Super Flu or Mild Cold?

So which is the Chinese flu? America Thinker had a look at this question and it’s worth a read.

With symptoms ranging from a gasping death to nothing at all, one has to wonder whether COVID-19 is a super flu or a mild cold. Have we ruined our economy over nothing or saved millions of people from death? If COVID-19 is a mild cold, how did we mistake it for a super flu?

One of the points the author makes here is that we simply don’t know, but it’s likely that our environment matters a lot. China is, by all reports, wildly polluted, like LA in the 60s or London in the 50s. That matters. Lots of Chinese smoke, if you’re like me (and a lot of other Americans) you know how much that matters. It also matters that few people go to the doctor (at least in the US) for a cold or the flu. What’s the point? We’ve been told, and correctly, that there is little doctors can do. So hydrated, get bed rest, and tough it out. Fine and dandy, but do we have a clue how many have had this new Chinese variant? No, and we probably never will.

But the media and the chamber of commerce corporatists have panicked us into closing the world down. Why? To cover up their malfeasance in America perhaps? Ace tells us…

The Daily Beast screeches that Peter Navarro is, get this, trying to get America to rebuild its now-nonexistent medicine/medical technology base.

Tucker Carlson just had an author on talking about this — Rosmary Gibson, author of China RX.

America no longer can even make aspirin. Thousands of the base medicines which all other medicines are made from are made entirely in China — none in the US.

The author also pointed out that the reason that we can’t make ventilators is that we are entirely dependent on China for the circuit boards that control the ventilators, and China just stopped exporting those to the US.

She didn’t say that was for a nefarious purpose — I assume it’s because China needs all those ventilator control boards for its own people. (Hey, they totally stopped the coronavirus, though…)

I can’t find her appearance on Tucker, but here’s Rosmary Gibson, author of China RX, giving testimony to the Senate that 90% of the “core chemicals” used to make all medicines are made in China, and that there are only two Western companies which even make generic medicines any more.

Or face masks, or ventilators, or probably half a hundred other things.

In the meantime, the US is shut down. How many people will be driven out of business, or even to suicide, because of that fact? America’s essence is movement, we’ve never been especially good at standing still. PowerLine noted this:

The current shutdown approach to controlling the spread of the Wuhan virus can’t be “sustainable” (to borrow the cliché) for long. It is slow-motion suicide […]Today’s Wall Street Journal editorial “Rethinking the Coronavirus Shutdown”

Financial markets paused their slide Thursday, but no one should think this rolling economic calamity is over. If this government-ordered shutdown continues for much more than another week or two, the human cost of job losses and bankruptcies will exceed what most Americans imagine. This won’t be popular to read in some quarters, but federal and state officials need to start adjusting their anti-virus strategy now to avoid an economic recession that will dwarf the harm from 2008-2009.

The vast social-distancing project of the last 10 days or so has been necessary and has done much good. Warnings about large gatherings of more than 10 people and limiting access to nursing homes will save lives. The public has received a crucial education in hygiene and disease prevention, and even young people may get the message. With any luck, this behavior change will reduce the coronavirus spread enough that our hospitals won’t be overwhelmed with patients. Anthony Fauci, Scott Gottlieb and other disease experts are buying crucial time for government and private industry to marshal resources against the virus.

Yet the costs of this national shutdown are growing by the hour, and we don’t mean federal spending. We mean a tsunami of economic destruction that will cause tens of millions to lose their jobs as commerce and production simply cease. Many large companies can withstand a few weeks without revenue but that isn’t true of millions of small and mid-sized firms.

Even cash-rich businesses operate on a thin margin and can bleed through reserves in a month. First they will lay off employees and then out of necessity they will shut down. Another month like this week and the layoffs will be measured in millions of people.

The deadweight loss in production will be profound and take years to rebuild. In a normal recession the U.S. loses about 5% of national output over the course of a year or so. In this case we may lose that much, or twice as much, in a month….

The politicians in Washington are telling Americans, as they always do, that they are riding to the rescue by writing checks to individuals and offering loans to business. But there is no amount of money that can make up for losses of the magnitude we are facing if this extends for several more weeks. After the first $1 trillion this month, will we have to spend another $1 trillion in April, and another in June?

By the time Treasury’s small-business lending program runs through the bureaucratic hoops—complete with ordering owners that they can’t lay off anyone as a price for getting the loan—millions of businesses will be bankrupt and tens of millions will be jobless….

But no society can safeguard public health for long at the cost of its overall economic health. Even America’s resources to fight a viral plague aren’t limitless—and they will become more limited by the day as individuals lose jobs, businesses close, and American prosperity gives way to poverty. America urgently needs a pandemic strategy that is more economically and socially sustainable than the current national lockdown.

We can and must do better than this.

Heh! Winning the Popular Culture!

Well, as I told Unit a few minutes ago, I got into an argument with some leftover lasagna yesterday afternoon. It won, decisively, today better be better. 🙂

So a light post today, which is not a bad idea.

So apparently Fox has a show called The Masked Singer where somebody sings in a disguise. New to me, but I gave up on TV long ago. In any case, this happened.

I’m actually impressed, that a good entertainer, but who might it be?

To ask is to know

That leads to two questions. How come libs can’t relax and have fun like this? Maybe it’s just more fun to be conservative, and only responsible for ourselves, not the whole world.

And second, how in the world does Sarah keep looking so good? There’s not all that many 25-year-olds that look that good.

I’m not the problem, by Dave Miller |

image-4From Leavenworth Street, the best of Nebraska political blogs. He said it, but I wish I had!

Dave Miller is a contributing writer on Leavenworth St. He is a former talk show host and has done every media job in-between. He is perfectly aware his personality and opinions are keeping him out of the Nebraska Broadcasters Hall of Fame.

He can be found on Twitter @DaveMedia_LNK

It’s so disheartening. In fact, it’s beyond that, it’s infuriating! It’s hard to believe the American primary process, hell politics everywhere, is just a giant dirt clod fight. Even in Nebraska, Ben Sasse having to stand up to the Republican party and explain why he is #nevertrump seems other worldly. Seriously? You have to explain why? I find myself aligned with Ben Sasse mostly out of sheer principle, and I’m pretty sure I know what I’m doing when it’s time to vote. But why in the world do I need to explain myself, or Ben to his party, at all?!

Let me explain why I can’t see the path to Trump, then maybe someone can explain why he should be considered. Here is a man with NO political experience or foreign policy experience, who has wanted for nothing in life, ever, and Donald Trump wants to fight for me in Washington? Now, given the fact he is a misogynist on a nuclear level, can’t hold his tongue, treats competitors like he is in a grade school booger flicking fight, and thinks any criticism is “unfair”, I am less than likely to vote him into anything. He reminds me of a Batman villain that should be locked up in Arkham Asylum. Now I have laid out why I can’t stand th e name calling, petulant, side show of a nominee. What I don’t have is a good reason to vote for him.

I have friends that give me the argument, “well you can’t vote for Hillary, and a vote against him is a vote for Hillary”. Is it now? Well if you believe there is a one for one equivalent we can have that conversation. If you believe that your single vote matters, we can have that conversation, and I’ll invite the electoral college in to explain why the conversation didn’t have to happen. Here is the problem with that argument: Voting for Donald Trump doesn’t let the GOP know I hate what they are doing. It’s hard to believe 2 years ago the GOP let the media get away with burying the biggest lead of all American voting history. In 2014 the sentiment in the country, and the votes that were cast in November, were the referendum on Washington that the GOP had been crowing about for 6 years. GOP turn out and taking the house and the Senate was a YUGE deal. And what did they do with that victory? They squandered it. Left out in the sun to rot, it withered and spoiled, showing the American people when you vote, we don’t care what the message is. Dems didn’t flinch, and the GOP laughed and ordered another drink, drunk in the celebration of hollow victory for those trying to change the status quo.

I’m tired of the elected officials, all of them, including at the local city and state levels telling US what they think we voted them in to do, after they have voted the way we didn’t want. I’m tired of the same people acting like we are so lucky to have them around to do what’s best for us, when they should listen and work FOR us. Lastly, I’m tired of leadership within any party scrapping like it’s a Michael Vick dog fight, only to keep doing the same thing they’ve done for 30 years, not fix things.

via I’m not the problem, by Dave Miller |

And yes, it would be hard to disagree with him, and I don’t. As he ended:

#never2016

The ‘Gay’ vote

mug.jpg

The Democrats, like most leftist political groups, like to think collectively, and in an age of identity of politics we have ‘the black vote’, the ‘hispanic’ vote, the ‘latino’ vote, the ‘women’s vote’ and the ‘gay vote’. You’ll note we don’t have the ‘men’s vote’ – not even the Left is silly enough to imagine men can be categorised as voters by their gender. That doesn’t stop it thinking of the other groups as ‘brands’ whose loyalty can be secured by offering concessions. As Neo was saying the other day, the assumption is that the ‘gay vote’ is mainly Democrat. Historically there is good reason for that, as it was the political Left which was in favour of lifting the various legal discriminations from which gay people suffered. Want to get married to another woman? The Right said ‘no’. Some part of the Right were quite nice about it, large parts weren’t, and no one really likes those who call them ‘dykes’ or ‘faggots’, it isn’t nice. So when it comes to voting, hey, vote Democrat or Labour.

In the UK our last PM, David Cameron, annoyed the heck out of some of his supporters by allowing gay people to get married; but he detoxified the Tory party for gay people. Because under that label, most people whose sexual preference is for someone of their own sex are just as diverse as straights. There is no intrinsic reason why a gay woman or man would instinctively vote for a party that wanted high taxation and more state interference – once the discrimination stuff is gone, gay people are free to vote the way their own instincts and political preference leads them – and many will favour free-market economics and the chance to make a buck or two.

This is hard for the Right, at least the Religious Right, as the Bible is quite clear on homosexuality. But the Bible is pretty clear on lending at interest, divorce and a whole set of things the political Right has managed to absorb and get past. As it does so on this issue, so it frees up people to vote according to their interests. A person who identifies as gay is always liable to put their civil rights at the top of the list, and if, in the past, that meant voting Labour of Democrat whilst holding your nose at the rest of the programme, so be it. Once that ceases to be so, as it now is in the UK, then all those other interests, and identities, come into play. A politics which makes people identify by their sexual preference or skin colour, is a crude politics which works for the crude only when most voters are of one skin colour and one sexual preference. In our pluralistic societies, this is no longer a vote-winner. Trump, who is nothing if not a pragmatist, gets it, and I hope others will too.

All those ‘interest groups’ that the Left targets are part of a wider society, and they can easily be disaggregated by political groupings who do the simple thing of appealing to the common public good. If that means that people of colour get the same rights as white people, well, frankly, great, and not before time; the same is true of the other groups, including gay people. As the slogan goes, some people are gay, get over it. Of course, in church, it is different, but here we’re discussing the political sphere.

Optimism in America? 2

[I’m just going tp pit this post up and let the air clear again. I was working on other things and didn’t get today’s done. But Jessica reminds us of some eternal verities here. America was built on optimism, and we’d be remiss if we see only the gloom these days. So enjoy. Neo]
America optimism

One thing which has always struck me about America, and it is one of the reasons that FDR and President Reagan stand so pre-eminent, is that it is built on optimism. When you think of the situation of the Founding Fathers, goodness, what a leap of faith! They literally laid their lives on the line in a fight for independence against the great British Empire with its huge military might; but they triumphed. Their Republic consisted of twelve States on the eastern edge of a great, and largely unexplored Continent, with French and Spanish territory to the south and south-west; Louisiana essentially barred the route westward; Spanish Mexico barred the route to the south. Yet, within fifty years of the founding of the Republic, these barriers had vanished.

West of the Missouri, however, despite Lewis and Clark’s famous expedition, was more or less terra incognita, and even within the United States, tension was growing between the slave-holding States and the Free, so much so that by the 1860s, the Republic was tearing itself apart in one of the bloodiest of civil wars. Until the end of World War II there was hardly a decade when Bruce Springsteen’s lines about having ‘no work, because of the economy’ were not true; forty-odd years of exceptional prosperity in a material sense may have inculcated the belief that somehow the Republic’s people would always live on easy street – but that, whilst being part of the American hope, was never necessarily something most people actually achieved; you only have to look at the history of the Irish and Italian immigrants to see how it was for many first generation ‘Americans’; and of the suffering of the slaves, well, that is indeed a scar on the conscience.

But, despite of these things, America got on with it. Shady politicians? Crooked businessmen and bankers with their hold over the politicians? Politicians who were in it for themselves? Pork-barrelling? Faction fighting? Bitter insults hurled by political opponents at each other?  These are not new, these are American history; and you know what? America is bigger than them all. Sure, there are worrying developments – that FDR and his attempts to use SCOTUS to put in place that socialistic ‘New Deal’, with that Communist Wallace and Harry Hopkins, that really worries me! What’s that, that happened in the 1930s? Oh well, I mean Obama and Pelosi – except they don’t have an ounce of the talent and drive of FDR and his ‘Brains Trust’. The Great Republic remains standing. Does that mean that the fears of FDR’s opponents were wrong? Or does it mean that their vigilance stopped the worst happening? Or does it mean that the realities of America proved too great even for FDR’s ambitions? I confess I don’t know.

But what I do know is that at his first election Obama spotted something important – he knew that the American people are optimists, ‘can do’ people; after all, how many of their ancestors would have been there had they not been so?  So when he ran on a rhetoric of ‘hope’ he struck an authentic chord in the American people. It was one his opponents did not catch and still show insufficient sign of catching. It is all very well to call Obama out for being pretty useless, and to prophesy that the skies will darken and the waters rise and doom will fall upon the land; but is it a political programme to put before a People founded on the optimistic dreams of a bunch of guys who, if they’d calculated, would have paid the tax on tea and gotten on with feathering their nests?

I am an outsider who loves America. But I can’t help thinking that unless President Obama’s opponents get away from negativity (after all, if people feel, as they do, negative about him, they don’t need to be told to feel it) and offer a vision of the America its people recognise as optimistic, then for all her many faults, it will be Hillary in ’16. At which point, even my capacity to be Sunny will vanish 🙂

Optimism in America?

America optimism

One thing which has always struck me about America, and it is one of the reasons that FDR and President Reagan stand so pre-eminent, is that it is built on optimism. When you think of the situation of the Founding Fathers, goodness, what a leap of faith! They literally laid their lives on the line in a fight for independence against the great British Empire with its huge military might; but they triumphed. Their Republic consisted of twelve States on the eastern edge of a great, and largely unexplored Continent, with French and Spanish territory to the south and south-west; Louisiana essentially barred the route westward; Spanish Mexico barred the route to the south. Yet, within fifty years of the founding of the Republic, these barriers had vanished.

West of the Missouri, however, despite Lewis and Clark’s famous expedition, was more or less terra incognita, and even within the United States, tension was growing between the slave-holding States and the Free, so much so that by the 1860s, the Republic was tearing itself apart in one of the bloodiest of civil wars. Until the end of World War II there was hardly a decade when Bruce Springsteen’s lines about having ‘no work, because of the economy’ were not true; forty-odd years of exceptional prosperity in a material sense may have inculcated the belief that somehow the Republic’s people would always live on easy street – but that, whilst being part of the American hope, was never necessarily something most people actually achieved; you only have to look at the history of the Irish and Italian immigrants to see how it was for many first generation ‘Americans’; and of the suffering of the slaves, well, that is indeed a scar on the conscience.

But, despite of these things, America got on with it. Shady politicians? Crooked businessmen and bankers with their hold over the politicians? Politicians who were in it for themselves? Pork-barrelling? Faction fighting? Bitter insults hurled by political opponents at each other?  These are not new, these are American history; and you know what? America is bigger than them all. Sure, there are worrying developments – that FDR and his attempts to use SCOTUS to put in place that socialistic ‘New Deal’, with that Communist Wallace and Harry Hopkins, that really worries me! What’s that, that happened in the 1930s? Oh well, I mean Obama and Pelosi – except they don’t have an ounce of the talent and drive of FDR and his ‘Brains Trust’. The Great Republic remains standing. Does that mean that the fears of FDR’s opponents were wrong? Or does it mean that their vigilance stopped the worst happening? Or does it mean that the realities of America proved too great even for FDR’s ambitions? I confess I don’t know.

But what I do know is that at his first election Obama spotted something important – he knew that the American people are optimists, ‘can do’ people; after all, how many of their ancestors would have been there had they not been so?  So when he ran on a rhetoric of ‘hope’ he struck an authentic chord in the American people. It was one his opponents did not catch and still show insufficient sign of catching. It is all very well to call Obama out for being pretty useless, and to prophesy that the skies will darken and the waters rise and doom will fall upon the land; but is it a political programme to put before a People founded on the optimistic dreams of a bunch of guys who, if they’d calculated, would have paid the tax on tea and gotten on with feathering their nests?

I am an outsider who loves America. But I can’t help thinking that unless President Obama’s opponents get away from negativity (after all, if people feel, as they do, negative about him, they don’t need to be told to feel it) and offer a vision of the America its people recognise as optimistic, then for all her many faults, it will be Hillary in ’16. At which point, even my capacity to be Sunny will vanish 🙂

%d bloggers like this: