
Category Archives: Cultural
She could even run in 2024
The Masked Singer | Season 3 | Episode 7 | Group C | Round One
Sarah Palin sings “Baby GOT Back” by Sir Mix-a-lot on @The Masked Singer
She would get the “female vote”, the “ethnic vote” and the serious people who want a sound president with common sense vote.
Is this true?
I still head to the city every day on the train along with many others, while others that I know are now staying home and avoid crowds. From Instapundit.
Related: When Danger Is Growing Exponentially, Everything Looks Fine Until It Doesn’t.
There’s an old brain teaser that goes like this: You have a pond of a certain size, and upon that pond, a single lilypad. This particular species of lily pad reproduces once a day, so that on day two, you have two lily pads. On day three, you have four, and so on.
Now the teaser. “If it takes the lily pads 48 days to cover the pond completely, how long will it take for the pond to be covered halfway?”
The answer is 47 days. Moreover, at day 40, you’ll barely know the lily pads are there.
That grim math explains why so many people — including me — are worried about the novel coronavirus, which causes a disease known as covid-19. And why so many other people think we are panicking over nothing.
During the current flu season, they point out, more than 250,000 people have been hospitalized in the United States, and 14,000 have died, including more than 100 children. As of this writing, the coronavirus has killed 29 people, and our caseload is in the hundreds. Why are we freaking out about the tiny threat while ignoring the big one? . . .
But go back to those lily pads: When something dangerous is growing exponentially, everything looks fine until it doesn’t. In the early days of the Wuhan epidemic, when no one was taking precautions, the number of cases appears to have doubled every four to five days.
The crisis in northern Italy is what happens when a fast doubling rate meets a “threshold effect,” where the character of an event can massively change once its size hits a certain threshold.
In this case, the threshold is things such as ICU beds. If the epidemic is small enough, doctors can provide respiratory support to the significant fraction of patients who develop complications, and relatively few will die. But once the number of critical patients exceeds the number of ventilators and ICU beds and other critical-care facilities, mortality rates spike. . . .
The experts are telling us that here in the United States, we can avoid hitting that threshold where sizable regions of the country will suddenly step into hell. We still have time to #flattenthecurve, as a popular infographic put it, slowing the spread so that the number of cases never exceeds what our health system can handle. The United States has an unusually high number of ICU beds, which gives us a head start. But we mustn’t squander that advantage through complacency.
So everyone needs to understand a few things.
First, the virus is here, and it is spreading quickly, even though everything looks normal. Right now, the United States has more reported cases than Italy had in late February. What matters isn’t what you can see but what you can’t: the patients who will need ICU care in two to six weeks. . . .
Second, this is not “a bad flu.” It kills more of its hosts, and it will spread farther unless we take aggressive steps to slow it down, because no one is yet immune to this disease. It will be quite some time before the virus runs out of new patients.
Third, we can fight it. Despite early exposure, Singapore and Hong Kong have kept their caseloads low, not by completely shutting down large swaths of their economies as China did but through aggressive personal hygiene and “social distancing.” South Korea seems to be getting its initial outbreak under control using similar measures. If we do the same, we can not only keep our hospitals from overloading but also buy researchers time to develop vaccines and therapies.
Fourth, and most important: We are all in this together. It is your responsibility to keep America safe by following the CDC guidelines, just as much as it is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s or President Trump’s responsibility to lead us to safety. And until this virus is beaten, we all need to act like it.
Indeed.
–
LET ME ADD THIS TO THE CONVERSATION: I’m not trying to scaremonger, and I know how the media is in it as a means to subvert PDT’s re-election, but let me also mention this: Coronavirus: Five days before virus ‘tidal wave’ hits Australia which has lots of stats and comment, including this:

BUT LET ME FINISH OFF WITH THIS: On the more upbeat side: Military Surgeon: ‘Trump Is Right’ on the Seasonal Flu Being More Dangerous than Coronavirus. I’ve been amazed how dangerous the flu is although how comforting that might be is hard to say.
Abolish the family
I’m a little late to the feminist party but watching the reaction of women to the latest version of The Invisible Man I can see just how vile this anti-patriarchy issue has become. Men in general are ruining women’s lives, a meme based on the undoubted fact that some men are creating harm in some women’s lives. The latest article on feminism to come across my notice is this: Why Modern Feminism Wants To Get Rid Of The Family which will be ignored by everyone. It’s written by a Chinese-Malaysian woman, S.G. Cheah who had the same kind of communist upbringing that I had. She starts:
When I first stumbled upon this Vice article titled “We Can’t Have a Feminist Future Without Abolishing the Family,” I thought this was just another story about a lunatic, fringe, radical feminist. Vice is, after all, struggling to keep its lights on, so naturally they would resort to sensationalist click-bait type of stories in order to bolster their readership. Nothing sounds more outrageous than a feature story on a feminist thinker who calls for the abolishment of families, as well as the right to abortion (specifically as the justifiable killing of babies).
She gets some of it but this last para depressed me, and here I focus on her first two words:
At least Mao Zedong tried to openly eliminate the concept of gender during China’s Cultural Revolution. To Mao, there was no difference between the man and the woman. Gender is “a social construct.” The radical feminist shares this belief and wants to achieve the same genderless outcome as Mao. However, the feminist is employing their societal transformation discreetly, like a crooked conman stealing your money quietly through fraud (oh sorry, I didn’t mean to use sexist language, I meant ‘conwoman’). And they’re doing so by working to destroy the family unit.
What is so good about getting rid of the concept of gender is an unknown but she too has the feminist infection, even if she doesn’t know it. To say one positive word about the Cultural Revolution is a sign of grave idiocy whatever else you might believe. And that she believes that eliminating gender is a good thing is a madness in itself. But for all that, you should read the article through.
Where’s the message for women to value the men in their lives?
More sexist comments which are now running amok everywhere and all the time: In surprise school visit, Meghan tells schoolboys to honour women. The bits in black are highlighted because of their particular interest.
The Duchess of Sussex has made a surprise visit to a school to deliver an International Women’s Day message to men to “value the women in your lives”….
In a speech addressing the school’s boys in particular, she urged them to “continue to value and appreciate the women in your lives and also set the example for some men who are not seeing it that same way.
“You have your mothers, sisters, girlfriends, friends in your life, protect them,” she said.
“Make sure that they are feeling valued and safe and let’s all just rally together to make International Women’s Day something that is not just on Sunday, but frankly feels like every day of the year.”
Is this really equality that men are being asked to “protect” women to ensure that they are feeling “safe”. Very traditional if you ask me.
And this just in as well: In Mexico, seething anger over violence against women spills into the streets. These people must think there’s some magic cure for any kind of violence, but let’s see what the story says:
Seething anger over a rise in deadly violence against women in Mexico spilled into the streets of the nation’s capital on Sunday as tens of thousands of female demonstrators marched to demand that the government do more to protect them.
Who are they asking to protect them? Not men, surely? If they’re all so equal and everything, why don’t they do it themselves. The entire history of male-female relations, no doubt going back to cavemen and cavewomen was that part of the arrangement was for men to protect women, and almost always from other men who were not part of their own family or tribe. And here is the question, put as succinctly as you like.
“We’re waking up,” said Silvia Gallegos, 52, who marched alongside a group of friends from college as well as her 16-year-old daughter. “We’ve been living with this culture of machismo our whole lives. If we don’t defend ourselves, who will?”
Yes, who will? Who do they have in mind to do the protecting? Feminism tore down the protective barriers, which included quite a number of forms of chivalrous behaviours, and now women are exposed to dangers that were always there but they were too ignorant to recognise.
That’s from Mexico City feminists accidentally firebomb THEMSELVES in pro-abortion protest. Came under the original heading, “Girls can’t throw”. Very nasty.
Better at what?
One of the most egregious, and ubiquitous [supplications to the diversity gods], comes from some of those who demand gender diversity in the workplace. It is entirely reasonable to be in favour of gender diversity to increase the pool of talent. The deeper the talent pool that appointments are drawn from, the better a company will perform. That ought to be the extent of gender diversity.
Instead, there is a coterie of loud men and women who go much further. Often to justify quotas and other special measures for women, they claim that women are not just equally talented to men but also better than men.
The quote above is from Janet Albrechtsen in an article titled in the newspaper, “For better or worse, sex doesn’t define skill sets” with this as the sub-heading: Modern-day feminists are wrong to claim women are superior to men”.
This is a dangerous area for any male to get involved with, but what has brought me back into it has been going to see the latest movie incarnation of The Invisible Man. A more wicked film I have seldom seen. If you want to know the story, you can go to the link. All I will tell you is that unlike the original tale, and unlike every other film made based on the concept, this one is not primarily about someone who works out how to make themselves invisible with the plot then teasing out possible implications from having such an intriguing ability. In this film, invisibility is entirely secondary to the plot, which is about a woman who leaves an abusive husband who then, because he has, for no reason discussed in the film, a device that can make him invisible, then menaces his absent wife by turning up at various moments but invisible to her and everyone else. The invisibility aspect is entirely secondary to using the concept to portray spousal abuse.
Tomorrow there will be the final of the women’s twenty-20 cricket final. Are women better at cricket than men? On Monday, there will be thousands of men driving trucks across Australia. Are any of those truck drivers female, and are these handful of women “better” at driving trucks than any of the men? Same for plumbers, same for construction workers, same for lots of things. There was also this from Janet:
Last week, the Australian Financial Review ran this headline: “Why women make better CEOs”. The piece regurgitated some “new research” from the Macquarie Business School by Farida Akhtar, a senior lecturer in actuarial studies and business analytics, that finds that women are not only different from men, they also are better than men. According to this research, said the AFR, women create stronger corporate cultures, they nurture employees more, they create better reward systems and offer greater flexibility. Tech companies run by female chief executives do better because women can shape innovation and sustainable growth strategies.
But do such companies make more money or satisfy their customers more completely? It’s an academic writing the article so that’s the kind of question that would seldom cross such a person’s mind. And as Janet writes, “a review of more than 3000 companies fails to find any evidence that women on boards or in the C-suite cause, lead to or produce better corporate performance.” But the debate is ideological so facts will not intrude on any part of the debate or convince anyone on the other side of the divide.
There is then this about politics in the US from Cosmopolitan: Stop Lying, America: You Were Never Gonna Vote for a Woman President. Well apparently not among the Democrats, and certainly not for Elizabeth Warren. But in my time I have been all in for Margaret Thatcher and Sarah Palin among others. But here is the author reflecting on the moment that she realised that Hillary would lose in 2016:
“It’s not just about losing,” I said … to myself. “It’s about all the little boys who will grow up thinking they get to—or have to—behave that way to be president. And all the little girls who will think they’ll never have a chance.”
In deciding who gets which jobs, it’s not a matter of chivalry, men stepping aside to allow a woman to precede them, or at least it shouldn’t be. Political leaders are chosen for their leadership abilities and the clarity of their policy direction. They are not chosen because of which sex they happen to be, or at least that should never ever be part of the equation. And if you think that it should be, you are a moron, whether you are a male or a female. You are just a complete jerk.
Pinky promise! Now there is real leadership ability if you’ll pardon me while I go roll my eyes.
This is, of course, the twenty-first century
That is so last century. And who really cares about the Great Plague?
Did you know that the Spanish flu began in America?
Rules for writers
From Terry in a comment here. It’s not so much knowing them but understanding them that matters.
1. Avoid Alliteration. Always.
2. Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
3. Avoid cliches like the plague. (They’re old hat.)
4. Employ the vernacular.
5. Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.
6. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are unnecessary.
7. It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
8. Contractions aren’t necessary.
9. Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
10. One should never generalize.
11. Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, “I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.”
12. Comparisons are as bad as cliches.
13. Don’t be redundant; don’t use more words than necessary; it’s highly superfluous.
14. Profanity sucks.
15. Be more or less specific.
16. Understatement is always best.
17. Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.
18. One word sentences? Eliminate.
19. Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.
20. The passive voice is to be avoided.
21. Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.
22. Even if a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.
23. Who needs rhetorical questions?
24. Parenthetical words however must be enclosed in commas.
25. It behooves you to avoid archaic expressions.
26. Avoid archaeic spellings too.
27. Don’t repeat yourself, or say again what you have said before.
28. Don’t use commas, that, are not, necessary.
29. Do not use hyperbole; not one in a million can do it effectively.
30. Never use a big word when a diminutive alternative would suffice.
31. Subject and verb always has to agree.
32. Placing a comma between subject and predicate, is not correct.
33. Use youre spell chekker to avoid mispeling and to catch typograhpical errers.
34. Don’t repeat yourself, or say again what you have said before.
35.Use the apostrophe in it’s proper place and omit it when its not needed.
36. Don’t never use no double negatives.
37. Poofread carefully to see if you any words out.
38. Hopefully, you will use words correctly, irregardless of how others use them.
39. Eschew obfuscation.
40. No sentence fragments.
41. Don’t indulge in sesquipedalian lexicological constructions.
42. A writer must not shift your point of view.
43. Don’t overuse exclamation marks!!
44. Place pronouns as close as possible, especially in long sentences, as of 10 or more words, to their antecedents.
45. Writing carefully, dangling participles must be avoided.
46. If any word is improper at the end of a sentence, a linking verb is.
47. Avoid trendy locutions that sound flaky.
48. Everyone should be careful to use a singular pronoun with singular nouns in their writing.
49. Always pick on the correct idiom.
50. The adverb always follows the verb.
51. Take the bull by the hand and avoid mixing metaphors.
52. If you reread your work, you can find on rereading a great deal of repetition can be by rereading and editing.
53. And always be sure to finish what
The Invisible Woman
The first thing you have to know about the film is that the star of this latest version of The Invisible Man is a woman, Elizabeth Moss. I might also mention this from her Wikipedia entry.
Moss identifies as a… feminist. After a fan questioned whether her role in the Hulu series The Handmaid’s Tale etc etc etc.”
Starred in The Handmaid’s Tale and is personally a committed feminist. OK, could happen to anyone. And this, in a nut shell, is the way the story opens.
The Invisible Man is a 2020 science fiction horror film written and directed by Leigh Whannell. A contemporary adaptation of the novel of the same name by H. G. Wells and a reboot of The Invisible Man film series, it follows a woman who believes she is being stalked by her abusive partner, despite him apparently having died.
Now for the spoilers so back off unless you’ve seen the film or don’t care.
Let me first go through the plot outlined at the link with my own additions:
Trapped [in what way exactly?] in a violent, controlling relationship [asserted but at no stage demonstrated] with wealthy scientist Adrian Griffin (Oliver Jackson-Cohen), Cecilia Kass (Elisabeth Moss) escapes in the dead of night and disappears into hiding, aided by her sister Emily (Harriet Dyer), their childhood friend James, a police detective, (Aldis Hodge) and his teenage daughter Sydney (Storm Reid). Adrian later commits suicide and leaves her a generous portion of his vast fortune, but a series of bizarre events leads Cecilia to suspect his death was a hoax. As these eerie coincidences turn lethal, threatening the lives of those she loves, Cecilia’s sanity begins to unravel as she desperately tries to prove that she is being hunted by someone nobody can see [are we to assume that each of the visits by an invisible presence are merely a manifestation of her madness or are they genuine events? Either Adrian has an invisibility machine, in which case she can use it herself later on, or he doesn’t. Which is it?]. She visits Adrian’s home to investigate and discovers a suit that uses cameras to render the wearer invisible [which somehow is able to be assembled elsewhere, such as in the parking lot of a hospital]. She takes it and hides it in the house before escaping as she continues to be followed by who she believes to be Adrian. When Cecilia attempts to tell her sister about the suit, Adrian cuts Emily’s throat in a packed restaurant [who is completely invisible to everyone else in that packed restaurant], making it look like Cecilia committed the crime.
Remanded to a treatment center while she awaits trial, Cecilia is informed by the medical staff that she is pregnant. Adrian’s brother Tom (Michael Dorman) visits her and offers to help her if she agrees to return to Adrian and raise their child together [an obvious sign of a brutal hateful nature], acknowledging that he helped his brother stage his suicide. Cecilia refuses his offer but manages to steal a pen from his briefcase, which she uses later to stab Adrian while he is lurking in her room. This causes his suit to malfunction and flicker in and out of visibility, drawing the attention of security. Adrian is able to violently incapacitate the security staff as he flees the building, but Cecilia follows him and attempts to kill him with a security guard’s gun [The invisibility suit nevertheless continues to work well enough most of the time]. Adrian subdues her and admits that he won’t harm her while she is pregnant, but makes clear he plans to kill Sydney instead.
Cecilia races to James’ house and ends up shooting and killing an invisible intruder [it really works], although she unmasks him and finds Tom in the suit. When police find Adrian alive at his house, claiming that he was his brother’s captive all along, Cecilia realizes that Adrian sent Tom to James’ house in his place, knowing what would happen. In an attempt to get Adrian to admit to his role, she meets him for dinner at his home to discuss her pregnancy, but Adrian denies any involvement [presumably lying if the plot is to work, but what evidence is there?] Knowing she’ll never be safe as long as he is alive, Cecilia equips herself with a spare invisible suit and cuts Adrian’s throat in full view of a security camera, making it seem as if he committed suicide [in which case she must, while invisible, put a knife into his hand and then have him draw the blade across his throat].
James, who was nearby overviewing the scene with a radio, asks Cecilia what happened. She assures him that Adrian indeed committed suicide. Despite spotting the invisible suit in her handbag, he accepts her story [not even a bit sceptical?].
Let me add a little to fill in some of the gaps.
First, the abusive relationship has to be taken on trust. The film opens with Ms Moss in the most astonishing palatial home, overlooking the ocean, as they lie in bed with her husband reaching across his sleeping wife in a night-time embrace. She, however, removes his hand, slips out of the bed, gets past all of the security devices that exist throughout the house on the way to the exit, and once free is almost overtaken by her husband who breaks the glass of the car in his rage as she is driving off. Since she was completely able to walk out of the house in the middle of the night, there was no need for this melodramatic 3:00 am escape. Why not? Could be.
Next we see her living in terror of her husband at the home of a policeman friend and his daughter (who by the way sleeps with Moss to help relieve her anxiety). Moss is totally in fear that her husband will come back and in some way harm her. She is then informed that her husband had died by his own hand, and not only that, had left her something absurd like $10,000,000. Why not? Could be.
But as the plot moves along we find Ms Moss being terrorised by some invisible person. We see these events on the screen. There really is an invisible person, who has a reality for her but whose existence is known to others only because she keeps telling everyone that she is being stalked by her dead husband, who so far as everyone else is concerned is dead. Indeed we even see photos of the scene of the husband’s quite gory death although apparently staged but so well that even the coroner is taken in. She nevertheless insists that her dead husband is stalking her, and there are numerous scenes where Ms Moss is just there when this invisible presence forces her to do evil things, such as cut her own sister’s throat while they are sitting together in a restaurant, or perhaps it was The Invisible Male who had done it while she just sat there. Either way, ridiculous.
Thus, as you are watching the film, you can take Ms Moss’s side and believe that her husband is such an incredible genius, has invented some means to make himself invisible that absolutely no one has ever heard of before and is using this device to stalk his wife through all kinds of menacing moments which occur before us right through the film. Or we can believe her husband really is dead, and that she is completely nuts and the moving is allowing us to experience her hallucinations. To the audience, the plot depends on the existence of an invisibility machine. Why not? Could be. Actually, couldn’t be, but let us go on.
There is then one plot device after another, which at one stage takes her back to her matrimonial home. There she discovers, inside this mansion, the invisibility device after yet again getting into a fight with her invisible husband. How she knows it is what it is who can explain, but she does. Personally, why he doesn’t just despatch her I could not work out. For my taste, she wasn’t worth the effort to keep the marriage together, but that’s just me. Nor once she had left was there much reason either to have her back or to seek such an elaborate revenge. Still, it was handy for him to have invented this invisibility machine but never have mentioned it to his wife, nor anyone else.
Then there is a fight in the madhouse hospital Ms. Moss has been taken to after murdering her sister in which Mr Invisible Man shoots a number of people to death, but then inexplicably to me, does not shoot others to death that he might have, and more stupidly still, allows others to discover that there really is someone with a device that really can make themselves invisible.
Finale, her husband turns out to be alive after all but had been locked away in some storage shack. It tuns out that the man who has been invisible is her husband’s brother, the lawyer. We find this out because when Mr Invisible is shot and killed, that is who has died. Ms Moss then has a dinner with her husband for whom there is no now no evidence whatsoever that he has done anything wrong at any stage. While sitting down to dinner, she is wired for sound with her policeman friend listening in. Throughout the dinner her husband continually insists that he loves her. He never says otherwise, nor is there any reason for the audience to think otherwise. In the midst of dinner she excuses herself to go the the ladies, and while she is out of the room, for reasons unknown, the husband grabs a knife and slashes his own throat and dies. The policeman friend is listening in to all this while the events are being videoed on the security camera – a clear suicide so far as the camera can see. Hearing all of the commotion through the wire, the policeman rushes into the house, meeting as she is on her way out, a very self-satisfied, smiling and much contented Ms Moss who walks past him, and mirabile dictu, she is carrying an invisibility device in her bag. The policeman friend is puzzled, but we in the audience can see that she has been at the centre of a very successful murder plot to kill her husband. By film end, there is not a shred of evidence that her husband was in any way a villain who has ever been out to kill her. She, of course, is a few million dollars richer and is free of her husband and his terrible control over her life.
All the women I have spoken to about the story are completely satisfied with the story, how it evolves and how it ends. On no evidence whatsoever shown in the film, she was escaping from an abusive “controlling” relationship, the film even using the word. If there is evidence of bad intentions towards his wife, they occur only after she has left and he starts his ultra-ultra-high-tech revenge which in any case seems to have been undertaken by the brother. Having now discovered the technology, she has commandeered the device which she uses on her husband who continually insists that he loves her, and will say nothing else while they are having dinner together, although they, so far as he is aware, are absolutely alone and no one can hear what is being said.
For myself, this was a film I was not able to see its moral centre until it turned out that Ms. Moss was a vengeful murderess but only I seem to think this is what takes place. But that would be completely against the spirit of our times, I thought, to make a woman a villain. But all the women I have since spoken to loved the film, since they found the murder of her husband by his wife completely satisfying and justified. He got what he deserved. As explained to me, don’t I think there are such things as oppressive husbands? Of course there are, but why do they think this one in the film is one such husband? That is a complete unknown to me.
If you ask me we live in a very emotionally damaged society, with this one of the most depraved films I have ever seen. This is modern feminist literature, as with The Handmaiden’s Tale, where women are portrayed as living in a world of control and repression when in fact, as in the film, they live the freest most luxurious lives, and as in this case, a life entirely financed by her husband, since once she is on her own, she just sits around the house, and in the only activity we actually see her involved with, in the kitchen, cooking. She apparently does nothing on her own to finance her life style.
A very political film, absolutely crazy to its very core. No man can take it seriously, and given how sparse the audience was, not all that many women can either. Or perhaps they do. Rotten Tomatoes gave it 90% from Critics and 89% from the audience. IMDb gave it a more sane 7.7. Will just finish with the last para of this review by someone named Jennifer Heaton.
The Invisible Man is a perfect blend of high-concept and grounded horror, tapping into the zeitgeist and delivering a haunting parable about psychological abuse. Whilst undeniably a horror film at its core, it also transcends the genre to the point where non-horror fans will find something to enjoy. Whilst it certainly doesn’t linger on Universal’s past mistakes, its success proves that you don’t need gigantic budgets, a shared universe or celebrity stunt casting to reinvent the Universal Monsters brand. Though perhaps not as ingenious or revolutionary a take as, say, Jordan Peele’s recent output, it is still a brilliant testament to how the best horror takes our real-life anxieties and warps them into debilitating nightmares. Heed the trigger warnings beforehand, but absolutely go see it if you can!
The Universal Monsters brand! We live in such idiotic times. Are married women everywhere really plotting to get out?
Is it a beat up or the real thing?

OUTBREAK BIGGER
SPREADS TO 60 COUNTRIES
HITS MEGACITY LAGOS
RISK UPGRADED
STOCKS STAY SICK
DOW -3583 FOR WEEK
FAUCI TELLS LAWMAKERS THERE WILL BE MANY MORE INFECTED...
Residents Near Mystery Case Worry and Wonder...
Missteps at CDC Have Set Back Ability to Detect Spread...
USA to invoke special powers to boost production of protective gear...
FDA reports 1st drug shortage...
Toilet paper rationing in Hawaii...
How Daily Life Could Change...
MULVANEY: SCHOOLS MAY CLOSE...
International Travelers At JFK Appalled By Lack Of Screening...
CDC ominous scenario: Healthcare systems 'overwhelmed'...
GOOGLE employee tests positive...
GATES: May be 'once-in-a-century pathogen we've been worried about'...
Meanwhile, closer to home, my wife went to buy hand sanitiser this morning and was told that the shipment arrives at 4:00 in the morning, is greeted by a massive crowd and is sold out within minutes.
