http;//www.Californiacontrarian.com

One question that I have asked before, is, “Do lockdowns work? Does putting a strangle-hold on people and vis-a-vis the economy prevent the coronavirus from spreading?”

It would seem to me that if lockdowns were the answer, then the more stringent the lockdown, the less the virus would spread. Makes sense, no?

Let’s look at a country that mandated a lockdown strategy, and mandated this approach early on . . . Peru. 

Today I read something very interesting on this subject from Townhall:

As of last week, Peru has reported over 498,000 COVID-19 infections and over 21,000 deaths. More than 27,000 additional deaths are under investigation to see if they are related to the virus. This South American country implemented one of the first lockdowns starting on March 16, and it became one of the longest worldwide, lasting a total of four months.

While the lockdown ended on July 1, the number of COVID-19 related deaths for the country had already risen to over 12,000. The highest daily average for cases for the country was on May 31 at 8,805 infections; the lockdown was still in full force at this point. Hmmm!

Was this Peru lockdown stringent?

Throughout the four-month lockdown, Peruvians were forbidden to leave their homes unless they needed essential goods; nighttime curfews were enforced, borders were closed, businesses shut down, and a mask order was implemented.

This sounds like a very intense lockdown strategy to me. 

So how did that strategy work? 

Even with all the stringent measures, many of which have been suggested by Democrat lawmakers in the United States, Peru has one of the highest fatality rates of COVID-19 in the world at 4.4 percent . . . in spite of the fact that  it was under strict lockdown. Hmmm!

Also, since the start of the pandemic, domestic violence in Latin America has soared due to government lockdowns. Amazingly 1,200 women and girls have mysteriously disappeared in Peru since the start of the pandemic, and are assumed by many, to be dead. Hmmm!

As of today, the current daily COVID-19 infection rate in the country stands between 6,000-8,000 cases on average. Its population is just over 33 million people. Certainly the causes for this high infection fatality rate are multifactorial, but at least, I believe, that it is reasonable to state that lockdowns in Peru did not work. Hmmm!

CAUTION – Be advised and forewarned, if you are a Karen, a Ken, you may not want to continue reading,  as this will not contain the opinions that everyone is reading in the so-called newspaper or hearing on TV.

Here are some recent headlines:  

“New Jersey ‘pop-up’ house party in Howell Township, 65 miles NE of Philadelphia, has approximately 300 guests!” . . . O.M.G.!

“A large group of young people congregate on the sand at Montrose Beach in Chicago on Monday, July 10. The assembly of this very large group goes against the mayor’s orders.” . . . OMG, the nerve!

“Weekly crowds are congregating in Ocean Beach in San Diego on Wednesday evenings for ‘Drum Circle.’ . . . O.M.G., those bastards!

“Huntington Beach is site of an outdoor church service. Very few masks, and no spatial distancing.” . . . O.M.G., those 1800 heathens are trying to kill us all!

“On 7/24 there was an unlawful assembly of over 1000 church goers at Cardiff State Beach, just north of San Diego.” . . . O.M.G., hopefully these law-breakers  will be damned!

There are plenty more of these kind of newsworthy unlawful assemblies, but no need to list more, as everyone should now get the idea. . . . O.M.G., those thoughtless sob’s are trying to kill us all.

Now, for just a non-PC moment, let’s look at this from another viewpoint.(Karen, and Kenthis is your last chance to keep your BP under control. If you read further, do so at your own risk.) . . . 

Drum-roll, please!  . . . I think we should encourage these types of events. 

As one rereads the above headlines, two things stand out. All, except one are outside events, and in the pictures that I saw, all of these “unlawful combatants “are young. “Young,” as in no one over thirty. (FYI; It was fairly easy to tell the ages because no one was wearing masks.) 

Let’s try to view this whole lockdown insanity from the vantage point of a 25 year old. Most of these young-uns are probably out of work, with little if any income coming in. They are not getting any monthly Social Security checks. They have basically been ordered to stay confined in their parent’s basements, and they are going stir-crazy.

CDC just came out with the results of a huge nationwide survey of those over 18 years of age. 40.9% had some adverse mental or behavioral health condition. 13.3% had started or increased substance abuse due to the pandemic and their confinement. 10.7% had had some suicidal ideation in the past thirty days.

All of these major alterations in their young lives, for what? I ask again, “For What? What are they going to gain here? . . . Basically nothing!

The IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) for those in the 20-49 year old age range, according to a Swiss study is 0.0092% ( i.e. 9.2 people out of 100,000 in this age group will die if they catch Covid) [FYI: In the 10-19 age group ( ~high school kids) the IFR is 0.00032%, meaning that 3.2 out of a million will die if they get COVID-19.]

Looking at this from yet another angle . . . where in the COVID vaccination priority list will these young people will be? My guess, Last!! And again, why should 40.9% of young people have the above noted significant issues because they are virtually locked up? What is the upside?

Perhaps, the upside, will be that many of these young individuals will in fact get Covid as a result of these”unlawful” assemblies. If this were to happen, good, as it would be another step toward herd immunity, which is the best way to ultimately get out of this mess.

If Karen and Ken do not approve of these young people getting together and having fun, tough titty. Stay inside!

Months back when the esteemed Dr. Fauci was asked about using a certain combination of meds to treat the coronavirus, he responded that any treatment modality would need to be validated by controlled studies. This sort of ivory tower answer is exactly what one should expect from someone who hasn’t seen live patients in years. It’s not that his answer is wrong or right, but totally impractical.

More important should we expect “controlled studies” on many of the things we are being told to do? Let’s look at some of them:

1 Lots of hand-washing: This seems logical, and other than dry skin, I see no downside to this recommendation. However, I am not aware of a controlled study on the spread of COVID with hand-washing versus COVID spread without hand-washing.

2 Spatial distancing: Again seems like common sense as the further away we all are from others, presumably the better. How far away? Now days just about everywhere one goes, there are markers on the ground measured out every six feet. Children going back to school is severely limited by this magical six feet, whereas in Europe three feet is the magic distance. No controlled studies on this that I am aware of.

3 Mask wearing: This is becoming more and more of an issue. Karens are keeping an eye on public places, looking for violators. Punches have been thrown by those who insist that non-mask wearers are purposely trying to kill us all. Other than using the N-19 special masks, I am not aware of studies comparing homemade cloth masks, or over the counter cheap masks versus a no-mask control group. I have seen the slo-mo videos of what happens to the sneeze particles with a mask, but I am not aware of a controlled study on this issue.

4 Lockdowns: We were all told that we had to lockdown to prevent our ICUs from becoming inundated with COVID-19 patients on ventilators. Now we are told that we must keep barber shops, hair salons, gyms, indoor church services, etc. closed  . . . no longer because of ICU overload, but to try to reduce the spread of the virus. When did the strike zone change?

Is there any controlled study on the success of lockdowns? Well actually there is something very very close to a controlled study – Sweden vs. U.S. As you all are well aware by this time Sweden had very minimal lockdown rules. In comparison, the U.S implemented a bunch of varied, but mostly severe lockdown policies.

Interestingly, since July 29 Sweden has had a minimal number of COVID deaths. The latest 3-day moving average and the latest 7-day moving averages both appear to be about 2-3 deaths per day. The graph of the total number of deaths is level at this time with under 6000 total. At present there is 69,384 COVID cases in Sweden with 100% being mild and 39 cases, (0.06%) being serious or critical. This means that the expected future death rate is likely to be very low as typically those who die are seriously or critically ill prior to their demise. At the beginning of this pandemic, Sweden had a lot of deaths, as the more marginally healthy appeared to have died off early on. In total Sweden has had 5774 deaths in a country of 10.23 million million people. (O.056%) When one looks at the covid curves, the curve from Sweden had a significant early peak and like noted above seems to have leveled off.

Yes, Sweden did take an economic hit, but nowhere near the big hit, the U.S continues to take. Did the lockdowns flatten the curve? Yes, however whereas Sweden is on the end of the downslope, the USA is apparently nowhere near the downslope, with the present number of new cases approaching 60,000 per day, more than double what it was two months ago

The  U.S has 328.2 million people, and 5.2 million covid cases (1.59% of the population has thus far contracted the virus.) The present death toll in the USA is 165,000 (0.05%), and the deaths per day are still significant.

Compare the present death stats: 

Sweden = 0.056% and close to being done

USA = 0.05% and not close to being done

So after comparing “lockdown, flattening of the curve” strategy, (USA) vs. “no lockdown” (Sweden) in a reasonably controlled study, which plan appears to coming coming out of top… Dr. Fauci’s plan or Stefan Löfven’s (prime minister of Sweden) plan?

I will let you decide.

A friend of mine just sent me an email, announcing that he is coming out of the closet. I realize that these days coming out of the closet shouldn’t be news, but he is in his eighth decade, married for a very long time and has a few kids and a few grandkids. He is a nice guy, and so I told him that I might “inform the world of his coming out,” but I have not received a “please do not tell anybody” response from him, so here goes. (I will be using his exact words when possible (in quotes), thanks to the miracle of ‘cut and paste.’)

Here goes:

He begins, “I’ve been anti Trump since he began campaigning, just quietly.” (Apparently, the symptoms of his Trump Derangement Syndrome [T.D.S.] are now so debilitating that he can no longer stand it, and so out he comes!)

He continues: “He was never well qualified and his polarizing personality is bad for the country.” (Apparently he has forgotten that the 44th President, was a measly one year Senator from Illinois who happened to be a good speaker. His only other qualification was solely that he was a community organizer! . . . Wow, now that’s a well-qualified President! When it comes down to it, the only reason that B.O. got elected was that he was black, because he certainly did not have any presidential qualifications.)

Is Trump polarizing? . . . Absolutely! . . . almost as much as his predecessor.

He continued: “He has fumbled leadership on the pandemic badly, which made me decided to make my opposition public.” ( Has President Trump been perfect with this pandemic? The honest answer has to be ‘No,’ but I encourage those among us who have been perfect to step up and cast the first stone!) 

I am not hearing any takers on this challenge!

Recall that Biden and the rest of the Democratic leadership soundly criticized the President when he stopped flights from coronavirus-infected countries. Recall that Fauci had his ‘no need to wear masks’ moment. From my perspective, nobody has been perfect in his/her dealings with this pandemic, as this is something completely different from anything that any of us have dealt with in our lifetimes.

He then  continues: “Sure the media has some biases and many outlets tilt liberal.” ( Tilt liberal !!! . . . That’s like saying that if a pinball wizard throws the machine against the wall, he is perhaps trying affect where the pinball will end up!)

From there he continues on with the usual liberal tripe of making accusations without any actual data or examples:

A lot of the “ good” he has done favors the very wealthy. ( Here I can only assume that he is not talking about Mr. Trump donating his entire salary to good causes. Also I guess that he is dismissing the fact that before the pandemic, Blacks had their lowest unemployment stats in decades.)

“He is anti intellectual anti science and moves and speaks like a fascist autocrat.” (The “Trump is a fascist” diatribe sounds like an MSNBC, CNN, NYT, and WaPo echo. No evidence, but as we all know their motto is “if we say it often enough, our readers and listeners will believe that it is true.”) 

The logic behind such statements goes something like this.. . .

Fascism = bad

Trump = bad 

So therefore Trump must be a fascist!

He continued:
“There are two good forms of government, a benevolent dictatorship and true democracy. I don’t want a dictator here, we’ll have to live with this flawed democracy.” (It’s hard for me to intelligently comment on this as I have no idea what he is really trying to say – to me this sounds like elite “Harvard-Yale speak,” in which they think that no despicable individual in the heartland will be able to understand them … and rightly so as it resembles gibberish!)

Now here is the topper which indicates beyond all doubt that he has a very severe case of T.D.S.:

Quote – “The fact that many expect him to try to use the courts to stay in power regardless of the election results indicate a profound distrust of his motives and means, which is where I stand.” 

Wow! This almost seems like a case of ‘Kool-Aid overdose’! To quote again: “many expect him to try to use the courts to stay in power.” What fools actually believe this drivel, without any facts! 

He then closes with: “Nothing will change my mind, he’s gotta go.” (Of course, no medicine or treatment can possibly expect to change the mind of someone whose TDS has progressed this far.) 

My advice to my friend: “Stop watching MSNBC and CNN 24/7. Get out of your house and get some fresh air . . . Please!

For me I have had enough of the Covid doom and gloom being pushed by MSM and the Democrats. Finally some good news. At his press conference on 8/10/20, the President announced that Dr. Scott Atlas is joining his team of COVID-19 advisors.

Back in April Dr Scott Atlas, a prestigious physician from Stanford, was saying the following;

• Fact 1: The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19.
• Fact 2: Protecting older, at-risk people eliminates hospital overcrowding.
• Fact 3: Vital herd immunity is prevented by total isolation policies, prolonging the problem.
• Fact 4: People are dying because other medical care is not getting done due to hypothetical projections.
• Fact 5: We have a clearly defined population at risk who can be protected with targeted measures.

About month later, this same physician from California tried to get the word out that lockdowns will wind up killing far more people than even the worst of the inflated COVID-19 fatality projections claimed would die without the lockdowns.

Fauci did not consider how many lives would be lost to canceled medical procedures and the well-established disastrous effects severe economic  downturns have on life span. Let alone the number of already struggling Americans who would kill themselves or overdose on drugs because the isolation and economic ruin he inflicted on them was too much to bear.

I am ready for some Covid good news. I am counting on Dr. Scott Atlas to rescue me from the MSM’s steady diet of just bad news about Covid. Moreover, more importantly the country is counting on Dr. Scott Atlas.

On the subject of school closures he recently noted, “If you believe in the science, the science says that 99.7 percent of deaths in the U.S. are in people over 15, 99.9 percent are in people over 24,” he noted. Meaning, children are not at risk. He further observed that 82 percent of K-12 teachers are under 55, and half of them are under 41. And very rarely do kids transfer the virus to adults.

Look for Dr. Scott Atlas to be locked in the sights of the teachers unions.

The “COVID police” continue to try to enforce arbitrary diktats made up by  . . . who? . . . based on what? . . . with exceptions seemingly pulled out of thin air.

The following was spoken earlier this week by the mayor of a coastal town north of San Diego, “Local laws need to be consistent with state and federal constitutions, and should not infringe on anyone’s freedom.” 

Wow, now that is a novel idea! Follow the constitution . . . why didn’t someone else think of that?! Why are those who are arbitrarily pronouncing these diktats apparently choosing to follow some arbitrary “made-up” sets of rules. What Constitution, they ask? Here in California, there are a gazillion rules on just about everything, the the next stages of reopening are being defined by some arbitrary rules. For instance: A county can end up on the Governor’s watchlist if the number of new COVID cases is above 100-per-100,000 residents. The esteemed Dr. Fauci is constantly talking about controlled studies … can anyone show me a controlled study defining this arbitrary tipping point?

 My gym cannot be opened because apparently a single gym was the source of “an outbreak,” which is defined as three cases not from the same family, from a single source somewhere in the county. In this situation if a single gym is the source of three cases, then close it down. That at least makes some sense, but to close down hundreds of gyms because three cases were found to stem from one gym, utter insanity!

There are also other “pull-the-rabbit-out-of-the-hat” hocus-pocus examples … for instance, fourteen day moving averages, used magically to place people, churches, parks, and businesses on or off some list. . . abracadabra!”

All arbitrary . . . formulated by whom?

Businesses are going under. Suicides are up. Mass masking is begetting chaos, as Karens are all in a tizzy. All because of some arbitrary criteria and lists. Have any of these mambo-jumbo dictums been validated by a Fauci double-blind controlled study?  . . . Not a spatial-distancing chance!

Soon we will start to see more cases about infringement of our constitutional liberties, and these cases will eventually make their way to the Supreme Court. So far the only case that I am aware of is one from Nevada where a church wanted the same spacing rules, etc. as casinos. The church lost that case because John Roberts for some inexplicable reason, voted to squash religious freedom. Now you might say “who cares about some hodunk-podunk church in Nevada?” We should all care because this case points out that Justice John Roberts is merely a pseudo-conservative, and certainly should not be thought of as one who will reliably follow the Constitution. This becomes even more critical since, if Biden wins the presidency, the Supreme Court will again be a non-Constitutional left-leaning quagmire. Another reason to “vote Trump!”

( My upcoming novella, “The Keneally Chronicles” will deal with some of these non-constitutional diktats, and their impingements on our Constitutional liberties.)

I dreamt that in order to prepare both candidates for the upcoming debates,  there was going to be a practice dry run pseudo-debate on Zoom. 

The moderator(M) started off with the same question for both of the Presidential candidates.

It went something like this:

M: “Mr. Vice President, since you are considerably older than your opponent, you will have the honor of going first.”

JB: “Thank you, Ma’am, but I don’t think that I’m actually the Vice President now. Can you repeat the question?

M: “I haven’t asked a question, yet. Okay, here goes . . . 

“What has Joe Biden done for the voters lately?”

JB: “Well first of all, sir, I am not really that much older than what’s-his-name. . . In dog years the difference in our ages would only be . . . err, subtraction was never my strong suit. Can you restate the question, sir?

M: “What have you done for the voters lately?”

JB: LONG PAUSE . . . “Nothing! As I spend my time in my basement.”

M: Let me rephrase the question: “What have you, Joe Biden,  ever done for the voters?“

JB: LONGER PAUSE: “Now that I think about it . . . NOTHING!”

M: “Thank you, Joe.

M: “What have you, President Trump, done for the people of the United States lately?”

DT: “Where should I start?

“Tax reform, deregulation, judges bound to the Constitution, fewer military operations overseas, standing up to China on trade, border security, no more free rides for our NATO allies, walking away form the disastrous Paris Climate Accord, getting us out from under the flawed Iran Nuclear Deal, a so-called treaty that was never ratified by the Senate, Jerusalem, . . .”

M: “Okay, Mr. Trump, your time is up.”

DT: “But I was just beginning to fully answer your question. I have a lot more to say concerning what I have done.”

M: “Mr. Biden, are you ready for your next question?”

JB: “Not right now, as I have to go back to my basement.”

M: “But you are already in your basement.”

Suddenly Zoom went dark!

JB: “Is it bedtime already? What day is it?”

For those hundreds, perhaps thousands, of you who are long term readers, I want to refer you back to my blog of 5/27/20 in which I brought up the following questions:

When a vaccine is available, who should get it first? Common sense would dictate that the healthcare workers should be the first ones to get the vaccine, but then who should be next? And then who? And then who after that? Etc, etc. And who should make these decisions?

I bring up this 5/27/20 blog, because of a front page story in the Wall Street Journal on 8/7/20 that was titled: “Early Vaccine Supply Unlikely to Fill Need For High-Risk People.” (The following issues are from this article.):

Early on in this article is the question of who should be first in line. “Public Health officials estimate that more than 100 million people in the U.S should get vaccinated before the general public. This group would include doctors and nurses, nursing-home residents, and other essential workers.” 

After reading this, your antennas should be on high alert because of the reference to “essential workers.” Remember when the lockdowns were sprung on us all here in California, “essential workers” did not have to comply, but many of us asked, “who decides which workers are deemed “essential”? I am not sure that we ever really knew why various stores and occupations were judged essential, and others weren’t. Mark my words, the same bozos who decided that marijuana was essential, but getting one’s hair cut was not essential could possibly be responsible again . . . OMG! Some of us may never get vaccinated.

Again from this WSJ article: “Initial supplies look like they will cover only a fraction of the high-priority groups” . . . “There may be ten to twenty million doses available at first. . .“ Note above that ‘100 million should get vaccinated before the general public’, so even among the healthcare workers, there will be a prioritization. (E.R workers vs ICU staff. Other hospital workers vs. those that work in nursing homes. Etc.)

Hold on tight because if and when a vaccine becomes available, then the real fun will start. Young vs. old. Rich vs. poor. Politicians vs. military personnel?

When all of this comes to fruition, remember . . . “I told you so!”

Today’s issue again has to do with the opening of schools with in-person learning. For some on the left the actions and the rhetoric have been pretty dramatic . . . body bags with teacher’s names on them placed outside of schools; teacher’s publishing their own obits; chants of “why do you want children and teachers to die?” Etc.

The reason for these over the top displays is that President Trump has been for schools reopening with in-person teaching, and the Karens are primed to always go against whatever our President says. That type of reflexive behavior is in their DNA. 

However, something is up! Governor Cuomo of New York and Senator Schumer (D,NY) are both now saying that schools should open – in-person, not on-line schooling. The Democrats are a lot of things, but they are not stupid. If the zebra is changing its stripes, there must be a reason. I’m not buying that they suddenly saw the light. I’m not buying that they are suddenly on the side of the children. I’m not buying that they now realize that kids need to go to school, so that the parents can go back to work. 

In my way of thinking there can only be one reason why these selective Dems are doing a 180 on kids and schools . . . the only reason that would cause this “change of heart” is that the polling must have demonstrated that keeping kids home instead of sending them to school is a losing proposition with the voters, especially with the working class and with mothers who have now had their kids underfoot for going on six months.

This is great! Any time there is a split within the Democrats, it can only be good for the rest of us. Without doubt there will be more splinter groups following in the Cuomo-Schumer mold, and then what is going to happen with that innate, almost inbred relationship that the Dems have with the teacher’s unions?

This is going to be fun to watch!

In Chicago under the return to school plan, all students will begin the school year on Aug. 27 with remote learning, which will continue for all students through at least Sept. 28. An in-person option is scheduled to begin on Sept. 29, if it is safe to do so.

The first question I have to ask is, “What does ‘if it is safe to do so’ mean?” Does it mean that we need some data on the incidence of Covid in children? (We already have that data.) Does it mean that we need some data on the seriousness of Covid if a child tests positive? (We already have that data.) Does it mean that we need some data on the chance that an infected student will pass this infection to a teacher? (We already have this data.)

Be that as it may, on Sept. 29 in-person learning (on-site) is to begin. However, there are two factors which will limit the number of students that can be accommodated into the the in-person (on-site) program. The first is space. Taking  “safe” spatial distancing into account, there is only so much space in a school building, and therefore the space available will limit the number of students.

The second factor that may impact enrollment in on-site learning is the number of teachers who are willing to teach on site, due to their concerns about being infected by COVID-19. Some teachers may have a concern based on their own risk factors or of people in their household. At this point it appears that the District is honoring teachers’ decisions on whether to teach on-site or not.

School Superintendent Devon Horton said the District is not setting teachers up to say, “You must come back.” It is anticipated that not all teachers will go along with this in-person option, and so the number of teachers willing to teach will also potentially  limit the number of in-person students that can be accommodated.

Latarsha Green, Deputy Superintendent, said that one of the District’s task forces considered what the District should do in the event more students applied to take on-site learning than there were available slots. 

(This is where it gets interesting, as it seems that there is an inexplicable dilemma.)

Ms. Green said the task force and administrators decided to give the following categories of students a priority: “students receiving free or reduced lunch, Black and Brown students, students who received an I [Incomplete] or less than 50% on their report cards, emerging bilinguals, and students with IEPs. There are also other categories in relation to students who are not performing according to reading or math grade-level expectations, and students with no comorbidity factors.”

So here is my dilemma: Is going back to school safe for children or is it not safe for children? 

If it is safe, then why not send them back in-person on August 27? If it is safe for children on Sept.29, logic would dictate that it is safe on Aug. 27! Nothing of import is going to happen over the course of one month’s time. I would ask Ms. Latasha, “If it is safe for children, why are you waiting a month?”

On the other hand perhaps it is not safe sending children back to school for in-person learning. If that is the case why are Black, Brown, and children that receive free or reduced lunch (poorer children) going to be given priority. Why if the number of children going back in-person learning is not safe, are you sending these children in first. Are they in essence the guinea pigs here?

A dilemma! Either it is safe to send kids back to school now, or somebody has decided to experiment with the safety of Black, Brown, and poorer children.

You can’t have it both ways. Inexplicable!