restrictions only when there are NO new cases for an extended period of time. (Hint: that ain’t tomorrow.)  Other fans of the shutdowns quickly chimed in, arguing that the economy must remain locked until a vaccine is discovered.  (Also not tomorrow, or even the day after.)  Cuomo himself, a couple days ago, dragged out the “infinite value of a single life” rhetoric to explain why nobody can get a mani-pedi for another millennium or so.

          I strongly suspect they have a different measuring stick in mind.  On the night of Tuesday, November 3, when virtually everyone in America has been made so miserable and impoverished that a Democrat actually gets elected President, we will all be allowed to take our masks off and shake our neighbor’s hand.

          *

          In my job at the Big Box, I must wear a mask the entire eight hours I am working.  I find the experience extremely unpleasant.  Since this is Pennsylvania, all customers must wear masks within the store as well.

          Over the years, there have been a number of scientific studies published on the efficacy of masks in protecting the wearer, or those near the wearer, from infection.  Most find that the protection provided is very low, though there are also many that find masks provide NO protection at all.  On April 7, a month ago, a study published by Yale University found “no difference in reducing influenza-like illnesses, either in the general population or in healthcare workers.”

          In February, U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams tweeted “STOP BUYING MASKS.”  In March, he said that wearing a mask can increase the spread of the coronavirus if not worn properly.  (Emphasis added.)  He later changed his mind.

          The CDC, on January 31, said, “We do not currently recommend the use of face masks for the general American public.”  On April 3, the CDC reversed itself and now recommends that Americans wear masks in public.

          The WHO still recommends that the general public NOT wear masks.

          At work, the range of face wear runs the gamut from the professional to the absurd.  There are paper medical masks, a few N-95s, construction masks, Frito-bandito-type bandanas, scarfs wrapped around the face, ski-masks and Muslim veils.  About half of the employees walk around with their masks pulled down so that their nose is uncovered, rendering the supposed purpose for the mask meaningless.  Maybe 40% of the customers do the same.  Also, as soon as an employee enters the backroom or another non-public area, the mask is pulled down immediately.

          I find it increasingly difficult to believe the wearing of masks in public serves any medical purpose at all.

          Aside from the feel-good aspect (I’m doing something!), wearing a mask while walking on the streets or jogging in the park, where they are not required (and scolding those who don’t wear them), is just the latest form of virtue-signaling.  That has been my view for a while, but I may be changing my mind.  Some argue that masks are being used to subdue us, and that they are physical symbols of oppression imposed by power-obsessed state governors and our Health Commissioner overlords.  I don’t think this is a crazy point of view anymore.

          *

          As tempers fray, the police are being summoned to the store more frequently.  Yesterday, a woman in the check-out line realized she had left her wallet in the car, so she went out to retrieve it.  Returning, she tried to by-pass the line at the front door but was stopped by a security guard who would not let her enter.  An argument followed.  Reportedly, the word “bitch” was used.  The woman then drove home and returned fifteen minutes later with two male friends, who engaged store security personnel in a melee in the parking lot until the police were able to restore order.

Copyright2020MichaelKubacki