Speaking of the coronavirus

Selected comments from the I stand with Gigi thread

In Australia, influenza on average causes 1,500 to 3,000 deaths, about 18,000 hospitalisations and 300,000 GP consultations each year. Ro is around 0.1 to 0.2. Ro for Wuhan flu anywhere from 0.5 to 0.1 not a lot of difference.

Some more numbers. Italy has over 360,000 nurses and 240,000 doctors . As of end of March, 61 healthcare workers have died from Covid-19.

Let me give you a factual account, which is a definite marker on Gigi’s other side of the ledger: A few weeks ago, my brother in law passed very suddenly at the age of 63. Turns out it was a form of preventable heart failure. In the days leading up to this, he attempted to go to a local medical clinic who REFUSED him as they had closed their doors to new patients (he had only recently moved to the area). He was so concerned by media reports about the hospitals that he didn’t go to emergency where he WOULD have been treated successfully. Instead he died. Not of COVID, but of a preventable and treatable illness – which was denied him. He was the price that these politicians are prepared to pay for their handiwork. He is the cost on the other side of their ledger. He will be but one more name on the epitaph of this lunacy.

In Sweden, Will Voluntary Self-Isolation Work Better Than State-Enforced Lockdowns in the Long Run? Those who want to show how great Sweden is doing have produced charts comparing us to countries like Britain, Belgium, France, Spain, and Italy. Those who want to prove the opposite replace those countries with Norway, Denmark, and Finland, all of which have fewer deaths. If you want Sweden to look bad, compare it to the U.S. as a whole—120 deaths per million in Sweden vs. 94 in the U.S. according to Our World in Data’s April 16 numbers. If you want Sweden to look good, compare it to New York state, which is at a more similar stage to us in the virus’s spread—120 vs. 580. The truth is that Sweden is somewhere in the European middle when it comes to deaths per capita, which in itself is interesting. We are outliers in terms of policy, but not in terms of outcomes. There are also reasons to think that Sweden is doing better than these comparisons suggest. Many countries don’t count COVID-19 deaths outside of hospitals. When people die at home, in nursing homes, or in prisons, they don’t show up in the coronavirus death count. In the Stockholm region of Sweden, 42 percent of deaths took place in nursing homes for the elderly. In many countries, and some U.S. states, those deaths would not show up in the data. This has a major effect on where you are compared to other countries. According to Johns Hopkins University, Belgium has twice as many COVID-19 deaths per capita as the Netherlands. But in Belgium, almost half of those deaths are from nursing homes, while testing is more rare in Dutch nursing homes so fewer deaths there are attributed to the disease.

Health care workers have been stood down and people are not getting life saving surgery now. My mother is one of them. People are dying now and will be in future precisely because health care workers have been told to walk off the job. Bloody women and their core belief in government combined with hysteria, is a big part of the mess we are in. Judith, I ask you, why are you so happy for the other deaths to occur, in their thousands (and destroy the western world, knowing what will take it’s place), due to the draconian totalitarian jackboot of government, as long as they don’t die of Corona virus? You are proof an education is not a guarantee of intelligence, but in your case, what caused the lack of morality, if it isn’t hysteria?

Pretty soon there will no economy for economists to study Judith. This is already traversing back through supply chains. A recession on the scale of 1930 to 1935 will indeed lead to many deaths and ruined lives. As a respected economist, perhaps you would do some estimates and scenarios. Then we could compare the relative damage over 5 years say. We seem to already know that the infection and death rates are not as high as proposed by Imperial College. It looks like Italy and Spain are one end of the spectrum, Hong Kong and Taiwan the other. Sweden would be a control case precisely because there had been no lock down other than for at risk groups. Then select a few ‘average’ cases such as Germany and the UK, Mexico, and others. It’s likely that the weather has played a part, as someone said above. You’d also need to control for numbers of returning Chinese students and business people, certainly in Italy and Switzerland. That done, show the average infection and death rates grouped by weather, age profile, returning Chinese and date of lockdown. Thanks to Sweden we shall know the same figures where there is no lockdown. Similarly, there will be the second peak to take into account. We end up with average rates of infection and deaths by the filters set out above. Compare with deaths by economic slump.

Again, Judith is a classic example of the sex that never designed or fought for a civilisation, making decisions without understanding the true costs her idiotic hysteria will cause.

10% unemployment is a distressing turn of events. 15% is a bit terrifying. I think the lockdown has been too extensive for Australia and the National Cabinet and the media have terrorised people in their own homes and they don’t feel safe going out anymore. I think the real reason is that PM Morrison and the premiers can go to their respective next elections and say, without me 20,000 of you lot would have died so vote for me. Whether the 10% unemployment and misery with that makes people vote the other way, who knows right now.

Unfortunately our governments have delegated decision making to the chief medical officers and given them fall rein to wreak havoc. They went in without an exit plan and there is still isn’t one. Interestingly the slogans have morphed from “flattening the curve” to “no more lives lost”.

Judith, as an economist, I would have thought you of all people would know of the long-term damage a lockdown could do to the economy. Not to mention, the number of suicides now and into the future as a result could vastly outnumber Covid19 deaths.

I guess Judith must have missed the bit about hospitals being half empty and major CBD hospitals with Max 3 virus cases in their ICU. It is a hard balancing act I know but 6 new cases in Qld does not justify what is going on. I heard a caller to 2GB mention there had been 8 virus related suicides in Melbourne. I did read about one who had returned from overseas and was self isolating in hospital but did not say why suicided. No idea where he got the figure from but would guess the average age is much lower than virus deaths. I doubt Melbourne has even had 8 virus deaths. I heard on radio saying job keeper payments would go for 6 months. A week ago I heard Michaelia Cash, almost proudly, saying 800,000 businesses had applied for job seeker. Today I heard a figure of 500,000 mentioned. If they are businesses then there are obviously applying for more than one person. Where are the economists calculating the daily, weekly, monthly, 6 months of job seeker etc costs of what is happening to the economy. Whilst the Govt probably knew how many would be affected by the closure of the hospitality industry did they factor in what would happen when their actions scared off the visitors to retail shops. Look in an almost deserted Westfield shopping centre to see the impact of lost GST. Then how about an economist let us know how much of a budget hit the low petrol price and cars not on the road has caused. I guess it is easy who Gigi is but she is on the right track. If I recall Sally McManus was early on suggesting workers be paid 80% of their normal salaries whilst stood down. Unfortunately she was referring to private business and not civil servants many of whom are being fully paid not to work. How about Judith look into areas where the Government could make some savings in these times when they are being so generous with other people’s money.

As a boomer (tail end), I’m widowed, self-employed (so if I don’t work I don’t eat much), have a small amount of capital behind me, but nothing you’d get excited about, own my own very modest house and owe nobody anything (because we both had to access our superannuation early to pay for my husband’s care and costs and made sure we had no debts.) I’ve worked in private businesses; gave enough years of my life to the Army; gave a further bunch to high risk border patrol work; then the last decade of my working life to 12-hour day and night shifts in front-line state operations that actually facilitated the export of royalty-earning product. If you think I’m somehow spongeing off the rest of the economy, or stealing from younger generations, or withholding my “wealth” from the next generation or whatever your envious little soul thinks I’m doing, then F..k You! If you think you’re joking, then still F..k You! You’re a long way from funny.

Hearing the truth which no one on the left ever does if it doesn’t suit them

It’s amazing how knowledgable Crenshaw is. He completely routs the interviewer who as usual is running the Democrat 20-20 hindsight line.

Taken from WHY DOES AN EPIDEMIC BRING OUT THE WORST IN LIBERALS?, “liberals” in the American sense, as in socialists, buffoons, liars and fools.

Trust in institutions must be continuously earned

This is from Dara Macdonald, a new voice at the IPA, in a post titled, A crisis should not stop democracy. Great to hear all this being said.

Australia right now like the rest of the world is fighting a battle on two fronts. We are trying to stop the spread of a dangerous virus and we’re trying to ensure that we mitigate the effects on society and the community of that fight. But I don’t believe that democracy and the accountability of the government to the people should be a fatality of the coronavirus.

Many states, in particular New South Wales and Victoria, have restricted activities such as walking the dog, reading a book, or getting some sun, all activities which do not constitute a “reasonable excuse” to leave the house, but which can be conducted whilst keeping an appropriate social distance. This is an impingement on civil liberties above and beyond what is required to ensure that people are socially distancing. Making people justify being outside, even when they are alone, is extreme. There is no risk being averted by restricting people’s movement to this extent that could not be prevented by observing them and their adherence to social distancing orders.

These restrictions are more than just disproportionate, they also don’t adhere to principles of due process. They reverse the burden of proof. People are not presumed to have left their house legally, but have to be ready to prove they have a lawful excuse to be outside.

Our legal system is designed in accordance with the idea that it is so egregious to deprive one innocent man of their liberty that it is better that 10 guilty men are acquitted. There is a presumption that the state has resources and knowledge at their disposal that the individual does not. It is incumbent on the accuser to prove the guilt of the accused as opposed to them having to prove their innocence.

The enforcement methods used by police at the moment exemplifies the inequity between individuals and law enforcement and further illustrates the importance of due process. Some examples of policing that are particularly invasive include:

  • the couple in Victoria that were “fined $1,652 each for breaching coronavirus restrictions after sharing year-old holiday snaps on Facebook” that were found by police with time and resources to sift through people’s social media accounts for infractions.
  • Tasmanian police posted a picture of a helicopter with the text “if you are somewhere you shouldn’t be, even a remote campsite, then expect to be spoken to by police and directed to return home.”
  • Western Australian police are using drones and internal tracking devices.

At the same time as emergency powers are being wielded our parliamentary democracy based on representation, debate, and transparency is being suspended.

It is of paramount importance that the parliament remains open and functioning.

The seizure of emergency powers asks something very significant of Australians. It asks us to place an enormous amount of trust in our institutions. However, at the same time as our institutions are being empowered, the norms, such as due process and democracy, which enable our confidence are being discarded.

Trust in institutions must be earned, but the institutions we are asked to place our trust in are the same ones that have been riddled with scandal and deserve our suspicion.

We are asked to trust that the Victorian Police will show discretion when empowered to hand out fines for petty infractions. Yet this same organisation is the one that has recently seemed to have no concern for the basic principles of justice as exemplified in the Lawyer X debacle and the recent collapse of the case against Cardinal George Pell in a 7-0 High Court judgment. Likewise the NSW Police that were hurled before the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission for the strip-search of minors have in response to the current health crisis been granted discretionary powers to hand out fines of up to $11,000 for anyone not complying with the lockdown restrictions.

With our institutions so eroded the amount of trust that people are willing to give our institutions has been surprising. It is a wonder that the removal of our civil liberties and democracy hasn’t been met with more uproar. This is likely a product of enormous goodwill that has been built up through many years of a functioning liberal democracy. For Australians authoritarianism and tyranny is so outside the realm of experience that we trust that our government has our best interests at heart. However, those in power must be reminded that this trust in our government and institutions is neither limitless or indefinite, and senseless overreach and prolonged uncertainty will wear out the public’s confidence.

The hounding of people who dissent to take every government edict as gospel, like Peter Hitchens or Lord Sumption in the UK, or my colleague Gideon Rozner for a video suggesting that this lockdown should begin to be ended, is akin to a kind of heresy worthy of being burned at the Twitter stake is telling. It suggests that maybe people don’t want to know how the sausage is made at the moment. They don’t want to hear debates or contemplate that there might be trade-offs or need for political judgments because that implies that the models we are all relying on to determine policy are not prophecy.

Jonathan Sumption is a former judge of the UK Supreme Court and what he said on the BBC a few weeks ago continues to echo:

The real problem is that when human societies lose their freedom, it’s not usually because tyrants have taken it away. It’s usually because people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection against some external threat. And the threat is usually a real threat but usually exaggerated. That’s what I fear we are seeing now. The pressure on politicians has come from the public. They want action. They don’t pause to ask whether the action will work. They don’t ask themselves whether the cost will be worth paying. They want action anyway.

Perhaps it is not just Orwell that has come to life in the form of incursions on civil liberties, but also Aldous Huxley. Technology has facilitated the enforcement of lockdown, but also made it tolerable. Our wish is our command. Everything from entertainment to food can be ours with a click of a button without having to leave the lounge. As our interactions have moved online we have become more and more physically isolated for years making the final leap to complete isolation barely noticeable.

I agree with every word.

Frauds and conmen

We are dealing with totalitarian mentalities which must always lurk behind everyone who runs for political office. They want not just to manage our affairs, but to run our lives. There is no longer anything to worry about, and the data are even more stark by the day. But was in an argument this afternoon – online of course – over the data. In the end, I went looking for the numbers, and this is what I found.

This was published by the ABC in Feb 2020 so “last year” in the story refers to 2019. Flu season which struck down 310,000 Australians ‘worst on record’ due to early outbreaks. The final lines:

“While 2019 saw the highest number of influenza cases across the country, 2017 still holds the record for the highest number of flu-related deaths, with over 1,100 cases.”

Last year there were over 900 influenza linked deaths in Australia.

And then there was this from the ABS, not the ABC this time.

Australia’s leading causes of death, 2018

Influenza and pneumonia (J09-J18)

Number: 3102
Median age: 89.3

The number of deaths from the Corona Virus will possibly never reach 100 and will certainly never reach 1000.

We are in the midst of a gigantic fraud and a burst of the most disgusting hysteria. We are not led by leaders but by hysterics and conmen who love power and love to tell everyone else what to do. They have no business being leaders in a free society. First they do everything they can to scare as many people as possible and then invent a near-on-totalitarian system to protect virtually all of us from virtually nothing at all.

Where this is headed and what the end game may well be

The Democrat long game with the longest game of all at the end. From Lucianne.com:

Rob Reiner Says Trump ‘Will Lose in a Landslide
Because Americans Will be Voting for Their
Lives’
Left-wing Hollywood director and actor Rob Reiner is predicting that President Donald Trump will lose his reelection this November because “Americans will literally be voting for their lives.” While Reiner’s remarks are an apparent reaction to the Chinese coronavirus pandemic, the director did not clarify how exactly he arrived at his prediction. “Trump will lose in a landslide because Americans will literally be voting for their lives,” tweeted the Misery director on Saturday. [Tweet] Saturday’s tweet is not Reiner’s only prediction about the president. In January, The Jerk actor suggested that National Security Advisor John Bolton could be of major value for Democrats during the president’s impeachment trial
.
‘The Worse, the Better!’ –
a Strategy of the Left
During the rebel Sixties, one could easily identify the ranks of the hardcore left by their constant predictions of a coming fascism and the evident glee with which they welcomed the prospect. Whether this was the product of a serious attempt to read the political winds, or merely a radical wish was irrelevant. They defended it as a strategy of “the worse the better.” In the 1968 presidential election, it was better to elect a fascist like Nixon than a moderate like Hubert Humphrey – that is, if you were serious about revolution.Of all my memories of the Sixties the revelations provoked
.
How the Obamas could easily win
eight more years in the White House
As the president of the United States shelters in place with the White House press corps, and Joe Biden gibbers senselessly into the GoPro camera in his Delaware basement, this fall’s national election has been thrown into a cocked tricorn by the coronavirus. Many of Donald Trump’s retail-politicking strengths — the huge rallies, his command of crowds — have been neutralized, and while he still has control of the narrative from his bully pulpit in the West Wing, the national media remains dead set against him, and puts the worst possible spin on every word he speaks.

.

Michelle for President has long been at the back of my mind as the intended strategy. I think it has only been Michelle’s reluctance that has kept this from boiling over, but with Biden’s senility unmistakeable, a new strategy will be imperative. And the less time there is to discuss what this means, the greater the possibility of pulling it off.

Illustrating the political divide

My post from The Age on Malcolm Turnbull’s dealings with Donald Trump underscores the sort of far left low life Malcolm was and is. But it’s worth bearing in mind that even at the end, when the Libs finally got rid of him, he commanded almost half the party room.

To understand a bit better the mentality of the kind of people who see merit in Malcolm, it is worth having a look at the comments section on the article at The Age I had quoted from. This is the comment which was overwhelmingly selected by those who went through the comments section as “most respected”. This is the comment that, it seems, most accurately reflected the views of the people who had read through all of the comments.

It’s all part of the job, as MT would have known this before he took it on. The American people did elect a lunatic and our far right wing politicians see Trump’s behaviour as pretty good, that is, anything you can get away while still holding the treasury benches is okay. Democracy is such a lottery, anyone can nominate and when they get elected their true traits come out. In Canberra Malcolm was from a different universe, well educated and successful while so many of the career MPs have done little else since they landed a ministerial adviser job at age 25 or so. These people no nothing [sic] about dealing with ‘normal’ human beings – they see everything from the prism of the Canberra bubble. My hope is the Libs and Nats implode – what a nice thought!

What overlap is there for those of us who are supporters of the American president with people who see things this way? Unbelievably ignorant, with not an ounce of common sense or understanding of anything. But they’re there, and in large numbers too. Useful idiots to the party leaders of the left though they may be, these “no nothings” will yet doom us to perdition.

Tara Reade never heard of her

The one great shift in American politics is that the right has decided not to ever again spike its own candidates when attacked by the left for actions that no Democrats would ever have cared about if their own candidates were accused of the same thing. Tara Reade has a credible accusation of sexual predation against Joe Biden which no media organisation has in any way investigated. All this is discussed here: Joe Biden Exposes #MeToo Movement as Total BS

Let me count the ways in which Reade’s allegation is infinitely more credible than Blasey Ford’s…

  1. Reade can prove she knew and worked with Biden in 1993, the time in question.
  2. Reade is welcoming investigative reporters to scrutinize her story, whereas Blasey Ford refused to do anything other than hide behind her attorneys.
  3. Reade has two living witnesses whom she told of the alleged assault at the time, both of whom confirm she told them about it.
  4. Investigative reporter Rich McHugh found a third person, a person who worked under Reade at the time, who confirmed that Reade disappeared from Biden’s Senate office around the time the alleged assault occurred. This fits perfectly with Reade’s allegation of the retribution she faced.
  5. McHugh found a fourth person Reade told about the event some 15 years ago.
  6. Joe Biden has a long and very disturbing history of unwanted touching, kissing, and nuzzling — we have video after video after video of him behaving this way in full view of the public — even with children, so one can only imagine how he behaves when no one is looking.
  7. Reade said she filed an official complaint against Biden at the time. McHugh says if that complaint exists, it is locked up with Biden’s papers at the University of Delaware, and those papers are locked up forever.
  8. Reade filed an official police report against Biden last week and did so under penalty of prison if she’s exposed as a liar.
  9. Reade is a lifelong Democrat.

I’ve heard it said that the Dems like the accusation since it indicates that a pulse still remains within Biden’s carcass. He will never get to be the nominee, or if he does, they either don’t expect him to win or if he does, that he will die soon after, or if not that, that a committee of the presidency will do whatever they do and merely wheel Biden in for the signing ceremonies.

The evolution of cinema along with the top ten movies of the 1910s and 1920s

And these are from the 1910s

And these are from the 1920s

Who would watch such things today? I am old enough to have watched these as actual movies and not just relics, specially those from the 1920s. Still, things had moved along so fast that by the time I was born you knew these were antique but were still worth watching just for their ability to tell a story.